Wednesday - April 04, 2007
Sunday - April 01, 2007
Petraeus plotting strategy with Republicans
According to
Andrea Mitchell, General Petraeus held a closed door meeting with
Congressional Republicans to plead for their political support for his war. If
this is true, it is yet another but of Republican overreach that the Democrats
should start investigating.
The general has every right to his political opinions, and every obligation to keep them to himself so long as he is on active duty in the American military. He certainly has no business plotting strategy with one political party against another.
So far as I know, the general is not covered by executive privilege. Since he has time to meet with Republicans, he has time to appear at a Congressional hearing, where he should share his opinions with the entire nation, including us Democrats, and where he should also explain how he came to be in that room with those Republicans. As Senator Boxer said, "elections have consequences". The Republicans can't quite come to terms with the fact that they're not running everything anymore, and apparently General Petraeus' political intelligence is about as bad as the WMD intelligence that Bush ginned up to start his war, since he doesn't seem to be aware of the facts on the ground either.
They really should haul his ass before a Congressional committee. I'm sure there's one out there that isn't booked solid investigating other members of the Bush crime family.
The general has every right to his political opinions, and every obligation to keep them to himself so long as he is on active duty in the American military. He certainly has no business plotting strategy with one political party against another.
So far as I know, the general is not covered by executive privilege. Since he has time to meet with Republicans, he has time to appear at a Congressional hearing, where he should share his opinions with the entire nation, including us Democrats, and where he should also explain how he came to be in that room with those Republicans. As Senator Boxer said, "elections have consequences". The Republicans can't quite come to terms with the fact that they're not running everything anymore, and apparently General Petraeus' political intelligence is about as bad as the WMD intelligence that Bush ginned up to start his war, since he doesn't seem to be aware of the facts on the ground either.
They really should haul his ass before a Congressional committee. I'm sure there's one out there that isn't booked solid investigating other members of the Bush crime family.
Saturday - March 17, 2007
Bush's mercenaries
A good article (Bush's
Shadow Army) in the Nation on the use and abuse of mercenaries as an
integral part of the Imperial Army. The primary focus is on the biggest private
army, Blackwater, which is operated by the usual right wing, Republican
financing suspects. This article is full of very depressing information.
Mercenaries are now officially considered a part of our Armed Forces:
To the great satisfaction of the war industry, before Rumsfeld resigned he took the extraordinary step of classifying private contractors as an official part of the US war machine. In the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Review, Rumsfeld outlined what he called a "road map for change" at the DoD, which he said had begun to be implemented in 2001. It defined the "Department's Total Force" as "its active and reserve military components, its civil servants, and its contractors--constitut[ing] its warfighting capability and capacity.
Mercenaries claim to be subject to absolutely no laws. The families of the mercenaries killed in Falluja are suing Blackwater, claiming that it breached its contract with its soldiers for hire by, among other things, not providing armored vehicles:
After what they allege was months of effort to get straight answers from the company, the families filed a ground-breaking wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater in January 2005, accusing the company of not providing the men with what they say were contractually guaranteed safeguards. ... This case could have far-reaching reverberations and is being monitored closely by the war-contractor industry--former Halliburton subsidiary KBR has even filed an amicus brief supporting Blackwater. If the lawsuit is successful, it could pave the way for a tobacco litigation-type scenario, where war contractors find themselves besieged by legal claims of workers killed or injured in war zones.
As the case has made its way through the court system, Blackwater has enlisted powerhouse Republican lawyers to defend it, ... Blackwater has not formally debated the specific allegations in the suit, but what has emerged in its court filings is a series of legal arguments intended to bolster Blackwater's contention that it is essentially above the law. Blackwater claims that if US courts allow the company to be sued for wrongful death, that could threaten the nation's war-fighting capacity: "Nothing could be more destructive of the all-volunteer, Total Force concept underlying U.S. military manpower doctrine than to expose the private components to the tort liability systems of fifty states, transported overseas to foreign battlefields," the company argued in legal papers. In February Blackwater suffered a major defeat when the Supreme Court declined its appeal to hear the Falluja case, paving the way for the state trial--where there would be no cap on damages a jury could award--to proceed.
At the same time it is bootstrapping itself out of civil liability for its crimes, Blackwater is resisting efforts to place its employees (and itself) under the military "justice" system. The net result it craves is to be bound by no law at all.
This system has allowed the Republican war machine to prosecute half of this war under the radar (there is one mercenary for every American soldier) at a cost wildly higher than we would pay if we did it on the up and up through our own Armed Services:
In violation of military policy against LOGCAP contractors' using private forces for security instead of US troops, KBR had entered into a subcontract with ESS that was protected by Blackwater; those costs were allegedly passed on to US taxpayers to the tune of $19.6 million. Blackwater said it billed ESS $2.3 million for its services, meaning a markup of more than $17 million was ultimately passed on to the government. Three weeks after the hearing, KBR told shareholders it may be forced to repay up to $400 million to the government as a result of an ongoing Army investigation.
There are a number of problems with using mercenaries as an integral part of our Armed Forces. Primary among them may be the fact that these firms have a vested interest in permanent war. Unlike arms merchants, who can do very well merely preparing for war, these firms need war to really prosper. Years ago I read an article about prison construction contractors in California who were lobbying for more and harsher criminal laws. The more prisoners, the more money. The Blackwaters of the world will be lobbying for more war.
Mercenaries are now officially considered a part of our Armed Forces:
To the great satisfaction of the war industry, before Rumsfeld resigned he took the extraordinary step of classifying private contractors as an official part of the US war machine. In the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Review, Rumsfeld outlined what he called a "road map for change" at the DoD, which he said had begun to be implemented in 2001. It defined the "Department's Total Force" as "its active and reserve military components, its civil servants, and its contractors--constitut[ing] its warfighting capability and capacity.
Mercenaries claim to be subject to absolutely no laws. The families of the mercenaries killed in Falluja are suing Blackwater, claiming that it breached its contract with its soldiers for hire by, among other things, not providing armored vehicles:
After what they allege was months of effort to get straight answers from the company, the families filed a ground-breaking wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater in January 2005, accusing the company of not providing the men with what they say were contractually guaranteed safeguards. ... This case could have far-reaching reverberations and is being monitored closely by the war-contractor industry--former Halliburton subsidiary KBR has even filed an amicus brief supporting Blackwater. If the lawsuit is successful, it could pave the way for a tobacco litigation-type scenario, where war contractors find themselves besieged by legal claims of workers killed or injured in war zones.
As the case has made its way through the court system, Blackwater has enlisted powerhouse Republican lawyers to defend it, ... Blackwater has not formally debated the specific allegations in the suit, but what has emerged in its court filings is a series of legal arguments intended to bolster Blackwater's contention that it is essentially above the law. Blackwater claims that if US courts allow the company to be sued for wrongful death, that could threaten the nation's war-fighting capacity: "Nothing could be more destructive of the all-volunteer, Total Force concept underlying U.S. military manpower doctrine than to expose the private components to the tort liability systems of fifty states, transported overseas to foreign battlefields," the company argued in legal papers. In February Blackwater suffered a major defeat when the Supreme Court declined its appeal to hear the Falluja case, paving the way for the state trial--where there would be no cap on damages a jury could award--to proceed.
At the same time it is bootstrapping itself out of civil liability for its crimes, Blackwater is resisting efforts to place its employees (and itself) under the military "justice" system. The net result it craves is to be bound by no law at all.
This system has allowed the Republican war machine to prosecute half of this war under the radar (there is one mercenary for every American soldier) at a cost wildly higher than we would pay if we did it on the up and up through our own Armed Services:
In violation of military policy against LOGCAP contractors' using private forces for security instead of US troops, KBR had entered into a subcontract with ESS that was protected by Blackwater; those costs were allegedly passed on to US taxpayers to the tune of $19.6 million. Blackwater said it billed ESS $2.3 million for its services, meaning a markup of more than $17 million was ultimately passed on to the government. Three weeks after the hearing, KBR told shareholders it may be forced to repay up to $400 million to the government as a result of an ongoing Army investigation.
There are a number of problems with using mercenaries as an integral part of our Armed Forces. Primary among them may be the fact that these firms have a vested interest in permanent war. Unlike arms merchants, who can do very well merely preparing for war, these firms need war to really prosper. Years ago I read an article about prison construction contractors in California who were lobbying for more and harsher criminal laws. The more prisoners, the more money. The Blackwaters of the world will be lobbying for more war.
Sunday - February 18, 2007
Hanging offenses
An amusing debate on the Alan Colmes radio show
(where he is apparently not the doormat he is on television) between Glenn
Greenwald and one Frank Gaffney, who recently wrote a column in the Moonie Times
suggesting that people who dissent on the war should be hung. You can listen to
the entire debate at Crooks
and Liars. Gaffney's column should be at this link,
but you'll find nothing there, since it
has been pulled.
It began with the following "quote" from Abraham Lincoln:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
A powerful quote, except that it was wholly made up by someone from the same right wing institute for which Gaffney works and had been previously exposed as a lie. As Greenwald pointed out in the debate, Gaffney knew or should have known it wasn't accurate. But why let the truth get in the way of a good talking point? (The quote, by the way, was trotted out by Congressman Don Young during the recent debate on the anti-escalation resolution).
Gaffney insisted that, despite the fact that he used language that quite clearly called for dissenters (particularly Carl Levin) to be hung, he was only speaking metaphorically.
You might ask, why was Carl Levin singled out? Well, it seems that Levin had the temerity to criticize Douglas Feith, Tommy Frank's nominee for the stupidest person on earth. Feith is a friend of Gaffney's, and Gaffney doesn't like the fact that Feith's role in cooking pre-war intelligence is becoming more widely known.
So, if you listen carefully to the debate, you will hear that Gaffney retreated to the position that our country was endangered if we criticized government officials for daring to question the conclusions reached by the intelligence community. Such questioning, according to Gaffney could in theory lead to better policy decisions, and therefore should not be criticized, even if in this particular case it led to disaster.
Let's consider this, shall we?
It is Carl Levin's job to, among other things, conduct oversight of the workings of the federal government, including instances in which government officials decide to circumvent established channels, such as Feith and his cronies sought to do. Still, according to Gaffney, Levin should be hung for criticizing Feith because his criticism of Feith will deter future Feiths from criticizing future CIAs. We can't have that because we need such criticism to protect us from all kinds of dirty, nasty people even if, as with Feith, the intrepid fellow that takes on the CIA manages to manufacture an unnecessary war, because in some alternate reality, or some future time, the manufactured war might turn out to have been necessary, or at least turned out not to be such a mess that every sane person on earth realized it was a disaster. To preserve that future Feith's freedom to criticize, Feith himself (and by extension all future Feiths) must himself be immune from criticism. (Here insert obligatory baseless claim that it demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies, who would otherwise be quite enmeekened.) So, it follows as the night the day, that Levin's criticism of Feith's actions was treasonous while Feith's criticism of the CIA was patriotism of the highest order.
Now, in truth, or at least in theory, bureaucratic channels are set up in order to maximize the chances that the correct decisions will be made by the correct people. When you do a Feith-like end run around those channels you are taking a chance. All is forgiven, and you will not be criticized (or at least your transgression will be overlooked), if you turn out to be right. But Feith turned out to be so wrong that the term "100% wrong" doesn't do him justice. The idea that it is treasonous to complain about a grossly incompetent person analyzing "intelligence" in lieu of the experts who know what they're doing, because there is a possibility that someday, some future renegade in the same position might turn out to be right, is ludicrous beyond belief.
But I must admit that Gaffney's ideas acquired a bit of a hold over me. After giving the matter almost no thought (see, I told you he's gaining influence on me) I propose that we hang Gaffney. By criticizing Levin, he is making it less likely that future Levins will feel free to criticize future Feiths. After all, the next time around future-Levin might criticize future-Feith before the start of the future war, thereby stopping said war and avoiding another disaster. Also, as Abraham Lincoln would have maybe said:
Columnists from right wing think tanks who willfully take actions during wartime that turn logic on its head and undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Next time Gaffney writes a column, he might keep in mind something that Lincoln actually did say:
If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity.
It began with the following "quote" from Abraham Lincoln:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
A powerful quote, except that it was wholly made up by someone from the same right wing institute for which Gaffney works and had been previously exposed as a lie. As Greenwald pointed out in the debate, Gaffney knew or should have known it wasn't accurate. But why let the truth get in the way of a good talking point? (The quote, by the way, was trotted out by Congressman Don Young during the recent debate on the anti-escalation resolution).
Gaffney insisted that, despite the fact that he used language that quite clearly called for dissenters (particularly Carl Levin) to be hung, he was only speaking metaphorically.
You might ask, why was Carl Levin singled out? Well, it seems that Levin had the temerity to criticize Douglas Feith, Tommy Frank's nominee for the stupidest person on earth. Feith is a friend of Gaffney's, and Gaffney doesn't like the fact that Feith's role in cooking pre-war intelligence is becoming more widely known.
So, if you listen carefully to the debate, you will hear that Gaffney retreated to the position that our country was endangered if we criticized government officials for daring to question the conclusions reached by the intelligence community. Such questioning, according to Gaffney could in theory lead to better policy decisions, and therefore should not be criticized, even if in this particular case it led to disaster.
Let's consider this, shall we?
It is Carl Levin's job to, among other things, conduct oversight of the workings of the federal government, including instances in which government officials decide to circumvent established channels, such as Feith and his cronies sought to do. Still, according to Gaffney, Levin should be hung for criticizing Feith because his criticism of Feith will deter future Feiths from criticizing future CIAs. We can't have that because we need such criticism to protect us from all kinds of dirty, nasty people even if, as with Feith, the intrepid fellow that takes on the CIA manages to manufacture an unnecessary war, because in some alternate reality, or some future time, the manufactured war might turn out to have been necessary, or at least turned out not to be such a mess that every sane person on earth realized it was a disaster. To preserve that future Feith's freedom to criticize, Feith himself (and by extension all future Feiths) must himself be immune from criticism. (Here insert obligatory baseless claim that it demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies, who would otherwise be quite enmeekened.) So, it follows as the night the day, that Levin's criticism of Feith's actions was treasonous while Feith's criticism of the CIA was patriotism of the highest order.
Now, in truth, or at least in theory, bureaucratic channels are set up in order to maximize the chances that the correct decisions will be made by the correct people. When you do a Feith-like end run around those channels you are taking a chance. All is forgiven, and you will not be criticized (or at least your transgression will be overlooked), if you turn out to be right. But Feith turned out to be so wrong that the term "100% wrong" doesn't do him justice. The idea that it is treasonous to complain about a grossly incompetent person analyzing "intelligence" in lieu of the experts who know what they're doing, because there is a possibility that someday, some future renegade in the same position might turn out to be right, is ludicrous beyond belief.
But I must admit that Gaffney's ideas acquired a bit of a hold over me. After giving the matter almost no thought (see, I told you he's gaining influence on me) I propose that we hang Gaffney. By criticizing Levin, he is making it less likely that future Levins will feel free to criticize future Feiths. After all, the next time around future-Levin might criticize future-Feith before the start of the future war, thereby stopping said war and avoiding another disaster. Also, as Abraham Lincoln would have maybe said:
Columnists from right wing think tanks who willfully take actions during wartime that turn logic on its head and undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Next time Gaffney writes a column, he might keep in mind something that Lincoln actually did say:
If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity.
Monday - February 12, 2007
Youtube censorship
Via Pharyngula, a
long and rambling video by a fellow named Nick Gisburne, whose entire
account at Google (the "first do no evil" folks) owned Youtube was closed
without notice because he posted a video that consisted of a slide show quoting
violent passages from the Koran. The poor guy seems genuinely upset and
mystified, and his protestations of moderation seem believable. Gisburne is an
atheist, and has posted a lot of material on atheism, but it appears that
Youtube took umbrage at the Koran excerpts for reasons having nothing to do with
his atheism per se. Apparently, they appeared to think that quoting the Koran is
some sort of hate speech against Muslims. Gisburne, would argue, I assume, that
the Koran is no different than the Bible so far as objectionable content
goes.
This raises a larger issue than Gisburne's right to access at Youtube. Some years ago the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that malls were not public forums, so mall owners could pick and choose who they would allow to engage in what would, in such a public forum, be considered protected speech. Courts in other states went the other way. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court ever weighed in on that particular issue.
Sites such as Youtube are arguably public forums. They certainly function as such-more than malls, more than parks, more than almost any non-virtual location that comes to mind. It is their entire reason for being.
I don't question Google's right to maintain standards of some sort, but it should not have the right to be arbitrary. We have a large body of first amendment law, and that law should serve as a guide to what should or should not be allowed on these sites. Whatever the standards might be, Google should not have the right to arbitrarily and permanently remove content. Some process for redress should be provided. What happened to this guy was unjust. All of his stuff was deleted without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. That would be a denial of due process of the first order if the government did it (statement void if George Bush decides you are an enemy combatant). Google is not the government, but that doesn't mean that its power to abridge the speech of its users should be unlimited. If we want to keep democracy strong (or bring it back to some semblance of strength) we have to make sure that free speech is the rule in those fora in which people choose to speak. Right now, those fora are owned by corporations like Youtube. They should be considered public fora and their users should be protected by the First Amendment.
This raises a larger issue than Gisburne's right to access at Youtube. Some years ago the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that malls were not public forums, so mall owners could pick and choose who they would allow to engage in what would, in such a public forum, be considered protected speech. Courts in other states went the other way. I'm not sure if the Supreme Court ever weighed in on that particular issue.
Sites such as Youtube are arguably public forums. They certainly function as such-more than malls, more than parks, more than almost any non-virtual location that comes to mind. It is their entire reason for being.
I don't question Google's right to maintain standards of some sort, but it should not have the right to be arbitrary. We have a large body of first amendment law, and that law should serve as a guide to what should or should not be allowed on these sites. Whatever the standards might be, Google should not have the right to arbitrarily and permanently remove content. Some process for redress should be provided. What happened to this guy was unjust. All of his stuff was deleted without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. That would be a denial of due process of the first order if the government did it (statement void if George Bush decides you are an enemy combatant). Google is not the government, but that doesn't mean that its power to abridge the speech of its users should be unlimited. If we want to keep democracy strong (or bring it back to some semblance of strength) we have to make sure that free speech is the rule in those fora in which people choose to speak. Right now, those fora are owned by corporations like Youtube. They should be considered public fora and their users should be protected by the First Amendment.
Thursday - February 08, 2007
Iran, the Constitution, and the would be emperor
The Washington Monthly reproduces
a portion of an interview with constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman,
in which Ackerman says that Bush lacks the constitutional authority to attack
Iran without prior Congressional approval. Kevin Drum
concludes:
I think that's right. And I think Democrats better be prepared to figure out how they're going to vote on such an authorization. It's not as if they aren't getting plenty of warning that it's likely to cross their desks sometime in the near future.
I think he's wrong. The Democrats are never going to have to worry about how they're going to vote on such an authorization, because Bush will never seek such an authorization. He will conclude, rightly, that he stands a chance to lose such a vote. He will simply order an attack, and dare the Democrats to do something about it. At that point they will have only two choices, which in the end will yield the same result.
I think that's right. And I think Democrats better be prepared to figure out how they're going to vote on such an authorization. It's not as if they aren't getting plenty of warning that it's likely to cross their desks sometime in the near future.
I think he's wrong. The Democrats are never going to have to worry about how they're going to vote on such an authorization, because Bush will never seek such an authorization. He will conclude, rightly, that he stands a chance to lose such a vote. He will simply order an attack, and dare the Democrats to do something about it. At that point they will have only two choices, which in the end will yield the same result.
Monday - January 08, 2007
The case for impeachment
Cynthia McKinney had her darker moments, but she
was still one of the few members of Congress willing to tell the truth about
Bush at all times. Just before she left Congress, she introduced an impeachment
resolution. It's well worth a read. This is from the introduction to
an article at AfterDowning.org (reprinted by Truthout at the link
above):
As some people learned from the minimal and abusive media coverage, on December 8, 2006, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced Articles of Impeachment [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16230] against President George W. Bush, making him the 10th president of the United States to face such action. Of course, McKinney was on her way out of office and thus more willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership by upholding basic Constitutional principles.
Fewer people are aware that Congresswoman McKinney on December 27, 2006, entered into the Congressional Record (pages E2253 - 2255) extended remarks on impeachment that merit our close attention. Why would she do such a thing on her way out the door with no chance of reintroducing her bill in the new Congress? For one thing, she clearly would agree with the response Congressman John Conyers gave to Lewis Lapham when asked what he thought the point was of publishing a lengthy report laying out evidence of Bush's impeachable offenses. Conyers' response was: "to take away the excuse that we didn't know."
As some people learned from the minimal and abusive media coverage, on December 8, 2006, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced Articles of Impeachment [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16230] against President George W. Bush, making him the 10th president of the United States to face such action. Of course, McKinney was on her way out of office and thus more willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership by upholding basic Constitutional principles.
Fewer people are aware that Congresswoman McKinney on December 27, 2006, entered into the Congressional Record (pages E2253 - 2255) extended remarks on impeachment that merit our close attention. Why would she do such a thing on her way out the door with no chance of reintroducing her bill in the new Congress? For one thing, she clearly would agree with the response Congressman John Conyers gave to Lewis Lapham when asked what he thought the point was of publishing a lengthy report laying out evidence of Bush's impeachable offenses. Conyers' response was: "to take away the excuse that we didn't know."
Tuesday - December 19, 2006
Only in the land of the free: Interior border stops
I have been known to criticize the media at
times, but there is one young intrepid, astute reporter for the Boston Globe who
is so good (and so obviously deserving of a Pulitzer) that I have set up a
Google alert to apprise me of his every article. Today Google tells me that he
has published yet another gem.
(In the same alert Google also informs me of yet more feats of athletic heroism
by one Kate
Wirzbicki (no relation), who is often caught up in Google's dragnet,
though it was designed to catch other fish).
It so happens that the article in question covers territory previously covered in this very blog: the irritating, unconstitutional "interior border" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) stops in New Hampshire and Vermont. It seems that some of the dirty hippies in Vermont are a bit irritated at being stopped by the border patrol as they go about their business:
It so happens that the article in question covers territory previously covered in this very blog: the irritating, unconstitutional "interior border" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) stops in New Hampshire and Vermont. It seems that some of the dirty hippies in Vermont are a bit irritated at being stopped by the border patrol as they go about their business:
Monday - November 20, 2006
Tasers in the Library
If you don't read the national blogs you may not
have seen the videos of, or heard about, the recent incident at UCLA. The campus
police repeatedly tasered a student who refused to leave the library fast enough
after refusing to show
identification.
You can view the video here.
Today, Americablog reports that the use of the tasers may have been consistent with official policy, which apparently allows for the use of "pain compliance techniques" against a "passive or actively resisting individual...when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose".
You can view the video here.
Today, Americablog reports that the use of the tasers may have been consistent with official policy, which apparently allows for the use of "pain compliance techniques" against a "passive or actively resisting individual...when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose".
Friday - October 27, 2006
NBC protects George from the Dixie Chicks
Two stories today illustrating our slow, steady
slide toward fascism.
NBC has refused to run ads for the Dixie Chicks movie Shut up and Sing, because "they are disparaging to President Bush."
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has blocked left wing blog sites for military personnel. No problem getting to the right wing sites.
NBC has refused to run ads for the Dixie Chicks movie Shut up and Sing, because "they are disparaging to President Bush."
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has blocked left wing blog sites for military personnel. No problem getting to the right wing sites.
Saturday - October 21, 2006
Saturday - October 21, 2006
They hate us for our freedom
A wonderfully written article in the New York
Times, skillfully comparing (there's no contrast) the freedom hating Taliban
with the freedom loving United States
Monday - August 28, 2006
Chilling dissent, one potential terrorist at a time
So far, rather amazingly really, the FBI and our
vaunted Homeland Security Department have caught and prosecuted exactly zero
real post 9/11 terrorists. But, it appears, that really isn't the point of
terrorism investigations. The point is to chill political dissent of all sorts,
for nowadays anyone taking a position that is contrary to the interests of
corporate America and/or the Republican party is not just a person who shares a
position with a majority of Americans, he or she is also a terrorist, or
potential terrorist. Case in point :
Monday - August 21, 2006
Defining fascism
This
editorial in the Los Angeles Times raises a point that,
coincidentally, we were discussing with some of our guests in Vermont last week.
That is, to what extent is the term "fascism" applicable to Islamic terrorists,
other than as a contentless word of derision. My position is that it is not
applicable . My handy-dandy computer dictionary defines fascism as:
"an authoritarian and nationalistic
right-wing system of government and social organization", ...Fascism tends to
include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt
for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong
demagogic approach, which sounds just about
right, except that I always understood it to also have an element of a melding
of corporate power with the government as well.
Saturday - August 19, 2006
One for our side, at least for now
I just finished reading Judge Taylor's decision
in ACLU vs.
NSA (copy available here , page down in right hand
column), in which she held the Bush wiretapping program illegal and
unconstitutional. It all makes sense to me. I understand that the sixth circuit,
in which she sits, has a conservative Circuit Court bench, so the question is:
what grounds will the Circuit Court choose for reversal.
Wednesday - July 26, 2006
More grandstanding from Specter
One of the more direct and obvious post
Bush v.
Gore threats to our form of government is the
use the Bush Administration has made of signing statements. While he is not the
first to use them, he is the first to use them as a tool to veto without vetoing
and to assert a claim that he is personally exempt from legal strictures. The
legal underpinnings (to the extent any actually exist) of this practice were
developed by, among others, Sam Alito. It is a practice that needs to be reined
in, and riding to the rescue is that profile in courage, Arlen Specter.
Today he introduced the "Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006"; something he felt free to propose because he knows it's DOA. In any event, if he runs true to form, if anything does pass it will have been transmogrified into an endorsement of Bush's actions. That's his pattern after all. Still, since Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker (the bill is at the link too) wondered what we lawyers thought of the bill, I thought I would add my two cents.
Today he introduced the "Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006"; something he felt free to propose because he knows it's DOA. In any event, if he runs true to form, if anything does pass it will have been transmogrified into an endorsement of Bush's actions. That's his pattern after all. Still, since Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker (the bill is at the link too) wondered what we lawyers thought of the bill, I thought I would add my two cents.
Sunday - July 16, 2006
The war on John Lennon coming to a theatre near you
One of the many abuses of the Nixon years was its
vendetta against John Lennon. This September the folks who brought you
Fahrenheit 911 (sans Michael Moore apparently) will bring you The US vs John Lennon , which details the war on
Lennon, apparently weaving it into the web of abuses of the Nixon
years:
Only now, however, is it being fully revealed how the authorities in Washington spent years amassing a dossier of evidence against the most outspoken Beatle with the sole aim of ejecting him from the United States for good. The evidence is to be exposed in a new film by the team behind Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's documentary opposing George Bush's "war on terror".
Only now, however, is it being fully revealed how the authorities in Washington spent years amassing a dossier of evidence against the most outspoken Beatle with the sole aim of ejecting him from the United States for good. The evidence is to be exposed in a new film by the team behind Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's documentary opposing George Bush's "war on terror".
Saturday - July 15, 2006
Specter's latest cave
Most people think that a compromise involves
concessions by both sides to a dispute. Arlen Specter defines compromise
differently. He defines it as conceding everything so long as there is something
he can plausibly spin to make it look like he got something. So with the latest
"compromise" on Bush's criminal violations of FISA, in which Bush gets the right
to spy on anyone he wants whenever he wants and Specter gets a fig
leaf.
In many ways, the sad state we are in can be inferred from the Headline to the New York Times story about this disaster. It reads:
In many ways, the sad state we are in can be inferred from the Headline to the New York Times story about this disaster. It reads:
Wednesday - June 28, 2006
Sunday - June 18, 2006
Police state doings, at home and away
Police state tactics in West Hartford, and up in
Live Free or Die New Hampshire.
Specter barking again
Two for the good guys, if only for now
GOP to Osama: Give us Liberty, or give us someone else's death
License to lie
Our irreligious forefathers