Replies: 46 Comments
Comment #1: Nolip said on 7/5/06 @ 9:29am ET...
At what point do the Dems move away from reactionary politics (reacting to what the Republicans are cooking up) and move more towards a proactive political profile....getting in the Republicans "face" and calling them out for the lying, cheating, influence peddling, CIA operative leaking, illegal war mongering, propagandistic, oil barron, military industrial complex and pork barrel politicians that they are?
Comment #2: Nolip said on 7/5/06 @ 9:49am ET...
Pre 9/11 vs Post 9/11 mindset...a major lynchpin to the Rove strategy for dummying down the Dems...
With the hunt for Bin Laden called off with the dismantling of the CIA's special ops unit charged with trying to find him does that say that BushCo has a greater post 9/11 mindset (the one that Bush and Rove accuse the Dems of having) than the Dems because the Dems are still very serious about bringing OBL to justice? It's only been five years and Bush hasn't bothered to catch the guy. Maybe that's George's way of saying "thanks" to Bin Laden for giving George a reason to sell the American public on going to war with Iraq.
I guess it's all a matter of soundbites and staying on message...the Dems need better soundbite writers...meanwhile bodies are dropping because the Republicans stayed on message and mouthed better sound bites to the American public...any chance the American public is tired of that steady diet of political manure the Republicans are shoveling? The polls suggest "yes"...will that attitude be counted legally at the voting centers come November?
Let us pray that be the case and then a new order in Congress, one with a Democratic majority and one that performs its oversight function and works to achieve a greater checks and balance in the system of government can offload the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and others whose interpretation of the Constitution is somewhere between thumbing their nose at it and stomping on it with their combat boots.
Comment #3: wallen said on 7/5/06 @ 11:05am ET...
CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04
By Robert Parry
July 4, 2006
On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.
This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office.
more here
Comment #4: wallen said on 7/5/06 @ 11:08am ET...
Was Kenny Boy about to drop a dime on his former friends?
Enron founder Ken Lay dead of heart attack: report 55 minutes ago
Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay, who was convicted last month of fraud and conspiracy for his part in the Houston-based company's collapse into bankruptcy in 2001, has died of a heart attack at his vacation home in Colorado, a Houston television station reported on Wednesday.
KHOU-TV, a CBS affiliate, said Lay suffered a massive heart attack. He was awaiting sentencing later this year and was expected to face a lengthy prison term for his convictions in the Enron collapse.
click here
Comment #5: LeslieB said on 7/5/06 @ 1:30pm ET...
I agree with NoLip. The Bush administration ended the CIA's Alec Station in charge of tracking bin Laden and al Qaeda. Because according to the Bush administration al Qaeda isn't the serious threat it was pre-9/11. Even though Bush ignored al Qaeda pre-9/11. Bush is basically granting bin Laden amnesty. Meanwhile, a former head of Alec Station is upset and angry, because al Qaeda remains a serious threat. It's outrageous. Bush has weakened us domestically and internationally. He can't even handle a hurricane. It's about time the Democrats started saying so.
Comment #6: MAX 1 said on 7/5/06 @ 1:57pm ET...
This is such a home run for the Dem's and needs to be pointed out to America.
Pre-9/11 "Osama determined to strike" = REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION
Pre-9/11 Phone records sought without court order = REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION
Post-9/11 no oversight on Administration activities enforced = REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
Post-9/11 Border control became an issue four and a half years later and spurred on by immigration NOT by national security = REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS
Post-9/11 Ports sold to private foreign companies without proper oversight sought by the REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION and no follow up to enforce law from the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.
Post-9/11 HOUSE and SENATE DEMOCRATS hold investigations into the botched Intelligence that took America to war with a sovereign. Republicans fail to show support for even questioning the Administration.
Post-9/11 the Bush Administration has blatantly ignored Bills signed into Law. REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS fails to assert oversight to promote a sense of checks and balances of the system, thus allowing the degradation of the Constitutional Law of Governing the Three Branches of the Government of the USA.
And that's just a start.
Comment #7: unspun said on 7/5/06 @ 4:08pm ET...
Bush Stops Looking for Bin Laden, but Keeps Spying on Americans. Why?
Comment #8: Nolip said on 7/5/06 @ 5:00pm ET...
Bush Admits He Hasn't Attended Any Funerals For US Troops Killed In Iraq...
"NEW YORK When Stars and Stripes nabbed an exclusive interview with President Bush on July 4, it devoted most of the questions to ones submitted by service members.
One, put to the commander-in-chief by the newspaper's Jeff Schlogol: Has he attended even one funeral for a fallen soldier from Iraq? No, he replied. “Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?” he said." (NOLIP NOTE: THIS IS FROM THE SAME GUY WHO'S ATTENDED EVERY REPUBLICAN POLITICAL FUND RAISER ON THE PLANET BEFORE AND DURING HIS TENURE AS THE PUPPET HEAD OF THE RETHUGLICAN RUN GOVERNMENT AND SPENDING OODLES OF DOLLARS FLYING AROUND ON AIR FORCE ONE TO DO JUST THAT...BUT HE CAN'T SPEND A DIME TO MOURN THE LOSS OF LIFE THAT HE MANDATED WITH HIS ILLEGAL WAR POLICIES...REFER TO COWARD COMMENT ABOUT THE COMMANDER IN THIEF IN PREVIOUS POST).
'Stars and Stripes' Lands Exclusive, and Revealing, Bush Interview
Comment #9: Kitty Gambler said on 7/5/06 @ 5:21pm ET...
PRE-SEPT 11, 2001 GOP PLAN:
"[We'll need] some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for the New American Century, Sept. 2000.
Comment #10: Frosted Flake said on 7/5/06 @ 5:53pm ET...
Kitty Gambler understands Brevity. Here is what I been up to :
To : Senator Wyden
To : Congressman Defazio
To : Project for Excellence in Journalism
To : Committee of Concerned Journalists
Gentlemen. And Ladies
I am concerned an important matter will be overlooked
From: Majority Matters
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Capitol Hill Democrats Advocate Special Privileges For Terrorists
Capitol Hill Democrats ADVOCATE Special Privileges for Terrorists
June 30, 2006
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) cheered the Supreme Court majority opinion in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which gives foreign terrorists the special protections of the Geneva Conventions:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
"The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
Al Qaeda, whose terrorist thugs are not a party to nor bound by the Geneva Conventions, is surely pleased at the show of support from Capitol Hill Democrats. Hamdan himself was a trusted member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. Having been captured in Afghanistan, Hamdan was charged with delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, providing logistical support to bin Laden's bodyguards, and participating in weapons training.
When asked by AP for his thoughts on the Hamdan ruling and what it means for national security, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) replied:
Despite the ruling, House Majority Leader John Boehner defended Bush's use of his inherent powers as commander in chief. "I know what motivates the president," said Boehner, Republican of West Chester. "And that is to protect the American people from attacks here at home and abroad."
Capitol Hill Democrats are notoriously weak on national security. There is a clear choice between Capitol Hill Democrats who celebrate offering special privileges to violent terrorists, and Republicans who want the President to have the necessary tools to prosecute and achieve victory in the Global War on Terror.
Majority Leader's Press Office
House Majority Leader John Boehner
H-107, The Capitol
(202) 225-4000
The above appeared briefly on the Majority Leaders' website. That it was quickly removed would seem to indicate he is not very proud of it. But he was proud enough of it to make use of it. For example, note the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The Plain Dealer raised counterpoint to the majority leaders statement by summarizing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, thusly ; The high court said the president overstepped his authority, ruling that the military tribunals were illegal under U.S. and international law. The Plain Dealer here raises brevity to high art, in my view, way too high. Here is a quote from the decision, with less brevity but more imformation.
The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional Act. Quirin held that Congress had, through Article of War 15, sanctioned the use of military commissions to try offenders or offenses against the law of war. 317 U. S., at 28. UCMJ Art. 21, which is substantially identical to the old Art. 15, reads: “The jurisdiction [of] courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions . . . of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by such . . . commissions.” 10 U. S. C. §821. Contrary to the Government’s assertion, even Quirin did not view that authorization as a sweeping mandate for the President to invoke military commissions whenever he deems them necessary. Rather, Quirin recognized that Congress had simply preserved what power, under the Constitution and the common law of war, the President already had to convene military commissions—with the express condition that he and those under his command comply with the law of war. See 317 U. S., at 28–29. Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21. Cf. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 105. Likewise, the DTA cannot be read to authorize this commission. Although the DTA, unlike either Art. 21 or the AUMF,was enacted after the President convened Hamdan’s commission, it contains no language authorizing that tribunal or any other at Guantanamo Bay. Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution and laws, including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, this Court’s task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified.
4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49–72.
Lacks power because law is violated. How quintessentially American. We remain a nation of Laws and not of men, and can unabashadly kneel and thank God there was not one more Bush Judge on this Court when this decision came before it. We may also unabashedly rise to our feet and say to any or to all men, in a clear and steady voice, that the Geneva Convention, which niether Court, nor Congress, nor President has power to alter, does not recognize the term "unlawful combatant". And that the Geneva Convention provides that all captured in war are entitled to its' protection, untill ajudged otherwise under the Convention itself, and that therefore no other law may superceed it.
And yet the House Majority Leader makes clear his intent to do exactly that. Is it a coincidence that the President has, at the same time, taken to using the word Rebel, and using it incorrectly, applying it to militia in a Country we invaded because the President lied to Congress?
Thank you gentlemen, and ladies, for blessing me with your time.
(my name and email)
I post this not to brag, or to entertain, but so any may use it (suitably altered).
Does anyone care to speculate where we would be today without Congressman Conyers?
I appreciate this forum.
Frosted Flake
Comment #11: cali said on 7/5/06 @ 7:14pm ET...
Bradblog:CLAIM: GOP Likely to Charge E-Vote Fraud This November; DNC Advised to Wake Up! Quickly
BTCNews' Weldon Berger makes a very astute observation in an article posted Monday suggesting "Republicans set to cry 'Foul!' in November elections."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3031
Comment #12: Genghis Khan said on 7/5/06 @ 7:23pm ET...
#11
Oh the irony!
must.
not.
let.
head..
explode...
Comment #13: Frosted Flake said on 7/5/06 @ 7:41pm ET...
Right GK. That is what makes it credible. Any decent deception plan has a section that says, basicly :
"What we will do when the other guys figure out what's up."
A really good deception plan counts on the fact that it will eventually come to light. The real screwing happens AFTER you have said, "Hey, wait a minute!". You think you got it all figured out, and suddenly you're playing an entirely differant game.
I think this is what is happening, now. The game is being changed. It is time for it, because the old game is up. So keep your eyes and ears open, and your pencils sharp.
Comment #14: wayne said on 7/5/06 @ 7:58pm ET...
Heads up
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#
More here:
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/38457/
So what reason will they put forth now?
Comment #15: unspun said on 7/5/06 @ 9:02pm ET...
Cali, #11: What's truly ironic is that in Brad's words, "He (Weldon Berger of BTC news) contends (with a suggested measure of inside skinny) that the GOP will use the evidence and arguments of election integrity advocates, such as yours truly and others, in making their case that Electronic Voting Machine fraud may have occurred in certain close elections this November if needed..."
BradBlog
BTC News
Brad goes on to Say: "...If the DNC wishes to stave off the possibility of electronic voting fraud this November, when thousands of crucial elections will take place on the very same day around the country, the time to do so is now. Not in November. The DNC and DCCC ought to be out here and all over the illegally run Busby/Bilbray special U.S. House election from June 6th. NOW."
Thanks for the Info Cali. Hope the DNC and DCCC will take this seriously-now.
Comment #16: JC said on 7/5/06 @ 10:34pm ET...
Brad has certainly kept all of us on our toes with his excellent reporting on election integrity. We will certainly have to be prepared for this.
Comment #17: tahoebasha1 said on 7/5/06 @ 10:37pm ET...
Karl Rove should win a "medal" for being the best contortionist of the truth ever -- or he is quite simply a pathological liar.
Post 9-11 Reality -- do we REALLY need to go there? The reality, we know, is death and destruction, and disregard for our Constitution and our laws -- not the least of which is a contempt for International Laws and a willful disdain thereof, which we know and have seen.
When and how will this all be arrested?
Now, North Korea, in a timely fashion, launches test missiles -- are we even to believe that even this is untied to the Bushies? Don't forget, Poppy goes all around the world negotiating with this country and that. How do we know that this is not yet one more effort by the Bushies to create FEAR in the hearts and minds of people?
Here's only one thing of interest -- there is much more on the subject.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/010301a.html (Rev. Moon, the Bushes & Donald Rumsfeld)
Sorry, archived material -- cannot link directly.
Comment #18: feline said on 7/5/06 @ 10:40pm ET...
Yes, thanks for the heads up on Brad's story. So, how do we prepare for this?
Comment #19: tahoebasha1 said on 7/5/06 @ 11:03pm ET...
And, here, for your listening pleasure and viewing is just one of Republican Post 9-11 Party results:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11799.htm
No Bravery
(Again, archived, cannot link)
Comment #20: Nolip said on 7/5/06 @ 11:11pm ET...
Local Marine To Return Service Medal To Bush In Protest
"3/25 Marine Calls War On Terrorism Medal 'Eye Candy' From Bush
POSTED: 12:41 pm EDT July 3, 2006
UPDATED: 1:08 pm EDT July 3, 2006
AKRON, Ohio -- A local Marine who service in Iraq earned several medals for serving his country, but he's giving back one of the medals to the White House as a form of protest.
Sgt. Matthew Bee is a decorated Akron Marine who spent seven months in Hadeetha, serving with the 3rd Battalion 25th Marines Weapons Company based in Brook Park.
Bee received six medals of commendation, but one of them he will give back to President George W. Bush, calling the medal political, NewsChannel5 reported.
The medal is the War on Terrorism service medal, and Bee calls it "eye candy" from Bush.
"So, he took something noble and honorable and made it kind of dirty. And I always thought that medal was the one he pinned on us and said, 'This is my war. This is my stamp in history,'" said Bee.
Bee said he is not anti-war, but rather pro-peace. He plans to travel to Washington, D.C., with a small group of Marines who feel the same way he does. They will all try to return their War on Terrorism medal to Bush personally or to members of Congress."
http://www.newsnet5.com/akroncanton/9462624/detail.html
Comment #21: tahoebasha1 said on 7/5/06 @ 11:17pm ET...
#18 - Feline
Could be that Brad has simply gotten into "their" mindset and is now able to see what they might come up with next -- and what he says does not surprise me as being a viable possibility.
Comment #22: DTW 06 said on 7/6/06 @ 12:44am ET...
In matters of homeland security and most other issues that affect or will affect the lives, liberty, and pursuit if happiness the party in power is far more concerned with image than with substance. Its an old tactic, appear to be doing something by pounding hard-ball rhetoric and shouting down anyone who asks intelligent questions.
For anyone interested in sneaking a peek behing the "Right-wing scheme machine" (phrase borrowed from Rachel Maddow) check out the Republican Research Council. They have a rather telling and suprisingly honest slogan: "IF YOU WANT POWER TALK TO US!!!"
Say what you will about republicans, but at leasts they know what they want. And they reach out and take it kicking and screaming.
So, what can we say in response. Well, John Lennon said it best "Power to the People. Power to the People. Power to the People. Power to the people, right on!" Is America listening?
Defend America
ask questions
QuestionItNow
Comment #23: Ohiodem1 said on 7/6/06 @ 12:50am ET...
The Repubicans under Rove and Luntz, their prime wordsmith and focus group guru, once again have taken the initiative in framing the argument, using a turn of a phrase and making it mean something else.
Take "Special Privilege". In the decision, Justice Kennedy did not say "Special privilege". He said "Special PROTECTIONS", not "Special Priveleges". By taking the legal concept of protected rights, even for a charged terrorist, the Republican position is that terrorists, alleged terrorists, and anyone else the admistration decides may be a terrorist, with a continuously broadening definition of terrorist, have no rights. No rights of man, which our Revoloutionary forefathers risked their lives and treasure for.
The Republicans position is that an entire class of human beings do not have the rights of man, they do not have the right to be charged and tried for their crimes or alleged crimes, and that they can be held indefinitely without charge, without identification to the families, without access to basic humanitarian protections of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent.
The Republican position is that the Laws of War, the humane treatment of POW's, the Geneva Conventions intended to establish ground rules for war, including not shooting non-combatants, not using chemical weapons including napalm, not to use torture as a means of extracting information, and a whole host of other humanitarian protections for ALL combatants.
The Republican position is that they have no problem with violating the Rights of Man.
Now the propaganda aspect of this turn of the phrase. As JC points out above this phrase "Special Privileges" is out to all of the right wing propaganda outlets, right wing radio, right wing cable TV, right wing press outlets, right wing blogs. Thus, this two word phrase is out to the world on maybe 10,000 channels, effectively carpet bombing America with that message, painting the Democrats as weak on terrorism, when exactly the opposite is true.
Next, the phrase "pre-9/11 vs post-9/11 mindset" while a little long for the two word attention span of many Americans, is another example of the channeling of another phrase that frames the Democrats in a way that they are not.
As a poster above alluded to, and also Justice Kennedy, the pre-9/11 mentality stood for observance of the Rights of Man, proper observance of legal due process, rules of evidence, Habeous Corpus, charges and the right to a speedy trial by jury, protection of the rights described by the Bill of Rights.
The Republican position is that in their radical view, the fear of terrorism and the promulgation of the politics of fear and smear justify any usurption of American's freedoms from government intrusion into any aspect of our lives that they feel is somehow even obliquely related to terrorism.
Terrorism and the fear of it, which is widely dispersed by the Fear-Monger-in-Chief, the Vice-Fear-Monger-in-Chief and their political operatives and their outsourced Propaganda Ministry (Right wing Radio, TV, Print and Internet), is the official policy of the Republican Party and its President. (Sorry for the long subordinate clause.)
I have been studying propaganda for several years, and this technique was developed during World War I! There is nothing new in what the Republicans are doing. If you can stand to read 8 pages of what I have written, I have prepared a summary of the war propaganda process and have published it on the Questionitnow blog. Here is a link:
Propaganda article
The reason I feel that the war analogy for is apprpriate here is that the Republicans are looking at this election as all-out war on Democrats, our democratic political system, the Constitution, our freedoms, which were bought with the blood of one million dead soldiers, and 30 or 40 million soldiers who served.
That is the Republicans, led by their evil political director, Mr. Karl Rove have declared War on America, and they will stop at nothing until they have achieved the total subjection of our Freedom, our Constitution which is the only thing between our freedom and a tyranical government, our right to privacy, the legitimacy of our government, to break down the wall between Church and State, to destroy Public Education in America, to allow the polluters to destroy our environment to line their pockets.
As usual, my list is too short, but in the interest of having anyone read this post, I will stop it here.
FYI, two bloggers here, Sanity Sojurner and Tahoebasha1 helped with the editing of the article linked above. Both improved the finished product.
Comment #24: Ohiodem1 said on 7/6/06 @ 12:53am ET...
I meant dropping Napalm on civilian populations (non combatants).
Comment #25: ljm said on 7/6/06 @ 2:01am ET...
To understand where the Republicans are going with this you really have to read John Dean's latest FindLaw posting regarding the Hamdan decision and the amicus brief filed on behalf of Kyl and Graham. The lawyer who wrote it (representing them) works for Baker, Boggs. It's all just so cozy, isn't it? The lawyers for Hamdan caught them in the lie and the justices really didn't like it. Stevens even called them on it in a footnote. It's so obviously a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud on the SCOTUS in an attempt to deprive Hamdan of what rights he has under the constitution and Geneva. These senators can't have been acting in their official capacity to bring this fraud to the court. They should be charged as individuals, as should anyone from the law firm involved and the WH. The AG should be forced to appoint a SP, like Comey with the powers to that SP that Fitz got, as clearly Gonzo has to recuse himself. He was WH counsel when they were trying to get Hamdan dismissed. It looks like RICO to me. Could even be civil RICO as a class action on behalf of all the GITMO detainees. Congress should investigate if they have authority, but I'm not holding my breath.
Comment #26: Reed31463 said on 7/6/06 @ 3:12am ET...
The Significance of the SCOTUS Hamdan Decision
I took a little time to reflect upon the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision and what it signifies for the people that are not directly impacted by the ruling. Though it appears to be a large victory for human rights groups, the issues and effects go much deeper. This isn't just another "small victory" that can be ignored or spun to mean something else, such as the Voting Rights Act that was literally ignored to death. This decision carries weight and substance that is not easily spun and cannot be ignored. But as a matter of ritual, there are attempts being made to do just that: spin the decision to make it less significant than it truly is. But as time goes by, I think the significance is going to become more and more apparent to progressives, politicians, and the public as a whole. Marty Lederman's article, Top Ten Myths About Hamdan, Geneva, and Interrogations had this to say,
When the Court issued its Hamdan decision last Thursday, I precipitously declared that the Court's ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the conflict against Al Qaeda was of much greater practical significance than the Court's ultimate holding with respect to military commissions. (See also my post here, identifying other important holdings in Hamdan not limited to the commission context.) Slowly but surely, defenders of the Administration's policies are beginning to agree, which is why we now see congressmen such as Senators McConnell and Graham signaling that they intend to introduce legislation to supersede Common Article 3. There may well be a pitched battle on this question in Congress soon. (Emphasis mine)
One reason this decision is so satisfying, is that the Supreme Court has put a stake in the ground,
putting a limit on this administration's ever expanding grab for power. All of a sudden, where there seemed to be no limit: a boundary forms and a check on this power grab is installed. The President cannot just ignore the decision or write a "signing statement" saying this is what he understands the decision to mean and simply go around it.
Another reason the decision is satisfying is the implication that war crimes have been committed, and that the Geneva Conventions do apply. This will present serious problems for those who have failed to address these issues and even more serious problems for those who continue to be complicit with these issues. It is possible that members of
Congress could be indicted for war crimes.
If you were to ask me, since we are now in the "post 9-11" era, where we are in terms history, I would say this decision is the Battle of Midway. Because if 9-11 was a Pearl Harbor like event that galvanized the nation, this Supreme Court decision has turned the tide against the destruction of the Constitution and now fascism must go on the defensive.
Comment #27: koryannder said on 7/6/06 @ 9:24am ET...
Now that Rove has decreed the 2006 election strategy to be "The Big Lie," the obvious counter by the Democrats is simply to use that as a weapon against him/them.
EVERY campaign speech by a Democrat should start out " I am NOT going to lie to you. I am not a Republican, so I don;t have to." and then go on with whatever issue is paramount in the local arena. When accused of not supporting the troops, every sensible Democrat should say, "Anyone who says I do not support the troops is a liar. Of course I support the troops; I DO NOT support the liar who sent them out to die for higher gasoline prices."
In other words, the entire campaign MUST be fought as a war against the liar in chief and his subsidiary prevaricators.
Someplace in the TV ads for each office, the candidate should say "So and so says things about me that you do not support. Would it surprise you to learn that I don't support them either? After all, the entire Republican campaign throughout the Nation is based on lies, so why should you think the local liar is any more truthful than the rest of his/her kind?" And so on. Do NOT mention the opponent's name, but keep the thought crystal clear in the voters' minds that the Republicans lie, cheat, and steal - and MENTION the Diebold and other machines as part and parcel of the attempt to steal the election. This promises to be among the NASTIEST elections in history, and the Democrats historically lose elections because they are not as nasty as the Rethuglicans. BUT - this election is too important. Remember Harry Truman, and give 'em hell from the start - only make sure that Democrats tell the truth, and call the opponents liars - and PROVE IT wherever possible. Also, ASK, and keep asking - "Are you any better off now than you were in 1999?" TELL them that the Republicans have NO IDEAS how to get the Country out of the mess they got us into, and it's time for a change.
Then if the damn' machines don't manage to screw the election entirely, maybe we'll get one.
Comment #28: Reed31463 said on 7/6/06 @ 1:01pm ET...
In squaring off with our opponent, a blow has landed opening a wound just over the eye. Previously, all of our punches have been by landing the better blows, by pointing out the misdeeds and the lies and illuminating them for all to know. But they were always able to cover and the only damage delivered was in the polls. But now, Hamdan, is something different. It is the first time blood has been drawn.
A good boxer knows he must exploit this this advantage. If wound is over the right eye, are we going to start throwing body punches? No, that may open us up for a counterattack. We must continue to strike at the wound and make the cut get larger, use it to our advantage. This puts your opponent on the defensive as they must try to protect the wound. Time is of the essence, we cannot give it time to heal.
How can we exploit this advantage? Moderate RNC members are looking for excuses to disassociate and distance themselves from the leadership. They know this leadership has no plan to fix anything, just continue down this road and "stay the course", whatever that means.
Kennedy in the decision said that violations of Article 3 are war crimes. This means that when these types of interrogations became known, members of congress that supported this nonsense are also complicit and share in the liability. If they were not sure before, now there is no doubt that the administration is using legal nonsense to justify war crimes. Any legislation that continues to use this nonsense will also put members of congress complicit and liable with the war criminals.
This is our opportunity to separate the moderate RNC members from rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk for a vote, otherwise we can infer that they are complicit with the war criminals. If they continue to rubberstamp, even after they were warned that they'd be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, this shows mens rhea.
Comment #29: Nolip said on 7/6/06 @ 1:23pm ET...
Mutiny in the ranks...
Army charges lieutenant who wouldn't go to Iraq
"A Fort Lewis Army officer who refused to serve in Iraq could face seven years in prison under charges filed Wednesday.
The Army accused 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of missing his brigade's troop movement to Iraq, twice speaking contemptuously of the president and three acts unbecoming an officer. The alleged actions are violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The charges come about a month after Watada announced his decision not to deploy with the 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at a June 7 news conference in Tacoma with opponents of the Iraq war.
Watada said he was morally obligated to obey the Constitution, not what he claimed were unlawful orders to join in an illegal war. He also released a DVD statement criticizing what he said was the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people." "
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/localnews/2003107653
_watadacharged6m.html
Comment #30: feline said on 7/6/06 @ 2:21pm ET...
Thank you for that story, Nolip; to me, Watada defines bravery and strength. I think this is an example of what it comes down to; will our public servants and members of the military have the courage and honor to uphold their oath to the Constitution, or will they follow illegal orders and policies that violate the Constitution?
The Republicans continue to accuse the Democrats of not having an agenda. The agenda is simple:
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.
That agenda seems to require an immense amount of strength these days, more strength than most of the Republicans and officials in the administration have demonstrated. The heavy responsibility of upholding the Constitution must be too much to bear with the added weight of corporate campaign contributions, blind trusts, lucrative lobbyist deals, and threats from "superiors". Something is going to get dropped trying to juggle the lies and the laws.
So, what's it going to be Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Addington, Yoo, Graham, Kyl, Gonzalez:
THE CONSTITUTION, OR CORRUPTION?
Comment #31: Frosted Flake said on 7/6/06 @ 3:01pm ET...
Delay demurrs, replacement rejected. Ka-Chinggg!
NPR Reports Delay has decided not to run. Having won the primary, it is him, or no-one. So it is no-one. Chalk up one seat.
Comment #32: ljm said on 7/6/06 @ 4:15pm ET...
Reed...that's very interesting and long reading. I have a question, what grand jury? Who will appoint this grand jury? I agree that what Graham and Kyl did in their amicus brief was all about protecting the cronies from being liable for war crimes under Geneva. Seems like the justices even could see they were up to something bogus with that brief. I'd like a grand jury to investigate that fraud on the court.
Comment #33: Rusty said on 7/6/06 @ 4:24pm ET...
Another great thread. Thank you, everyone!
Comment #34: Patriot said on 7/6/06 @ 4:25pm ET...
Geneva Convention was made part of US Criminal Code in 1996
"Interestingly, Gonzales actually warned Bush about this possibility. In a memo to the president, written on January 25, 2002 when he was still White House counsel, Gonzales warned prophetically that the U.S. adoption of the Third Geneva Convention as a part of the U.S. criminal code in 1996 made violation of the convention a "war crime," which he said was defined as "any grave breach" of the Third Convention such as "outrages against personal dignity." He noted that this law applied whether or not a detained person qualified for POW status, and added that punishment for violation of the law "include the death penalty." But then he went on to say Bush could "substantially reduce" his risk of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act by making a presidential determination that the Third Geneva Convention "does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban."
"Clearly, Gonzales here was behaving like a mob lawyer, not like an honest counselor. He was telling the president not what was right and legal, but how to dodge prosecution."
Comment #35: Reed31463 said on 7/6/06 @ 4:32pm ET...
Click on my name. We are currently discussing actions and possibilities.
Comment #36: hpcharlie said on 7/6/06 @ 5:32pm ET...
Cloak and Dagger: Sabotaged again for exposing the truth??
This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com
http://tomflocco.com/
Feds: 3 dead as U.S., French agents seized British evidence in covered up Capitol Hill gunfight
Date: Wednesday, May 31
Topic: --
Feds: 3 dead as U.S., French agents seized British evidence in covered up Capitol Hill gunfight
Police, media silence sought as Bush officials turned Rayburn parking garage into temporary auto-body shop
by Tom Flocco
Washington—May 31, 2006—TomFlocco.com—Bush administration officials operated Memorial Day weekend damage control to cover up the deaths of three foreign intelligence operatives—two British and one French—involved in a Friday morning shootout in the House of Representatives parking garage.
The altercation turned into an exchange of automatic weapons fire over a pouch containing evidence files documenting an operation to bomb the rail system along the Northeast corridor on Thursday—with the full knowledge of George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair who was in Washington while the operation was being hatched.
Teams of U.S.-French alliance (AFA) operatives—including CIA, NSA and FBI agents committed to holding the Bush administration accountable for criminal activities—had been electronically monitoring a British agent who they determined to be the leader of a black ops bombing plot planned for the purpose of disrupting northeast rail traffic via a fake terrorist attack.
Federal agents revealed that a taxi cab left the Rayburn building parking garage with three body bags just after the shootout which was covered up by Capitol Hill police on instructions from Bush officials who were in contact with television executives and House/Senate leaders.
The agents had followed the British operative into the Rayburn parking garage where the shootout occurred according to longtime federal whistleblower Stewart Webb and intelligence authority Thomas Heneghan both of whom confirmed the whole incident via several of Webb’s 22-years worth of inside federal sources with further corroboration by several more U.S and French intelligence agents to whom Heneghan spoke.
Evidence files proving the bombing operation were seized after an Israeli intelligence agent had reportedly tipped off the Brit who was being pursued by AFA agents which resulted in several House and staff members experiencing shot-out automobile windshields and doors sprayed with bullet holes in the ensuing weapons exchange, the two told TomFlocco.com.
Heneghan told us this evening that hundreds of shots were fired from the automatic weapons during the gunfight causing reasonably extensive damage, and that one female House staffer fainted in the hall after encountering one of the agents being sought by Capitol police during the Rayburn lockdown.
Formal protests and reports were exchanged by the British and French governments while Mr. Bush was provided with the full reports of the incident now classified under arcane U.S. intelligence regulations to further sequester the evidence from the American people.
Washington news outlets are reportedly being discouraged from filing Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to acquire the evidence and reports.
Webb was speaking to an intelligence source within a half hour after the shootout on Friday morning just as we called to find out if he had heard that the Rayburn parking garage and Capitol complex were being temporarily sealed off to keep tourists, House members and staffers away from the scene and evidence of damaged vehicles, concrete walls and pillars.
Capitol police told the media that the gunfight sounds were caused by apparent construction equipment which may have sounded like shots being fired in the parking garage, but no reports indicate the nature of the construction scheduled for that day at the Rayburn building and for what purpose, but also why the police launched a four-hour Rayburn lockdown and floor-by-floor search of the largest office structure on Capitol Hill.
According to U.S. intelligence agents close to the incident, the media fell for the Bush-ordered Capitol police damage control “lock, stock and barrel.”
Federal agents had planned to arrest Tony Blair
We were told that French and U.S. agents are familiar enough with the Rayburn building that they were able to leave inconspicuously and without notice after seizing the evidence; however, the Israeli agent who tipped off the British agent with the evidence was the subject being sought during the Rayburn lockdown, but someone in the building helped him escape.
AFA operatives had planned to arrest Prime Minister Blair to appear before the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury to explain doctored British-Iraq War weapons of mass destruction evidence according to the intelligence sources.
Federal agents said Blair was spirited to Andrews Air Force base after the shootout, reportedly “white as a sheet,” while screaming “they can’t do this” as he entered the jet under military escort back to the United Kingdom.
George W. Bush was worried enough about intelligence reports of Blair’s impending arrest that air force pilots and aides were not told the identity of the passenger to be flown to the U.K. in order to foil any last minute attempt to arrest the Prime Minister for war crimes under the North Atlantic treaty, they said.
See complete story at above URL!
Charlie C.
Dallas Tx
Comment #37: tahoebasha1 said on 7/6/06 @ 5:34pm ET...
Reed and others:
Here is an excellent article re the Supreme Court decision.
"Bush's Assault on Freedom: What's To Stop Him?"
by: Paul Craig Roberts
07/03/06
(Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)
" . . . .Perhaps the Court's ruling has more far-reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.
Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The U.S. itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief U.S. prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.
The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. . . ."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13825.htm
Sorry cannot link.
Comment #38: tahoebasha1 said on 7/6/06 @ 5:59pm ET...
Back in August of 2005, I posted an article from Human Rights News (and once, subsequently). I am reposting that article.
"U.S.: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees En français
(New York, January 11, 2002) -- Human Rights Watch questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld´s statement today that captured fighters from Afghanistan shipped to Cuba were 'unlawful combatants' not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Human Rights Watch also criticized the reported use of chain-link cages to confine the detainees.
'The Secretary seems unaware of the requirements of international humanitarian law,' said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch´s U.S. Program. 'As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment.' . . ."
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm (Archived = cannot link)
Comment #39: Rusty said on 7/6/06 @ 6:33pm ET...
Congratulations on getting ANOTHER letter-to-the-editor published, Tahoe! That's three recently, and I hope other ConyersBlogger's will be just as diligent and reach out to voters in their areas.
Comment #40: Reed31463 said on 7/6/06 @ 6:56pm ET...
Here are a few links we are looking at T. Baybee Memo
Senators Kyl and Graham's Deceptive Amicus Brief
Slate
Comment #41: hpcharlie said on 7/6/06 @ 7:55pm ET...
Definition of "Cut and Run?"
Joe Lieberman
Charie C.
Dallas TX
Comment #42: Genghis Khan said on 7/6/06 @ 8:08pm ET...
TOP 10 DNC CAMPAIGN SLOGANS
10. "Bush spent $300 Billion on a war and all we got was this lousy insurgency..."
9. "Bush spent $5 Billion on DHS and all we got were these lousy borders..."
8. "The GOP spent $1.5 trillion on Prescription Drug Reform and all we got were these lousy bankruptcies from paying our medical bills ..."
7. "Where's Osama?"
6. "Where's the warrants?"
5. "Dude, where's my job?"
4. "Dude, where's my Constitution?"
3. "Got NSA?"
2. "Got torture?"
1. "Vietnam II : Iraqi boogaloo!!"
Comment #43: tahoebasha1 said on 7/6/06 @ 9:58pm ET...
Thank you, Rusty -- good cheerleading doesn't hurt either!
Comment #44: tahoebasha1 said on 7/6/06 @ 10:04pm ET...
Reed, thanks for those links. This is a very important issue that we are dealing with. We should not let violations of International Laws and the Geneva Conventions become a "stale" issue -- we need to emphasize over and over in every measure we can that BushCo are guilty of war crimes as a result of contravention of those laws. They should be held accountable for these and all their criminal behavior.
Comment #45: Nolip said on 7/6/06 @ 11:35pm ET...
What he'd rather be and what he is are polar opposites...he's neither right (unless of course you mean right wing then he's off the page with all the rest of the right wing, aluminum helmet wearing conservatives in his party) nor popular...
"Bush: I'd rather be right than popular
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/06/bush.lkl/index.html
Comment #46: Truth_in_action said on 7/7/06 @ 12:44am ET...
I second Rusty - great posts, everyone.
#27, Kory, brilliant! I love it. The liar analogy is a great one.
