Military Tribunals Ruled Illegal

A win is a win, and thank god for this one. But before we get too excited, look again at the disposition of forces on the court. 5-3 looks good. But Chief Justice Roberts sat this one out. If he's been in, the case could easily have been 5-4, with an underlying 4-4 split and Kennedy's separate opinion ending up producing a majority.

So our Constitution and our country now literally hang, at best, by a thread. If Bush gets to replace any of the 5 members who ended up voting to limit his power, the Constitution is history.

It's time for the Senate Democrats to announce, in advance, that they refuse to destroy our country by allowing Bush to appoint another judge to the Surpreme Court. If Bush can leave ending the war in Iraq to the next president, he can just as well leave the next Supreme Court appointment to the next president.

This relates more to yesterday's thread on the environment (global warming, emission standards) but also to the Supreme Court, as they're about to go on recess and are supposed to make this decision first. Let's hope they vote correctly on this one too, so that it's two in the favor of "the people."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/26/news/scotus.php

Re Guantanamo, glad the vote turned out as it did, as the whole world is watching.

Excellent point, Dick Bell, and one that hit me with the same force when I saw how close this decision was.

Thanks for the shout outs a couple of threads ago, by the way. I miss you all, too. But I do check in regularly and read the great post here as well as admire the good work you all are still doing.

Finally, if anyone missed "Countdown" last night, you must, must, see this. It's as good as it gets.

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fpageoneq.com%2Fnews%2F2006%2Fmsnbc_062806.html

Scotusblog points out that the text of the decision has much larger implications than just the legitimacy of the tribunals...

~snip~
Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
~snip~

read his entire post here...
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/hamdan_summary.html

From the New York Review of Books, a lengthy article by Elizabeth Drew titled "Power Grab" outlines the Bush administration's unprecedented attack on the Constitution.

Some heady reading but it mentions, one by one, all of the assaults which each of you are all too familiar with.

She concludes it with this quote from James Madison:

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Read the entire article here...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092

hattip to kos poster sfzendog for the link

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 11:13 AM

Dick,

You know that I agree with you in spirit about the Supreme Court and any Bush appointments, but I wonder what would the political upside be if the Dems made an announcement like that right now? I was extremely disappointed by the low voter turnout for San Diego's special election, and am concerned if the Dems really can get their base out? If not, then an announcement like you are proposing may or may not be enough to get out those who are afraid of letting Bushco completely control this country. If San Diego is any indication, then I am not optimistic about pronouncements to motivate voters before the election. What are your thoughts?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he will "conform with the findings" of the Supreme Court that strongly limit his power to conduct military tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bush made his comments during an appearance with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The court's ruling was released while the two leaders were meeting, and the president said he had not been able to review the decision fully.

"To the extent there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," Bush said.

He also said that the "American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

"One thing I'm not going to do though, I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people," Bush said, adding, "I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield."

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/29/hamdan.reax/index.html

Bush, reporters spar over comments on Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo trials

RAW STORY
Published: Thursday June 29, 2006

President Bush sparred with reporters today who wanted him to discuss the Supreme Court ruling that he had exceeded his presidential authority with the Guantanamo tribunals.

When first asked if he planned to close down the prison quickly, President Bush noted that he had only had a "drive-by" briefing on the ruling.

"Yeah, I -- thank you for the question on a, quote, "ruling" that literally came out in the midst of my meeting with the prime minister, and so I haven't had a chance to fully review the findings of the Supreme Court," said Bush.

"The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street," Bush said. "In other words, there's not a -- as I -- as I was -- a drive-by briefing on the way here, I was told that this was not going to be the case."

When asked about the ruling by another reporter, Bush again said that he hadn't had the time to "fully review" it.

"Well, I haven't had a chance to fully review what the court said," said Bush. "I -- I wish I had; I -- I could have given you a better answer. As I say, we take this -- the findings seriously."

But the president alluded to a way to continue to move "forward" with Congress despite the Court's ruling.

"And again, I -- as I understand it -- now, don't -- please don't hold me to this -- that there is a way forward with military tribunals and working with the United States Congress," Bush said. "As I understand, certain senators have already been out, expressing their desire to address what the Supreme Court found, and we will work with the Congress."

When another reporter raised the ruling, Bush cut him off.

"Well, I just gave you the answer on that," Bush said. "I'll be glad to answer another question. I gave you the broad strokes that I've been given."

When asked a final time about the ruling, President Bush told the reporter that he was "sorry" that he wasted his question, but then for the first time said that he would "conform to the Supreme Court."

"Obviously, I'm a person who, you know, generally comments on things," said Bush. "I haven't been briefed enough to make a comment on it except for the following thing -- I'm sorry you had to waste your question, but -- we will conform to the Supreme Court."

Excerpts from the press conference:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_reporters_spar_over_postCourt_ruling_0629.html

Tard Unfettered

Posted by: monkey at June 29, 2006 02:09 PM

"One thing I'm not going to do though, I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people," Bush said.......

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh really? Like I feel so much safer with that ignoramous making life and death decisions for this country

Replying to Oncall's concern, my position is that a principal reason the Democrats are in trouble is because they have refused to stand up, define what they believe is at stake in Bush's efforts to destroy the Constitution, and fight for the Constitution openly and directly.

There is no higher moral ground in American politics than the Constitution. It may be true that Americans are ready to abandon this 200+ year old experiment and turn the president into a dictator. Bush and his minions have taken step after step to pull the country towards dictatorship. Remember that Bush has asserted the right to declare, on his own with no judicial review, that a given person is an enemy combatant, to seize that person without a warrant, and to hold that person and torture that person for the rest of that person's life, again with no judicial review. So from a pratical point of view, since hundreds if not thousands of people have already been handled under these rules, we are ALREADY living in a dictatorship.

Some people may be ready to give up on the American people. But because the Democrats have refused thus far to fight this fight on the high moral ground of Constitutional principles, we do not know whether it is really true that there is no hope, that our countrymen and women have abandoned freedom.

There is no way to "dumb down" this argument, or to put it off until after the 2006 election. Look at how Bush and Rove have gone on the attack against the media for having the temerity to inform us that Bush has been engaged in a whole series of illegal and unauthorized wiretapping, bank record rootings, etc., all in the name of his allegedly unrestricted powers as President in wartime.

I would argue the opposite of your concern: if the Democrats do not fight now, their candidates will lose, and we risk, absent these 5-4 rulings from the Supreme Court, plunging deeper into tyranny.

And as far as the Supreme Court goes, if Bush believes he has the powers he says he does, and if he believes he can negate acts of Congress merely by appending "signing statements" to his signature on bills, who is to say that he will not show equal contempt for rulings of the Supreme Court?

We are already living in a full-blown Constitutional crisis in regards to Bush's treatment of the executive branch. Why would we be surprised if he asserts that Marbury v. Madison is dead too, and that the courts are there only to advise the great dictator?

Posted by: oncall at June 29, 2006 02:20 PM

When DOES the "not jeopardizing the safety of Americans" program kick in anyway?

Furthermore, Duncya says he will "conform" with the ruling, then says he will work with Congress to find a workaround, so those being held can get their "day in court", of course.

He'll conform with nothing and like it.

Thank goodness the SOTU did the right thing. Maybe all democracy is not lost after all.

May this just be the beginning of many such rulings that take away the false sense of power and entitlement that render our constitution and civil rights null and void.

I sure wish there was a way the SOTU would vote that Bush and Cheney went far beyond "Executive Privilege" while conspiring to out Valerie Plame.

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 02:32 PM

Dick,

Your points are well taken, and I can hardly disagree with them. But, when I look at it from an exclusively political perspective, I am doubtful that the "protect the Constitution" argument will be the catalyst to get voters to the polls to "throw the bumbs out". But what the hey?, the argument should be made so we at least can proudly say we care about the Constitution.

We are already living in a full-blown Constitutional crisis in regards to Bush's treatment of the executive branch. Why would we be surprised if he asserts that Marbury v. Madison is dead too, and that the courts are there only to advise the great dictator?

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 02:32 PM

Dick:

I don't know if we've lowered the bar insofar as to how much we can or cannot question the government. I sometimes wonder if we thought the efforts we made in the 60s and 70s during the Vietnam Era were the maximum of civil disobedience, and stopped doing so. But then, we relied on a press that worked hard to give us facts and reality.

I once asked a friend if we will enter a new Age of Enlightenment. He said--it has to get pretty dark before that happens. My question is:
"Is it dark enough yet?"

Cristy mentioned this a while back.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent

[opening paragraph]
Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush’s “failures” and label him and his administration as incompetent. Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.

Oncall,

In some of the earlier posts, look at the language that first came to Bush's tongue when he had to answer questions without being well briefed.

Take these words, for example:
""One thing I'm not going to do though, I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people," Bush said, adding, "I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield."

This statement suggests that if Bush thought that obeying a finding of the Supreme Court would, in his opinion, "jeopardize the safety of the American people," he would not obey the court.

After struggling through several questions, Bush finally says "we will conform to the Supreme Court." What a strange choice of verbs: Not "accept," or "abide by," but "conform." You can almost hear his teeth grating in this ungracious choice of words.

And how will we know whether Bush is "conforming" to the Court's ruling? Without Congressional investigations, the only way we will know what is going on is by leaks of classified information to the press whom Republican Senators are already accusing of "treason" for publishing previous information about Bush's illegal activities.

Just an FYI...

CNN is reporting:

VA laptop recovered; FBI says data not accessed

Thursday, June 29, 2006; Posted: 1:11 p.m. EDT (17:11 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has recovered a stolen laptop computer and hard drive with sensitive data on up to 26.5 million veterans and military personnel.

The FBI said Thursday there is no evidence that anyone accessed Social Security numbers and other data on the equipment.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson, in announcing the recovery of the computer, said there have been no reports of identity theft stemming from the May 3 burglary at a VA employee's Maryland home.

The FBI, in a statement from its Baltimore field office, said a preliminary review of the equipment by its computer forensic teams "has determined that the data base remains intact and has not been accessed since it was stolen." More tests were planned, however.

Nicholson said the laptop and hard drive were turned in to the FBI. No suspects were in custody.

read the rest here...
http://us.cnn.com/2006/US/06/29/vets.security.ap/index.html

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 03:27 PM

Bingo. I found his responses to be as schizoid as usual, but with the end result being the same... he'll do what he wants, when he wants, until stopped... period.

"Obviously, I'm a person who, you know, generally comments on things," said Bush. "I haven't been briefed enough to make a comment on it except for the following thing -- I'm sorry you had to waste your question, but -- we will conform to the Supreme Court."

Obviously... he's not just the Decider, he's the Commenter too.

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 02:32 PM

Dick,

My last comments seemed especially flippant and I am sorry they appeared that way. You know that I agree with you completely about our endangered Constitution, but I still am not sure if that will be enough to get people to the polls to vote for change. These days, I am not sure what it will take. It is sad.

Again, Bush hasn't been "briefed" enough to fully discuss possible responses if North Korea tests a missile. Too focussed on Graceland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901212.html

"After struggling through several questions, Bush finally says "we will conform to the Supreme Court." What a strange choice of verbs: Not "accept," or "abide by," but "conform." You can almost hear his teeth grating in this ungracious choice of words.

And how will we know whether Bush is "conforming" to the Court's ruling? Without Congressional investigations, the only way we will know what is going on is by leaks of classified information to the press whom Republican Senators are already accusing of "treason" for publishing previous information about Bush's illegal activities. "
Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 03:27 PM

This is from my friend Eric's blog:

"most people find activism boring and unsatisfying, and frustrating because the results take nearly forever and are easily squashed..."

There's also a huge subconscious deterrent. Have you not wondered where the Ghandi's or Martin Luther King's or the Malcolm X's or any of the charismatic leaders of today are? The subconscious deterrent is that the people that are not so busy fighting just to survive are afraid they will be gunned down or jailed or persecuted like too many of those political movement people were. The secret prisons, the torture, the hidden building of interment camps, all these "leaks" in the news are not uncovering some secret the government wants hidden. Nope, these "leaks" are perfectly timed to keep us terrified of rising up and getting active. The hidden message is, keep quiescent or you may get branded a terrorist and hauled away and tortured.

We all know it in our deep subconscious, though people I talk to will not even acknowledge this fear. They pretend not to know what I am talking about. Even so, where are the charismatic leaders? Where are the youth taking to the streets? The illegal immigrants felt safe enough to do that because they were not inculcated with the fear from childhood by our media. They lived in their little villages and towns in the Latin countries with no TV and no idea how our government uses TV to instill fear in all of us. And they were not marching to change the power structure of our government. To march to change the power structure of our government is to commit personal suicide...at least that's what our government and media would have us believe. And who among us is willing to see our loved ones harmed, lose our children, lose our families, lose our lives?

It isn't just about activism being boring and unsatisfying. It is about fear, plain and simple."

We're a country and a culture embedded with fear. The President's harsh bullying, recalcitrance to adhere, or to "conform" resentfully and reluctantly to the order of HIS OWN SUPREME COURT is part of the theater he's become master at.

The Schoolyard Bully needs to be put down, but none of the kids in the schoolyard have the stomach to rise to the occasion. They've learned how to cope with the Dictator.

Posted by: Fe at June 29, 2006 04:08 PM

Fear Up.

Is it just me or does anybody else think that Bushco is going to try and ram a law through the Republican Congress allowing military tribunals for the prisoners at gitmo? Considering our society's pathologic state of mind, he will probably get what he wants. If the Democrats were ever to filibuster an issue - this would be the one.

I'm with oncall, in the 'sad' position. People are just not motivated to vote in newer and larger numbers. I've said this over and over, especially since our Pa. primary a few weeks back. The turnout was awful. I know it was just a primary, but still, I heard every manner of reason not to take the time to go vote.

I've talked to the people who have decided that 'they're all crooks'

I've talked to people who say they are 'all running for president anyway' and could care less about what is happening now.

I've talked to people who know that they are 'all' owned by big business and don't listen to us little guys anyway.

I've talked to people who hate Iraq, the wiretaps, the secrecy, all of it, and it doesn't cause them to fall in love with a Dem. on the ballot.

It doesn't matter if we blame the media coverage, or the slanted pundits, or the horrible newspaper coverage, it ALL turns some people off. They are done listening. Maybe there are some people who kept up, paid attention all these years, and they are fed up and want change.

I don't want the Constitution and our rights dumbed down in an effort to get people to go to the polls, but face it. The American attention span is pretty damn short. They take everything for granted, especially the right to vote. They will fuss at work around the water cooler or the dinner table about how bad the roads are, or how their jobs are getting outsourced, or how much they have to pay the doctor, but they don't connect CASTING A VOTE with how their lives are going.

I wish I felt optimism about a lot of races in this country this fall, but unless huge new numbers of people register and actually vote, it's not going to get any better. All those polls that say people think the Dems would do a better job controlling Congress. There are a bazillion people who might think the R's need to be voted out, but their own particular R isn't the problem. It's the other guy who needs to go.

Both parties are still going after the same voters, the people who vote. Where is the brave candidate who is lighting a fire up under the uninvolved, the apathetic, the under represented, and asking them to stand up and speak with their votes? Somebody has to do something to tap that 50% of America that just doesn't vote. The future is there, if it's anywhere at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees
Activists: Ruling won't close Gitmo soon
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - Defense lawyers and human rights activists praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision rejecting military war crimes trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but most felt it likely won't force a quick shutdown of the prison. The base's commander predicted earlier this week that an adverse ruling would not bring a closure of the jail, saying many of the prisoners could not be released.

{{{The picture, the picture.... The US flag flying behind the enclosed barbed wire fence at Gitmo.... This is perhaps one of the most obscene, degrading, outrageous, and offensive photos I've ever seen in my life.}}}

Tutterfly, Fe
Very insightful to read over lunch - both posts speak to the difficulty of translating public perception into action.

Some of you may have this elsewhere, but it discusses "how he does it" (ignores the law) while appearing to never veto anything & he is also able to ignore the Constitution & the whole balance of powers concept. Then who knows what goes on in all the closed door meetings & behind the scenes when campaign promises are extracted.

Justice Dept. Testifies Deceptively on "Signing Statements"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062906I.shtml
By quietly dismissing statutes just after signing them, Bush refuses to comply with major elements of newly-signed legislative packages, rather than merely questioning or taking exception to specific provisions of a bill on
Constitutional grounds.

Posted by: NonnyO at June 29, 2006 04:28 PM

Indeed, the pic says it all. But, what'd you expect from the most obscene, degrading, outrageous, and offensive administration in our nations history?

America is in deep denial... we are widely viewed as the bad guys now. The payback is gonna be a bitch.

Apathy kills.

It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.
Posted by: battlebob at June 29, 2006 03:15 PM

And, might I add, it's conservatism carried out because NO ONE STOPPED THEM.

Like statues in shock, we've watched the slo-mo train wreck in horrified states of disbelief.... While it's nice to see that select handfull of senators and representatives stand up on our behalf now and then, I'm wondering why ALL of the Dems and Independents haven't stood up on behalf on their constituents. If all of them (and the few R's who have bleated an opposing voice on occasion) had stood up and shouted at the same time, even if they are the minority number, they would have gotten some attention. By comparison, it's been just a tiny, tiny fraction of senators and representatives who have ever bleated a voice of opposition, and the voices calling them unpatriotic have drowned out anything logical they ever said. Yes, opposition has been reproduced at length on blogs (we've all had our rants), but that still does not get positive Lamestream Media attention (not everyone, especially older voters, has a computer). It's all the nuts drunk on faux patriotism and war who have been getting the attention....

Posted by: monkey at June 29, 2006 04:42 PM

True, I expect nothing less from the whole Criminal Cabal running this nation into the ground.... and I agree that payback's gonna be a bitch. I just don't know if the payback's gonna come from within or without the borders of this nation.

I think other nations are sick and tired of being told what to do by the dictator running this country who aspires to be the dictator for the whole world. (Yes, I know that should probably be plural, dictators, since I really think of the two faces who currently are installed as our highest "leaders" as the ones who represent us in the rest of the world.)

I'm wondering if/when other nations will form alliances and pre-emptively strike us because the "leaders" of this country are the bullies of the planet. I kind of think they are holding back out of pity because they know the ordinary citizens of this nation do not support this administration, and they're trying to have enough patience to wait it out until the '08 elections to see what happens.

In any case, the current apathy is killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan (ours and theirs) in this illegal debacle of invasion and occupation of other countries for control of oil wells and oil pipelines, and 'war' on a few criminals who do not represent an organized army for any country. (Technically, at most, the 'war on terra' can only be said to be a 'war on crime/criminals.' It's like using bombs to kill a few mosquitoes.)

Besides the fact that the photo of the flag flying behind barbed wire over a concentration camp is personally offensive and obscene to my eyes, I also see it as a symbol for this country held prisoner behind those barbed wire fences, thanks to The Cretin, the Vice Cretin, and their Criminal Cabal, the tyrants 'ruling' this nation.

oncall you are absolutely right in the comment:
"I am doubtful that the "protect the Constitution" argument will be the catalyst to get voters to the polls to "throw the bumbs out".

I saw a recent Zogby poll that said unbelievably that Americans will overwhelmingly ditch Constitutional protections if they believe it will keep them safe. Oncall we will probably not win the Constitution argument but we need to frame the argument that we believe in doing everything possible to protect and defend the US which includes our Moral Value of Defending the US Constitution. It should be framed as a Moral Value that separates us from our opponents who are ready to ditch the US Constitution. All we ever here is that Progressive don't stand for anything. How about saying that we stand with Thomas Jefferson and Madison and the US Constitution on moral grounds. Voters seem to reward candidates that come from a position of strength and values even if they don't agree with them. Unless I am wrong it was that lack of perceived strength in our position in '04 that lost us the election, and hopefully we have learned something from that. Lyndsey Graham apparently is ready to craft legislation to circumvent the Supreme Ct ruling and empower the president.

David Swanson did a lengthy interview with Jim McDermott. Rep. McDermott made a lot of good points including why he doesn't think impeachment is what should be pursued at this point.

check it out here...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062906L.shtml

Oh, and the thing I found obscene besides the photo, is the caption that went with the AP story/photo:

In this photo, reviewed by a US Department of Defense official, an American flag waves in the breeze behind razor-wire and fences within the compound of Camp Delta military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)
~~~~~

The usually propaganda-conscious DoD has seen fit to approve the photo. What were they thinking? To warn US citizens that if they don't obey the dictator/tyrant that they will end up behind razor wire in a concentrtion camp? (A good possibility at this rate, since Halliburton is already under contract to build them on our own soil.) Or was the person who reviewed the photo proud of the fact that Old Glory is flying over a concentration camp at a US military base at Guantanamo?

In any case, it's still obscene to my aesthetic sensibilities.

Nonny -- there is a third possibility. That the photojournalist was trying, in his own way, to make it obvious that the flag of the United States was flying over a place that countenances torture and that it is something of which more people should be aware.

A protest in full color documenting something horrible.

This was good news from David Sirota.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/29/122755/031

I just don't know if the payback's gonna come from within or without the borders of this nation.
Posted by: NonnyO at June 29, 2006 05:25 PM

I already know of the ongoing dumbestic threat, it's other nations growing impatience that worries me more... not to mention the terrorist recruiting bonanza we've essentially sponsored through heavy handed actions.

We can't go on together, with Suspicious Minds.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said Thursday that the problem of illegal immigration into the United States will worsen if Congress does not pass immigration reform measures before the end of the year.

"Congress has an opportunity and it has a responsibility to act this year to tackle this problem," he said in a speech in Washington. "The president has used the tools of the so-called 'bully pulpit' to speak very aggressively and clearly about the comprehensive solution he thinks is appropriate. ... That is the way presidents move Congress."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/29/chertoff.immigration/index.html

The Wedgiematic... it slices and dices.

Posted by: dwahzon at June 29, 2006 05:56 PM

Good point! I hadn't thought of that. Maybe that was the photographer's point.... I hope. That casts a more positive spin on it.

Posted by: monkey at June 29, 2006 06:00 PM

True, monkey. I hope for the patience of the leaders of other nations. And, the #1 poster-boy for recruiting criminals who commit terrorist acts is the face of The Cretin....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062906L.shtml
Posted by: dwahzon at June 29, 2006 05:33 PM

Conference Committees
Swanson: We saw recently what happened with the language on no permanent bases in the emergency supplemental bill. Is that not blatantly against the rules of Congress to take something out in a conference committee that has passed in both houses?
McDermott: It used to be.
Swanson: It used to be.
McDermott: That was one of the rules, the understood rules of the conference committee. If an issue had passed in both houses, that was the end of it. It stayed in the bill.
~~~~~
McDermott: But we've shifted it over onto NATO now. We're going to kind of use them as a sort of a surrogate because there's really nothing over there. But in Iraq we're not going to put the NATO in there. We're going to keep the control of ourselves. And they put out the word that they are going to keep 50,000 troops. That's what's confusing. On the one hand they say we're going to keep 50,000 people there and probably for 15 years. Is this withdrawal? Problem with withdrawing 100,000, yeah, but you've got 50,000 sitting there ...
Swanson: Right.
McDermott: ... fully armed in Fortress America, called the Green Zone or the embassy. I mean, it just doesn't pass the laugh test....
~~~~~
McDermott: And I don't want to put those kids that are out on my picture in the front of the office ... I don't want them to be in that situation, but that's what they are in. I want to get them home out of that, so I would support anything, but I am dubious when we are not honest about whether we want out. And if we want out, then we give up control, and we want control of the oil.

It's About the Oil
McDermott: If nothing else, if the Iraqis tomorrow would say you can have all the oil, you can control the oil, and just give us the money, give us some money now and then. We'd take it. And we don't want to control Anbar province, or, you know ... All we want is the pipelines.
~~~~~
McDermott: At this point, the most important thing is to get us out of there and get our troops out. I am not interested in wasting or spending time, I won't say wasting, but spending time on impeachment, because what I want is one way or another to set in process some way to get the troops home. And we can waste a lot of time and energy on trying to do ... you know, who knew what when; I mean, yeah, OK. What the question now is what do we do now to get us out of the situation we are in. And frankly, I mean, I have been one who has called for Rumsfeld being replaced. I mean, if this guy was a coach, he'd be gone. He wouldn't be coaching in the National Football League or the National Basketball League. I mean, just everything he's done is wrong.
~~~~~
McDermott: Right. And the next one would know that his job was to get us out of this thing. And one of the problems is how you save face.
~~~~~
McDermott: And so I'm interested not in, you know, in whatever who, when, what, as much as I am interested in who is doing what now. I mean the question that troubles me is, who is guiding this confusing planning where Casey is going out one place saying one thing, and out comes Condoleezza Rice another place, and here comes Cheney over here and then up jumps Maliki with his ideas. I mean, who is putting it together? Where are they doing this?
[Last year, at the Downing Street Memo hearing, Congressman McDermott WAS interested in who had done what when. Here's a video clip.]
~~~~~
McDermott: That may, you know, that may be the direction they go. But I don't think that, I mean, that should not be the goal - to impeach George Bush. That .... I mean, what have you got then? What have you done? You have suffered through seven years of this guy. It will take a year to do that. So we're going to talk about this is going to be the last year of his election. And at that point it is irrelevant. It really is irrelevant. Not that the ... that the unimpeachable, or the impeachable offense occurred. They should be unearthed and we should look at how we can prevent them from happening in the future. Uh, the punishment, or the ... you know, the public, whatever people would like to do who see ... I mean my district is filled with people who want to impeach. I understand the impulse. But the thing is, at the end of the day, all right, you've impeached him. Now what do you? Cheney is president of the United States? What is that? What good is that? Tell me what good it is. (Laughs)
~~~~~

IMHO:
McDermott's excuses to avoid impeachment proceedings are just that: an EXCUSES to stay in Iraq to control the oil there. He's a Repub-Lite Democrat, at best, just like Hillary, IMHO. Besides which, Cheney can be impeached, too. Meanwhile, if Congress was on the ball, they would do something about pointing out the FACT that they never declared war, per the Constitution, and they most certainly CAN do something about bringing the troops home: cease authorizing those danged 'emergency spending bills' that are financing king georgie's war. Duh.

Impeachment proceedings need not interfere with any "peace" process. There won't be any peace anyway as long as 50,000 US troops stay in Iraq at the fortified embassy, and there most certainly will never be peace anywhere as long as The Cretin is the Resident, and he said that ending anything in Iraq will be for his successor (although I quesiton whether or not there will be a successor at this point, 'cuz I really think he will try to pull an October surprise in '08 and cancel elections, and I still HIGHLY suspect Turd Blossom will rig the '06 elections).

If the people of this nation do not stand up and DO SOMETHING to get that whole lot of criminals out of *our* White House, then the leaders of other nations just might lose patience. If we DO SOMETHING, make some kind of move to at least TRY to remove the home-grown tyrant, perhaps other nations will have a little more patience....?

Actually, Nonny -- I agree with Rep. McDermott. There's no question that Bush's actions are impeachable offenses. But he's right about the circus that accompanies impeachment and the end result will only be to put Cheney into the presidency just in time for the 2008 election cycle.

Do we spend all our time and energy on the circus and then lose the 2006/2008 elections because we spent time and energy elsewhere?

That's one of the things that I think I picked up at the TBA conference. That impeachment proceedings so dominate in Congress when they do happen, all other work which must and should be done comes to a screeching halt.

So much damage has been done in so many places already so the question is: do you make the damage repair wait for another year or two or longer just to get the impeachment proceeding through and done?

Or do you suck it up and say, "Let's pay attention to the ones who are hurting right now because of bad policies." and hold off on the retribution side of things?

A question of priorities and I vote for correcting the bad policies first.

What I am hearing over and over again regardless of where I am (ND or NV)is that everyone has had it with Bush and this administration.

Instead of apathy I hear more of a tone of bewilderment (without anger and energy) from the same people that nothing can be done because there are too few "good men". And the few that are out there trying to make a difference are being slimed by the Rovester.

I didn't know this but my sister said today that Harry Reid (D-NV)won his last election by a very slim margin because huge neocon money was out for his defeat, and he has been beloved by Nevadans for years.

I don't blame the people for the apathy. Where are the leaders? Where are they?

Oh, that pesky 30%...

CNN QuickVote
Do you believe the Bush administration has overstepped its authority in the legal aspects of the war on terror?

Yes 70% 74265 votes

No 30% 32108 votes
Total: 106373 votes

TSP,
I think the leaders are here, and they are leading. But if I hear one more person say "No one is speaking up for us", I'm gonna smack 'em. (Not you. I would never smack you!).

I have spent the past few months telling people that John Kerry, and Russ Feingold, and Barbara Lee, and even Nancy Pelosi have been making amazing speeches and proposing clear-headeaded right-minded policies.

Then people always admit that a few are doing exactly what we would have them do.

But then they say, "What about the others?"

I give up. I feel despairing about any kind of strong support for the braver of these folks, and I think we cannot expect the less brave to put their heads on the line when they see how we fail to support those who are speaking up.

We need to be cheering and helping the leaders who are doing the right thing. And we need to be calling, writing, faxing, and speaking up ourselves, all day, every day. Only when the noise level is deafening will we all, together, be able to make the changes happen.

Just FYI,

Jeffrey Feldman of the Frameshop has some good words / thoughts about how to approach discussing climate change with your friends and neighbors.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/29/165730/730

karen-this one's for you:

George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.

"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have four questions:

First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?

Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?

Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?

Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when half of all Americans don't have health insurance?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kids that they will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name.

"Steve," he responds.

"And what is your question, Steve?"

"Actually, I have six questions:

First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?

Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?

Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?

Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when half of all Americans don't have health insurance?

Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?

And sixth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"

Vets for Peace national convention is in Seattle in August - anyone needing more info let me know

Truth Shall Prevail

Someone wrote "Down With Bush" in the prayer book here (Navy place & Catholic) & it wasn't me!!

Sea change but counterforces working against it (to keep their ill-gotten power), as always

Karen

I agree people keep saying no one is speaking up but don't pay much attention to those who do. Still waiting for the white knight .. ain't gonna happen. That's not the way change works.

NonnyO
I've known McDermott personally for years.
He is probably the least Republican Lite person on the planet. He's been to over 200 countries, helped take down Newt Gingrich (& is paying), has stood up for military re depleted uranium when no one would. I will read this further when I get home & see how I feel about the issue, but I trust the judgment of McDermott the political figure probably more than anyone else except possibly Ted Kennedy.

Today's Supreme Court decision presents a significant political challenge for both parties. Which party is going to propose that Americans have the right to do whatever they want to protect the country, and which party is going to propose that the country should do everything it can to Americans?

NMP,

WE are the people we have been waiting for...

some days that really sucks though.

NonnyO, Dwahzon
My take on the flag behind barbed wire is that the photojournalist may have been doing an ironic take on where we could be headed - I think it's a brilliant photograph.

Re the "sad" part - are we doing enough to sign up new voters? Our ability to do so terrified the conservatives & that's alot of why they cheated, redistricted & disenfranchised. Mehlman admitted we were ahead with our labor movement politicized etc - that's why they started going after the megachurches & doing the clever framing, skillful demographics. We need to play up our assets, for policies and procedures.

There are certain factions the conservatives will never capture & certain issues they will never take a humane stand on. They also lie and are unable to deliver what they promise (through their teeth). I know they have alot of power but we can't talk like victims & martyrs - it won't help anything.

Well, I'm out ..

I truly wonder after the broohaha is over and the Dems call Bushco the fascists that they really are, will Americans stand up for their country or will they be so incapacitated by fear that they will let our destiny slip away?

Posted by: not my president at June 29, 2006 09:05 PM

NMP,

Being sad doesn't make one a victim. Hopefully it inspires one to gather the strength to overcome the challenge that confounds them. I agree with you that there are many things we can do. I have found that it is openly criticizing Bushco that has helped empower me as I meet with many others who are of a like mind. When I discuss my political beliefs, there is a recognizable feeling of relief on other's faces which tells me they are glad to know they are not alone. The fear that permeates our country has forced others to keep their frustrations pent up inside of them, and when given the opportunity to let loose, they are all too happy to share their concerns. Now that the genie is out of the bottle and the Supreme Court has declared George Bush is not the Boy King and the Republicans in Congress make a full frontal assault on the Constitution, democrats have to stand up and not be afraid to warn their fellow Americans that this country is in greater danger than it was on Septemeber 10,2001. If we are too timid, America will be a dream that never was.

Wow - listened to Guantanamo stuff all the way home from work. Can just see Bill Frist trying to introduce legislation rght before the election & polarizing everything further. Heard a retired Admiral who is now a Univ. law school Dean & he said that now is our chance to try to start rectifying our world reputation. He said the Gitmo situation has already done enough damage to last our lifetimes & our children's lifetimes.
(NPR)

Ever have a theme start developing?

- Noticed last night that Lakoff has a new book about polarization & how "freedom" has completely different meanings depending on which framework you have

- Just got a notice about a TV program some may be interested in which deals with polarization (& another new book on the topic)

- Then The New Republic is doing an issue on the same sort of thing, with focus on the conservatives

More:

1, The TV program - Bill Bishop and The Big Sort

Here's a heads up about an ABC News special that may be of interest. George Stephanopoulos will have a piece Friday June 30 at 10 p.m. EDT on political polarization. The report is based on the original research of journalist Bill Bishop and demographer Robert Cushing.

Bill Bishop has been an advisor to the Center for Rural Strategies from our start. You may recall the report that he and Cushing did exposing the disproportionately high death rate of rural soldiers in Iraq.

Bishop and Cushing have been exploring a large body of data that indicates the nation is becoming more politically, economically, and socially polarized. They have also been looking at possible causes of this trend. Bill is on leave from the Austin American-Statesman to write a book on this topic for Houghton-Mifflin.

They call their theory "the big sort," and it indicates that Americans are essentially segregating themselves. Red states are becoming redder, blue states bluer. Within states, communities are becoming more uniform politically, and the rural/urban political dichotomy is part of this trend.

Their work shows that Americans are increasingly choosing to live around people who share the same political and cultural beliefs and that there are fewer places where we interact with people with different opinions and values. Fewer places where we work things out.

2. The New Republic Issue on Conservatism

Red state and blue state America are more than different voting patterns. They are different ways of life. This week, we (The New Republic) devote our issue to touring the conservative lifestyle--the world of conservative cookbooks, conservative folk music, and conservative investment funds.

It's a world where people buy $2,000 bronze busts of George W. Bush, Ann Coulter Gone Wild videos, and kiddie books on the horrors of liberalism. This may seem like frivolous kitsch. But it's far more than that. There's a conservative culture out there--and it binds together a movement filled with pot-smoking libertarians and bible-thumping evangelicals and gun nuts who would not otherwise get along.

We sent our reporters out to live and breathe this conservative subculture. One of our writers, Eve Fairbanks, went on the conservative dating circuit--Candace Bushnell meets Russell Kirk. There are sites out there that aim to make matches of young conservatives like Sean Hannity's Hannidate. She describes the differences between the aspirations of hardy-partying right-wing men and the chaste right-wing women they desire.

Also in the package, the historian Rick Perlstein places the conservative subculture in historical perspective, tracing its roots back to the Goldwater era. He excavates and explains the continued relevance of the EP, "Folk Songs to Bug Liberals." The album's a classic.

Fe,

Thanks. Send more jokes!

Signed,

Wet in Washington

Dolorous in DC

Crabby in Cap Hill

News all day about Guantanamo & Bush not being able to dominate over the Supreme Court --

-- so another Bin Laden tape is released (mourning Al-Zarkawi's death)

..and after their farce of a "press conference" ..

Bush and Koizumi sing diplomatic duet

WASHINGTON -- It's not every day that two world leaders croon to each other, "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You." But clearly President Bush has special feelings for Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, and he put them on full display from morning until night Thursday at the White House.

The love fest began with an elaborate welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn and an exchange of gifts inside afterward. Koizumi gave the sports-loving president a bike and an enlarged version of the Japanese postage stamp that features Babe Ruth. The Bushes gave the Elvis-loving prime minister a refurbished 1954 jukebox that includes 25 songs by his favorite singer.

"Prime Minister Koizumi searched the keys and found `I Want You, I Need You, I Love You,'" first lady Laura Bush said. "He and the president sang a duet."

In the evening, the Bushes were hosting a formal dinner, the eighth of their White House tenure. It was in honor of Koizumi, who leaves office in September after five years in office.

The divorced Koizumi did not have a date. He made his entrance between the president and Mrs. Bush, who wore a taupe dress by Vill Blass with cherry blossoms hand-painted on the Chantilly lace bodice.

read more:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Koizumi_Love_Fest.html

{Edited: Please do not post complete articles which are protected by the copyright law.]

Posted by: DiAnne at June 29, 2006 11:50 PM

Man oh man, I can't believe I lost my invitation to that party!

Posted by: dickbell at June 29, 2006 11:13 AM

You could have a point. The Democrats don't have the votes to prevail at the moment, so I pray for the health of Justice Stevens.

But it is entirely possible that the moment has arrived when Democrats can argue that only a Senate majority can effectively oppose a rogue executive branch gone wild. I think that is an argument that independent voters are ready to hear.

The Psycho-Prez (anybody remember Al Bundy's favorite TV character, on Married With Children) has simply gone too far.

I admit to posting an ill-timed nonsequitur recently about a judge that was deemed by some to be more suitable for a tabloid. TV & papers are now reporting that he has to register as a sex offender, spend a year in prison & be fined $40,000.

It's nice to see Justice served. I wish it would happen more often.

Also, in this region, Enron lost its case against one of our public utility companies after trying to bilk consumers out of hundreds of millions.

from "rescued diaries" at http://www.dailykos.com (also see "Peckerwood Nation," a great rant!)

I'm posting this because I'm sick of hearing people rag on Dems when it's people's apathy too!

Here it goes:

This Sunday Joe Biden refused to comment on a statement by Dick Cheney about how "cut 'n' run" from Iraq would be such a disastrous strategy. Blitzer asked him to respond (and by association acknowledge) Cheney's remark, and Biden said this:

BIDEN: No, I don't want to respond to him. He's at 20 percent in the polls. No one listens to him. He has no credibility. It's ridiculous...There's guys like me and a lot of others and on the Republican side, Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham, John McCain, across the board, who realize that this requires a political solution...
That's a superb answer. There's no need to give credibility to your opponent by defending yourself against his ridiculous charges.

Then Rahm Emanuel went into a swing district and forced the Republican incumbent into a defensive position on Social Security.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy campaigned together yesterday and hammered Fitzpatrick on his less-than-total opposition to Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security.
Emanuel questioned whether voters "could rely on Fitzpatrick's vote" not to privatize Social Security.

"You wanted a difference; now you got a difference," Emanuel said, standing in front of a retirement home in northern Philadelphia, but not in the congressional district, with several Murphy supporters, his entourage, and a few reporters.

By bringing up his desire to attempt to privatize Social Security next year, the President allowed Democrats to put this back on the campaign agenda. In 2005 Democrats owned the Social Security debate and built up a lot of goodwill with the electorate. Maybe the White House is giving moderate Republicans who make up their margin of majority in the Congress another issue to distance themselves from the President, but Democrats are defining the opponent early here. Any Republican is a threat to phase out Social Security. That's the narrative. And it's being pushed aggressively.

Then Virginia US Senate candidate Jim Webb would have none of the Swiftboating attacks by incumbent George Allen (who's using negative character attacks 5 months before the election? Talk about scared).

"George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb's position on free speech and flag burning. Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run. When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb they are attacking every man and woman who served. Their comments are nothing more than weak-kneed attacks by cowards. George Felix Allen Jr. needs to apologize to Jim Webb and to all men and women who have served our nation," Webb spokesman Steve Jarding said.
"While Jim Webb and others of George Felix Allen Jr.'s generation were fighting for our freedoms and for our symbols of freedom in Vietnam, George Felix Allen Jr. was playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada. People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield," Jarding said.

Ezra Klein noted that calling Allen "George Felix Allen Jr." was a stroke of emasculating genius. Here's a Democrat that is not afraid to fight, and fight immediately, never letting an attack go unmet.

After that, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid decided to embarrass the Republicans over their refusal to raise the minimum wage yet again, keeping it at 1997 levels.

A week after the GOP-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased.
"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.

"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Democrats want to raise it to $7.25. During the past nine years, as Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to increase the minimum wage, members of Congress have voted to give themselves pay raises -- technically "cost of living increases" -- totaling $31,600, or more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

This is an obvious bit of political theater, as Billmon called it, a big slow pitch hanging out over the middle of the plate. But Democrats have taken that called third strike many times before in the pre-Reid days, and Harry is giving them hell now. That should be recognized.

Finally, there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on the use of Presidential signing statements to overturn hundreds of laws passed by both houses of Congress. The Bush Administration took it so seriously that they sent a deputy assistant Attorney General on their behalf. Pat Leahy didn't sit there and take it, calling it what it was and then promptly walking out of the meeting.

Senators said they had been expecting a higher-ranking official from the office of legal policy, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, chastised the White House for not sending "anybody who would have authority to speak on this."
"But then, considering the fact that they're using basically an extra-constitutional, extra-judicial step to enhance the power of the president, it's not unusual," he said.

He actually left the room, saying "Good luck" to the deputy on his way out. It's very important for Democrats to call a charade a charade.

Now, these are conservative Dems, progressive Dems, moderates, people within the Party establishment and without, all united by an unwillingness to put up with the bullshit anymore. Clearly these unrelated examples show a Democratic Party emboldened by low Presidential approval ratings and the possibility of retaking the majority in November. But there's something more here. It's that spine implant so many of us have been waiting for. The Democrats may be recognizing that drawing contrast is a winning strategy, not becoming Republican-lite. They're understanding that taking stands and speaking up will be rewarded by an electorate that will then see them as a party with some semblance of conviction.

The Democratic Party isn't perfect; everybody knows that. But these examples shows that they're starting to get it.

My husband reminded me that Bush had allegedly said "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face .. it's just a goddamned piece of paper." I did a Google search for this and by now there are 249,000 citations. They all seem to emanate from Capitol Hill Blue, & the author had talked to (reportedly) 3 people who said they had been present at a meeting where he had said it.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's now mythical, & his behavior indicates that it might not be so far-fetched. I wonder if anyone recorded the meeting?!

down with the fascisti

The astonishing thing about Bush is that he is the last person who should be attempting to enlarge the office of the Presidency.

He is clearly the least accomplished man to hold the position in my lifetime, if not in the entire history of the nation.

He has failed his entire life, and has habitually violated the law in various ways.

It is the Constitution that defines America.

Without it, we are pretending to be something we are clearly not. If the President decides the Constitution is not to be followed, he is no longer the president and cannot use the Constitution to hide behind.
He is a rogue leader at best, a dictator at worst. We are no longer citizens, but inhabitants of this land, nothing more.

We exist as a Nation enjoying the freedoms, liberties and rights enumerated in the Constitution, or we fail as a Republic.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Liberty is a heavily armed Sheep.

Posted by: DiAnne at June 29, 2006 11:50 PM

Bastards - both W and Koizumi.

As long as the people of Japan keep supporting Koizumi's fascist tendencies and the policies of the Liberal Democratic Party (which is neither liberal nor democratic), not to mention the revisionist historians, I will NOT travel to Japan, and will do as much as I can to avoid Japanese products.

The Democratic Party isn't perfect; everybody knows that. But these examples shows that they're starting to get it.

Posted by: DiAnne at June 30, 2006 12:33 AM

GOOD - they better!

The Peckerwood Rant that DiAnne referred to is a hateful diatribe that pulls together all the worst stereotypes of white southern males and rages against them. It is full of generalizations and hateful language. It is not worth reading.

On the other hand, the southerners in the kos community have responded with grace and dignity.

Not sure what you meant to recommend by pointing it out but if you were saluting its literate qualities, I have to say that garbage, even well-written garbage, is still garbage.

Dwahzon
This is worth reading.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 6

In addition to the agreements expressly provided for in Articles 10, 23, 28, 33, 60, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 109, 110, 118, 119, 122 and 132, the High Contracting Parties may conclude other special agreements for all matters concerning which they may deem it suitable to make separate provision. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of prisoners of war, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.

Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.

Article 7

Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

Article 8

The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers. The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties.

The Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possible the task of the representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers.

The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall not in any case exceed their mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of security of the State wherein they carry out their duties.

Article 9

The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.

Article 10

The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.

When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or offering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons protected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furnish sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appropriate functions and to discharge them impartially.

No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied.

Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the present Article.

Article 11

In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the present Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement.

For this purpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invitation of one Party or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties to the conflict a meeting of their representatives, and in particular of the authorities responsible for prisoners of war, possibly on neutral territory suitably chosen. The Parties to the conflict shall be bound to give effect to the proposals made to them for this purpose. The Protecting Powers may, if necessary, propose for approval by the Parties to the conflict a person belonging to a neutral Power, or delegated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who shall be invited to take part in such a meeting.

PART II

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

PART III

CAPTIVITY

SECTION I

BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Article 18

All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.

At no time should prisoners of war be without identity documents. The Detaining Power shall supply such documents to prisoners of war who possess none.

Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.

Sums of money carried by prisoners of war may not be taken away from them except by order of an officer, and after the amount and particulars of the owner have been recorded in a special register and an itemized receipt has been given, legibly inscribed with the name, rank and unit of the person issuing the said receipt. Sums in the currency of the Detaining Power, or which are changed into such currency at the prisoner's request, shall be placed to the credit of the prisoner's account as provided in Article 64.

The Detaining Power may withdraw articles of value from prisoners of war only for reasons of security; when such articles are withdrawn, the procedure laid down for sums of money impounded shall apply.

Such objects, likewise the sums taken away in any currency other than that of the Detaining Power and the conversion of which has not been asked for by the owners, shall be kept in the custody of the Detaining Power and shall be returned in their initial shape to prisoners of war at the end of their captivity.

Article 19

Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Only those prisoners of war who, owing to wounds or sickness, would run greater risks by being evacuated than by remaining where they are, may be temporarily kept back in a danger zone.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.

Article 20

The evacuation of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions similar to those for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war who are being evacuated with sufficient food and potable water, and with the necessary clothing and medical attention. The Detaining Power shall take all suitable precautions to ensure their safety during evacuation, and shall establish as soon as possible a list of the prisoners of war who are evacuated.

If prisoners of war must, during evacuation, pass through transit camps, their stay in such camps shall be as brief as possible.

SECTION II

INTERNMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Chapter I

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Article 21

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Prisoners of war may be partially or wholly released on parole or promise, in so far as is allowed by the laws of the Power on which they depend. Such measures shall be taken particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement of their state of health. No prisoner of war shall be compelled to accept liberty on parole or promise.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities, each Party to the conflict shall notify the adverse Party of the laws and regulations allowing or forbidding its own nationals to accept liberty on parole or promise. Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises. In such cases, the Power on which they depend is bound neither to require nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole or promise given.

Article 22

Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.

The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent.

Article 23

No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Prisoners of war shall have shelters against air bombardment and other hazards of war, to the same extent as the local civilian population. With the exception of those engaged in the protection of their quarters against the aforesaid hazards, they may enter such shelters as soon as possible after the giving of the alarm. Any other protective measure taken in favour of the population shall also apply to them.

Detaining Powers shall give the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers, all useful information regarding the geographical location of prisoner of war camps.

Whenever military considerations permit, prisoner of war camps shall be indicated in the day-time by the letters PW or PG, placed so as to be clearly visible from the air. The Powers concerned may, however, agree upon any other system of marking. Only prisoner of war camps shall be marked as such.

Article 24

Transit or screening camps of a permanent kind shall be fitted out under conditions similar to those described in the present Section, and the prisoners therein shall have the same treatment as in other camps.

Chapter II

QUARTERS, FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.

The premises provided for the use of prisoners of war individually or collectively, shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted, in particular between dusk and lights out. All precautions must be taken against the danger of fire.

In any camps in which women prisoners of war, as well as men, are accommodated, separate dormitories shall be provided for them.

Article 26

The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war who work with such additional rations as are necessary for the labour on which they are employed.

Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war. The use of tobacco shall b