Senate Debates Torture

(Reposted from thread that disappeared)

Call your senators (again). Call Reid's office. Call!!!

Washington, DC
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

Reno
Phone: 775-686-5750
Fax: 775-686-5757

Las Vegas
Phone: 702-388-5020
Fax: 702-388-5030

Carson City
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343)
Fax: 775-883-1980

Or EMAIL/FAX!!! Here's something from the NYTimes you can cut & paste & email/fax to your senators & Reid's office:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

List of senators with phone numbers & webforms:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It is, evidently, who some of us in this country are.

I too feel ill, Casey. I am begging everyone to call immediately.

As I was teaching class this morning (Romanticism into Classical Imperialism--how timely), I was cueing videos and in between the tapes, the in-house campus television station was showing news from CNN. The reporter matter-of-factly stated that " the Senate is expected to pass the torture bill today." She then went on to some Hollywood crap.

I had to stop myself from bending over double, so brutally did I feel kicked. I simply cannot believe this is the country I grew up in.

I cannot live in a place where the legislature is "expected" to kill the Constitution and democracy. Is this 1938 Germany?

I've once again sent an email to Dayton (he was against the version that did not have habeas corpus in it anyway) and told him to vote NO on S 3930.

I even sent an email to that idiot Coleman, told him to vote NO or I would most assuredly vote against him in his next election (like I would anyway), and copied and pasted the flawed parts madame has above in the email.

Then I sent a kudos email to Leahy.... He spoke words I've thought, written, read in other people's writing....

Like everyone else, I just can't believe that torture, habeas corpus, and immunity from war crimes is even being discussed as a serious piece of "legislation."

WHAT?!?!?

Who was that on the floor (I can't see the names on the WMV screen online, so must listen) who spoke out against this trash... and then capitulated and said he'd vote for it and let the Judiciary figure it out...?

SHAME on him!!! He just listed all the reasons not to vote for this trash, and yet he's going to vote for it?!?! For SHAME!!!

Cool, seemingly non partisan site with interactive map - see history of area over time in seconds

Who has controlled the Middle East over the course of history? Pretty much everyone. Egyptians, Turks, Jews, Romans, Arabs, Greeks, Persians, Europeans...the list goes on. Who will control the Middle East today? That is a much bigger question.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/index.html

Okay....

WHAT are they voting on? The whole bill? Or just the section about habeas corpus?

Spector ammendment fails by 3 votes :( several others offered up.

Habeas Corpus portion

Kerry talking now about how Iraq war resolution was offered up to fast and look what happened then.

Kit Bond talking now evidently he is one of those people who love Bush and the non-oversight of the Administration, pretty much oh shucks lets let them do what they want to keep us safe. He is arguing against and oversight ammendment offered up by several Democrats.

Thanks, April... I finally figured it out. I heard one too many aye votes by Dems, finally figured out it was for only the habeas corpus section. As near as I can tell, the most damning thing that can be used against Lieberman by Lamont is that - if I heard correctly - Lieberman voted against keeping habeas corpus.

WHAT the hell is wrong with the Dems who voted against habeas corpus?!?!?

Liked Kerry's speech about the haste, not able to trust He Who Shall Not Be Named Because His Name Is Evil and his previous LIES... and I liked what Rockefeller had to say about haste, etc. What IS the hurry anyway? ALL of this could have waited until after election day. I said earlier I knew DimWit would try to RUSH this horror through before election day in case he ended up with a Dem majority after Nov. 7, but he still would have had a neoCon majority between Nov. and Jan anyway....

We need full texts of these speeches, pro and con. We need a full list of who voted for or against habeas corpus.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:
There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.3930 for the 109th Congress
1 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)[S.3930.IS]
2 . Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.3930.PCS]

I found the above online, regarding this piece of toilet paper.

I haven't found anything about what else has been voted on, whether everything except the habeas corpus was voted on before or if the full bill minus the habeas corpus will be voted on later. I just can't tell. The only thing I found online yesterday was the House version of the bill and the list of which reps voted for/against the House version of this insanity. I put it on the previous thread, I think.

Pete Domenicci (sp?) is speaking. What a driveling piece of flesh...!

The senator from New Mexico just unwittingly stated the crux of the problem, they want allow torture of suspected terrorists lets say the again SUSPECTED terrorists not known Terrorists SUSPECTED. Innocent people can be tortured if they are SUSPECTED terrorists this opens a whole can of worms I never ever thought I would see in this great country. We are a country dependant on the rule of law, they want to change that, what happens when we become a lawless country that does as it pleases to people who are suspected of a crime not proven but suspected? what does that say about us?

I know I should but I can not listen anymore I am going to pick my baby up from school and someday I will have to explain to her that at one time we were a great country who wanted to set an example of fairness and decency for others, and how all that changed. I am sick today and sad. so sad.

WASHINGTON - President Bush personally urged the Senate on Thursday to follow the House lead and approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects, saying, "The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror."

Bush met in the Capitol with Senate Republicans the day after the House passed the legislation that Republicans likely will use on the campaign trail to assert that Democrats want to coddle terrorists.

"People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States," Bush told reporters after the closed-door meeting.

Senate action expected soon
Barring any last-minute hiccups, a Senate vote Thursday would send the legislation to the president's desk by week's end. The House approved a nearly identical measure Wednesday on a 253-168 vote.

Standing with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both Republicans, Bush spoke briefly and took no questions.

He said the House-passed legislation "will give us the capacity to interrogate high-value detainess and at the same time give us the capacity to try people in our military tribunals."

"I urged them to get this legislation to my desk as soon as possible," Bush said. He said discussion of the legislation occupied "much of my discussion" with the majority-party Republicans.

House approval
The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the Bush administration authority to interrogate and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.

The mostly party-line 253-168 vote in the Republican-run House prompted bitter charges afterward by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that opposition Democrats were coddling terrorists, perhaps foreshadowing campaign attack ads to come. Democrats responded that the GOP leader was trying to provoke fear.

Even as the House debated the bill, senators of the two parties agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical measure, all but ensuring its passage on Thursday.

Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving Washington this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress’ blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration’s old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments — but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

‘Strengthening our national security’
In a statement issued after the vote, Bush, who will visit GOP senators Thursday morning, urged the Senate to approve the measure and congratulated the House for its “commitment to strengthening our national security.”

Hastert’s comments were biting. He said in a statement that Democrats opposing the measure “voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists.”

He added, “So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan.”

In response, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops. She said the bill would be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

“Speaker Hastert’s false and inflammatory rhetoric is yet another desperate attempt to mislead the American people and provoke fear,” she said, adding that Democrats “have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans.”

During the debate, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.

“Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?” Boehner asked just before members cast their ballots.

Democrats said they wanted to tone down the powers the bill would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects’ abilities to defend themselves during trials.

Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: “This bill is everything we don’t believe in.”

Overall, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats vote for the legislation while 160 Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent voted against it.

During the often partisan debate, some Democrats contended the bill would approve torture.

“All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,” said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.

Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.

The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.

“It gives too much leeway to the president,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. “And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.”

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/

suspected terrorists - giving aid to terrorists etc. - very open to interpretation by He Who Shall Not Be Named

according to newspaper accounts, the Republican line up to the mid-term elections will be that Dems want to "coddle terrorists."

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 01:02 PM

By no means would Dems coddle, but screw that, Dems CERTAINLY won't torture another of Gods creations, no matter how highly or lowly evolved they are.

Hastey the Hyppo

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 01:02 PM

neoCons need to be REMINDED that the ILLEGAL war in Iraq (the invasion of which is a WAR CRIME, and the order to invade UNCONSTITUTIONAL - since war powers belong to Congress, not the "alleged" POTUS) is CREATING MORE CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS...! How is that "coddling terrorists...?"

I am so furious that to even begin parsing about this despicable piece of legislation that will provide political cover for a despot in the world court makes me violently sick.

Then to top it off, painting Democrats as WEAK on terrorists and then making this PART OF AN ELECTION STRATEGY FOR MIDTERMS.

These are the very same people who looked at Abu Ghraib and said it was reminiscent of a college hazing.

We are damned.

Posted by: Fe at September 28, 2006 01:25 PM

Indeed we are... feel safer NOW?

Hazeus Corpses

Furthermore, when the legions of newly inspired terrorists simmering in the microwave that is Iraq begin dispersing in the coming years to say, the United States, what resources will this country have in place or at it's disposal to defend the American soil and it's citizens?

What's that in the road, a head?

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 01:39 PM

Errrr.... what makes you think they've thought ahead further than getting this horror passed so they can make themselves exempt from war crimes or even further ahead than Nov. 7...?

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

Intelligence shows Iraq violence will worsen in 2007:

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,‘” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/woodward-book/

Good on Teddy for reminding them about previous war crimes legislation by Republicans (Bybee), and DoD, war crimes in Nam, McCain's previous torture... etc.

Go Teddy!

coddling apparently is there poll driven word of the day, look to see it by this evening on your local Republican campaign commercial

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 01:41 PM

I was actually hoping that the electorate was thinking beyond Nov 7 with that statement, but what the hell was I thinking?

No Wake Zone

This is very depresssing. All of this. I went in the grocery store earlier and at the checkout, I said to the clerk, "They're voting to approve torture today. What do you think about that?"

Her reply, "Oh..they are? I hadn't heard that."

No sign of distress in her face. No sign of approval either. Just a 'Oh well...' type of look.

Then I come here and see all your comments. I can see that you're as down as I feel.

Well, screw it everyone! So today may be a bleak day for America. I can't change their grandstanding in DC today.

But I can fight back. I'm grabbling my precinct stuff and rolling with it. If Rove and Bush think that we're going to be whipped out here, I'll simply prove them wrong. Because for all these Republicans who think torture is necessary, all they have to do is look back at WWII and how Jews and dissenters where tortured then for opposing Hitler. All they have to do is look at our own independence from other countries and how people were tortured there so they moved here to make a better life free of torture at a King's whims.

So just screw it everyone! Pick yourself up and make calls to your neighbors, hold a sign outside your local church, "Who would Jesus torture now?", I don't really care what you do...just go out and make a statement in public that will bring 1/2 plus 1 voter to our side!

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 01:47 PM

Agreed, although it is oddly hypocritical framing considering coddle is a cousin of the compassionates.

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 01:47 PM

But the electorate isn't thinking beyond the "plot" of the next "reality TV" show.... They haven't gotten to Nov. 7 yet....

And Nov. 7 will pass with the same blankness that Suz experienced in the face of the store clerk.

They have NO idea yet what this bill means, the vagueness of it, how it puts our troops in danger of being tortured in the same way as The Evil One will approve torture, free of impunity or responsibility for his war crimes....

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 01:59 PM

Most have no idea what's happened since election night 2000... can anyone name a good day from a national perspective since the Prince of Darkness came to town?

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:03 PM

I met all of you.

Oh...but I bet that wasn't quite what you meant.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/28/legal_residents_rights_curbed_in_detainee_bill/

Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."

An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.

It is unclear who initiated the changes. The bill, which also sets up a new system of military trials for terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, passed the House yesterday and is expected to be voted on in the Senate today, before Congress breaks for midterm elections.

Human rights advocates yesterday lobbied against the bill.

``This would purport to allow the president, after some incident, to round up scores of people -- people who are lawfully here -- and hold them in military prisons with no access to the legal system, whatsoever, indefinitely," said Joe Onek , senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center, a Washington-based advocacy organization

Other last-minute additions to the bill include provisions that would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who gives material support to enemies of the United States and its allies, and would prevent detainees who have been released from US custody from suing the US government for torture or mistreatment.

But the part of the bill that worries advocates for immigrants most is the one stating that ``no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

``Habeas corpus" is the legal mechanism that gives people the right to ask federal courts to review their imprisonment.

In the original bill, the section banning ``habeas corpus" petitions applied only to detainees being held ``outside the United States," referring to the roughly 450 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. But in recent days, the phrase ``outside the United States" was removed.

The White House did not respond to questions asking why the restriction was extended to people in the United States.

But at a press conference after the changes were made, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley praised the bill as ``a legislative framework that allows us to capture, detain, and prosecute and bring to justice terrorists."

{Click on link for more.}

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:03 PM

For the people of the United States or the world... um... no, I can't think of a single good day since election night, and the worse day of the SCOTUS decision of 2000.... Seriously, I've been trying to think of a good day, and I just can't remember any.

However, the most fortunate day in the life of the Prince of Darkness was Sept. 11, 2001, as he is so fond of reminding us. For him, that was a good day....

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 02:26 PM

9:11 is Republican Standard Time (RST)

Mourning Has Broken

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate
Poll: Lieberman leads Lamont in Conn.
HAMDEN, Conn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.

Click on link for more....

{{{Anyone besides me think Lieberman's lead is an artificial lead promoted by neoCons supporting him? Lamont could decimate the lead if he comes out with ads saying that Lieberman voted against habeas corpus, and if Lieberman votes in favor of the entire bill, it could be fairly said that he is in favor of endangering our troops because he endorses torture, just as The Evil One does, and fairly label Lieberman as a DINO.... It depends on what the wording of the final bill will be, but it seems like it will be too vague, and it could be "interpreted" any old way The Evil One wishes. But it could work to Lamont's advantage. I hope he has good staff members that can spot these loopholes that will, I'm sure, be involved so that the war criminals can "interpret" it any old way they want to.}}}

Was Frank Zappa clairvoyant?

These lyrics are from a song that appeared on his 1967 album "Freak Out", as part of a 3-song suite entitled (drumroll, please): "Help, I'm A Rock" (ahem) ...

----------------

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times

But I'm telling you
It can't happen here
Oh darling, it's important that you believe me
That it can't happen here

Who could imagine
That they would freak out somewhere in Kansas
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in Minnesota
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in Washington, D.C.

But it can't happen here
Oh baby, it can't happen here
Oh baby, it can't happen here
It can't happen here
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here

--------------

it's been a long time comin' gonna be a long time gone,
Otter

Mourning Has Broken
Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 02:29 PM

Yes... it certainly has....

And need we remind you, Senator Warner, that The Prince of Darkness and his whole administration who have wrong-headedly and incorrectly "interpreted" our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and our Laws prohibiting war crimes need to ALSO be held accountable for THEIR war crimes and unconstitutional activities and LIES to Congress, the people of this nation, and the world (and lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, remember?)...?!?!?

WHY is it all the Republicans so conveniently FORGET the war crimes, and high crimes and misdemeanors of the entire Bu$hCo administration?!?!? WHY do NeoCons have such a terrible problem with amnesia when it comes to the spoiled frat brat's crimes, but have no problem whatsoever repeating the frat brat's LIES and brainwashing talking points?!? Reality disconnect?

Posted by: Otter at September 28, 2006 02:37 PM

I don't think I've heard that song... but the words are chilling....

Ye gods and little fishes, but we're going to have to get a transcript of today's proceedings and deconstruct what the morons have spoken today. I can't keep track of all of them in my head, even if I can think of retorts as they speak....

Olbermann: Threatening letter no joke
Keith Olbermann responds to the New York Post's report

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC

The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, The New York Post, may have just impeded an FBI investigation into terroristic threats.

I know this because I was a recipient.

The Bureau asked us not to report any of the details so that the person or persons responsible would not know any of the threats had been received by any of the targets -- and we of course complied.

I still cannot confirm many of the specifics -- again in order to make the jobs of the FBI and the New York Police Department a little easier. But I find it necessary to respond to the genuinely shocking tone with which Murdoch's paper reported the event, and the string of factual errors they made either through negligence or a premeditated disregard for the truth.

“Powder Puff Spooks Keith," reads the headline. The article then gives the details of the event which we were asked not to divulge.

"The caustic commentator panicked and franctically called 911."

There was no panic.

And if that needs to be independently verified, I'm happy to authorize release of the 911 call recording. In fact, from my own sense of the thing, I was confident there was no danger.

My first inclination was to wait until the start of the next work day to notify authorities. But the remote possibility that any delay might have endangered others, led me to reverse my decision.

"An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to..." then the paper helpfully reveals the location of the event, "but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup."

The results of part of the preliminary tests referred to did not come back for nearly six hours, and the other results did not come in for about 14 hours.

And I made no insistence on a checkup.

The officer in charge of the 18 or so police officers who responded, asked that I follow their protocol: a decontamination shower at the scene, the bagging and sealing of the clothes I was wearing at the time of the incident, and my transportation to an emergency room.

I mean, not to overdo this, but they had to melt my keys and my wallet.

"He asked to be taken to..." -- and forgive me for not mentioning the specific hospital -- "where doctors looked him over and sent him home."

In fact, I was there ten hours before they permitted me to leave, even after several forceful requests by me and my employers to the New York Department of Health, that I should be released.

Incidentally, I apologize if those were too forceful.

Apologize for the requests -- not the commentaries that obviously inspired the event I'm talking about, and the Post's mocking of police and FBI efforts, and its endorsement of terroristic threats from the Radical Right.

We will not be intimidated here.

"Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment."

What they gave me on the way out was not a lollipop, but a prescription for Cipro, the antibiotic most frequently used in the event of exposure to Anthrax.

And one of the reasons I offered no comment, was obvious: the authorities asked me not to.

Also, a New York Post reporter attempted to gain access to me by falsely identifying herself as a friend of mine.

And, most relevantly, the New York Post never called NBC News or MSNBC seeking any comment. They would have been told that the FBI had requested we try to keep this quiet.

But of course that would have interfered with the New York Post making fun of a terror threat.

It's almost melodramatic to ask why the New York Post would choose the side of domestic terrorism, rather than choose the side of the FBI.

It's interesting too that Murdoch's paper was able to get a jump on this story so quickly -- nearly as quickly, as if they'd known it was coming.

Lastly, it's remarkable that this was actually printed by any newspaper, even in the current political climate, even in the wake of my editorial stance here, even with Rupert Murdoch's international reputation.

A month ago when reporter Steve Centanni of Murdoch's Fox News was kidnapped in Gaza -- along with his camera-man -- that network reached out to the others, this one included.

They relayed that the authorities there had urged everyone to keep reporting of the kidnapping low-key, and to a minimum, because it was believed the kidnappers did not know they had gotten hold of some one 'recognizable.'

We -- and every other major news organization -- immediately and thoroughly cooperated with Murdoch's request.

Now, in a return case, Murdoch's newspaper did not even make the single phone call that could've told it the potential damage it was doing.

So, next time a Fox or a New York Post employee is in distress -- or the government is investigating something endangering them -- and Murdoch's people ask us to hold a story?

Of course we will do so.

On this end, we're still human beings.

And Americans.

And we'd never have any problem choosing whether to support the terrorist, or the FBI.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15036633/

Posted by: Suz at September 28, 2006 01:50 PM

Suz knows. I absolutely agree. I'm mad as hell now & I'm doing every damn thing I can to fight back & help my district candidate win this mid-term election.

Mark Kirk, my current rubber stamp rep, supports torture & has endangered our troops even more by voting yes on this bill. I'm actually thinking of making a poster & silently standing in our town square with words to that effect.

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 03:09 PM

One word answer: Money

WHOOSH!!! Wow, DimWit hasn't even gotten his official authority to be the dictator and arbiter of the laws and morals and ethics from the Senate yet, and already he's PUSHING for war with Iran.... Click on link for more....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_iran_1

House approves Iran Freedom Support Act

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities that provide goods or services for Iran's weapons programs. The vote came as U.S diplomats continued to press the U.N. Security Council to penalize Tehran if it fails to end its uranium enrichment program.

House sponsors of the Iran Freedom Support Act said they expected the Senate to act quickly on the measure, sending it to President Bush for his signature this week.

The bill, passed by a voice vote, sanctions any entity that contributes to Iran's ability to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The president has the authority to waive those sanctions, but only when he can show that it is in the vital national interest.

"It would be a critical mistake to allow a regime with a track record as bloody and as dangerous as Iran to obtain nuclear weapons," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., sponsor of the measure. "Enough with the carrots. It's time for the stick."

But critics questioned the need for unilateral action when the United States was pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged nuclear program. "It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive point," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. "The timing for this legislation could not be worse."

The measure codifies existing economic sanctions against the Tehran government that have been in effect since the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979 and states that the president must notify Congress 15 days before terminating any of those sanctions.

It also approves assistance for human rights, pro-democracy and independent organizations and states that it is the sense of Congress that the United States should not enter into agreements with governments that are assisting Iran's nuclear program or transferring weapons or missiles to Iran.

"If we fail to use the economic and diplomatic tools available to us, the world will face a nightmare that knows no end," said Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

But others warned that language in the bill supporting democratic change in Iran would only antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to U.S. regime change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, "to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them."

Whoops! Sorry for the double post. My screen wasn't moving and I should not have clicked on Post again. Moderator, please remove one of them?

You seeing double again NonnyO? What have you got in your coffee? ;)

IRC anyone...?

US Imposing Sanctions on Thailand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5390284.stm
Our friend from Thailand (& news reports) indicate that Thaksin (the one overthrown in a coup) was unpopular with the Thai people. "He's kind of like Bush," is how he was described.
Another example of our government wanting only systems they ordain helpful to their "interests."

Well, no coffee today... I thought I had double posted... urg....

Oh, phooey. I don't know why, but this is the first time I can't get to IRC. I get a 'connecting' message, then it says it timed out....

Am I doing something wrong?

Kucinich is right.

But others warned that language in the bill supporting democratic change in Iran would only antagonize people in Iran who might see parallels to U.S. regime change objectives in neighboring Iraq. It's time, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, "to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them."

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 03:32 PM

"Regime change" is a framing utility for trying to linguistically legitimize global dictatorship.

Re the torture legislation, if it can be used on "suspected terrorists" living in America, then we have confirmation of what the camps built by Halliburton in the US might be for, & more reason to question Patriot Act & national identity cards & checkpoints & passports with biometrics. Anyone who questions that we are evolving toward a police state hasn't taken a flight lately. Ostensibly, most anything can be done for our "protection" or "security."

What does ACLU have to say? Amnesty International?

CNN: New Woodward book, "State of Denial" likely to provide ammunition for Democrats in midterm elections.

According to book, the Bush Administration has intelligence that the situation is likely to worse in '07, but they refuse to release it.

Posted by: Cyrano at September 28, 2006 04:06 PM

I don't trust Woodward. He seems most interested in selling books. He has changed from a once idealistic investigatvie journalist trying to protect our country into a sycophant.

Wonder if there will be a new reality show about the ill-fated Iraqi Police Academy?!

On a slightly other topic (but they're all related, under the heading "inept management") - Ira was talking about the supposed economic upturn whereby the DOW was at 2000 levels. Big deal. That means that AT BEST the economy has averaged FLAT over 6-1/2 years! That is pathetic! Our stock holdings are minimal yet under Clinton there were days we made more with them than at work! We now have to work 11 years more than we anticipated at the rate things were going under Clinton. I took at least a 50 percent pay cut. It took our son almost 8 years to get through school. We wanted to travel & now the dollar is down so much that in Vegas and San Francisco (we had to travel domestically due to less money & less safety for Americans overseas) we kept meeting Europeans and Brits who were here because their currency would go so far. They were joking about it, as though they'd won the lottery!

Then looking at one of our papers today, there is a big cover story about COUPLES who have to move back in with parents of one spouse or the other so they can save up to possibly afford a house. Our 25 year old son has had to move back home so many times - one dwelling was changed to business use, one was torn down to make condos. Yet all of this will be touted as economic progress under Bush's two stolen terms.

Re Woodward - Wow - I just read something about that in the coffee shop. Maybe it was The Stranger. I'll dig a little.

This is almost exactly what I read:

Woodward: Bush Covering Up Iraq Violence

From CBS
"60 Minutes” will air an interview of Bob Woodward this Sunday.

In his new book, “State of Denial,” Bob Woodward reports that Iraqi insurgents attack our troops over 100 times per day—far more than what Bush has disclosed publicly. Also: Key intelligence predicts the situation will deteriorate in 2007 before getting better. ("60 Minutes” will air a Woodward interview this Sunday.)

Yes, we know Woodward frequently acts as a White House stenographer, but he also surfaces real game-changing news.

CBS:

Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

In Wallaces interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the rpeorter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush.

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060928_woodward_bush_violence/

Ostensibly, most anything can be done for our "protection" or "security."
Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 04:05 PM

Precisely.

THAT is why we should have been able to read this ENTIRE bill in its FINAL form BEFORE it was voted on, before anyone proposed any amendments (which are being voted against anyway).

All this RUSH, RUSH, RUSH, to get legislation through before it's even in it's final wording, and mostly at the end of any legislative session, is just a major royal pain in the arse.... and borderline unconstitutional, since it doesn't give any reps or senators time to deliberate or debate any of it. Shoddy government, at best. But DimWit gets by with it, session after session.... Byrd warned us....

Q: How many "terrorists" have been captured in the U.S?

A: Possibly 1

Knowing the answer to that question will explain why habeus corpus will be denied, torture encouraged, and a greater number of prisons built. America is now a police state and I wonder how many foreign tourists will be willing to travel here knowing that they could disappear? Not only that, lets start a betting pool predicitng Keith Obermann's last day on National T.V., Cindy Sheehan's last anti-war vigil, and Karen Bradley's last lecture.

John Kerry: Oppose Torture, Preserve America’s Moral Authority, Protect American Troops

“It leaves our moral authority in tatters if the president who seems to have been for torture before he was against it is given a blank check by a Congress that would rather duck the issue and dodge the debate.”

Senator John Kerry spoke today about national security at Johns Hopkins SAIS and addressed the failure of Congress to stand up to Administration’s policy on torture. Sen. Kerry opposes the so-called “compromise” in the Senate. Below are excerpts from Sen. Kerry’s remarks:

“We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn’t get it. Right now – today -- they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

“Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

“The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.

“It leaves our moral authority in tatters if the president who seems to have been for torture before he was against it is given a blank check by a Congress that would rather duck the issue and dodge the debate. It is time for the United States Senate to make clear what presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton knew for certain but this Administration prefers to muddy: on the issue of torture, there is no compromise. America will not weaken the values that make us strong.

“We need to restore America’s moral authority in the world, and we do that by leading according to our best values. That’s how we need to define America, and that’s how we need to define our foreign policy.”

Today it’s a offical we can longer say America Does Not Torture. Nor can we ever claim that our country is great because we have checks and balances in place to make sure no one man ever has all the power. No American is safe and I am not talking about from terrorists, I am talking about from this Administration given the Administration broad interpitation of other laws we can safly presume they will do the same here meaning that at some point in the future we will hear of American being detained in special camps because they are "Suspected Terrorists" I guess we all just trust that all the hyperpole about Ameircans who do not support this Administration being terrorists coddlers friends and supporters was just that a little politicing and we trust that they would never in a million use this law against us. I am sorry I do not have that kind of trust or faith in the man who would be king.

September 11,2001 accomplished so much more than the terrorists who attacked us ever thought it would. As we go around the world promoting American style democracies we are as I write this moving farther and farther away from the things we have always held dear. Other countries have struggled with terrorism far longer than we have and today we tell them to become democracies that it will help stop terrorism does anyone else not see the ironies in these statements. One attack 5 years ago changed the very fabric of our democracy yet we expect these people to have the courage to stand up to tyrants, to change their countries to be more like us. We have the nerve to tell them: we are better than them, smarter than them, and more right than them. When we as Americans have become cowards, children cowering in the dark, wanting someone anyone to protect us by whatever means that person deems necessary. Notice I say person not people not our government but a single person vested by his party to totally take control of what we the American people have the right to have a voice in. Over the last 5 years we have watched the coronation of a king today we watched in horror at they crowned him.

I cried today and I said something I have never thought I would say thank God my peace loving beautiful baby girl who believed so passionately in the Idea that is America that she argued, begged, badgered people to pay attention is not here on this earth to see this.

Today I cried not only for my children but for all our children because at the end of the day it is our children who will pay the ultimate price for the poor judgment shown by not only our President but our elected officials people charged with overseeing the Administrative branch people put forth by our constitution to make laws and have oversight of those laws and the biggest part of their job to make sure we uphold the constitution of this country they have failed us, they failed me, and you and even those who still believe they need to cower in the dark.

We can not promote democracy even as ours goes done the drain we can not claim we want to make someones life better while our own goes down the drain we can not and should ask people in other countries to take a chance at Democracy when our own fledgling democracy could not stand one great test.

They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Everytime this administration tramps on the constitution in the guise of keeping us safe I think about this quote. I guess he would know since he was one of our Founding Fathers, but maybe this is open to broad interpretation like all those other pesky laws and bills and agreements.

Newsweek interview with Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign ...

NEWSWEEK: There have been a lot of critiques from both sides on the war in Iraq. Some say critics are appeasing the terrorists. Others say dissent is part of a healthy democracy.

John Ensign: When you are at war, leaders have a heavy responsibility to be careful what they say. Back in the Civil War, Robert E. Lee used to read the Northern newspapers. He saw the discord in the North and that is the reason he drove to Gettysburg. These extremists around the world are looking at the division here in America. It is emboldening them. They think America is weak.

But polls show growing public dissatisfaction with how things are going in Iraq.
I think that has a lot to do with leadership. We need statesmen right now. We don't need politicians taking polls and have their governing based on polls. We need people who will have the courage to do what is right.

NEWSWEEK: You have visited Iraq on a number of occasions. What is going on in the country right now?

Ensign: Most of the country is pretty positive. Baghdad obviously is not a great place. There are major challenges to winning this whole war against Islamo-fascism [or] whatever you want to call it. Iraq is the central front in that war. Osama bin Laden said that.

NEWSWEEK: Do you think U.S. troops should be involved in civil strife within Iraq?

Ensign: This is not about civil strife in Iraq. This is about a war. This is a central front in the war against people of the radical Islamic faith. They have tried to hijack a great religion.

NEWSWEEK: But what about the fighting between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites?

Ensign: Some are trying to turn it into that. But it is much bigger than that. We cannot afford to allow the enemy to win in Iraq. The positive news is the Iraqi police force [and] the Iraqi defense force is getting better. The better they get, the sooner we should get out of there.

NEWSWEEK: What about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? A number of Democrats and Republicans have been calling for his ouster.

Ensign: It is not a number of Republicans. The president has full confidence in Rumsfeld. We are at war and it is time to not only be behind our troops but to be behind our commander in chief.

NEWSWEEK: You have billed yourself as a fiscal conservative. What has it been like for you to be in Congress while the deficit has ballooned along with governmental spending?

Ensign: That has been the biggest frustration since I've been here. I believe when you are at a time of war, when we had Katrina, we should have reprioritized our spending.

NEWSWEEK: Why do you think a GOP-controlled Congress and White House have had a difficult time controlling spending?

Ensign: The deficit would be under $100 billion dollars [this year] if it weren't for Katrina and the war.

moreon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046056/site/newsweek/page/2/

Kerry Opposes Senate's Failure on Torture Compromise

“If, in a few hours, we squander America’s moral authority, blur lines that have for decades been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, no promise can restore it.... Mr. President, I wish I could say this compromise serves Americas’ moral mission and protects our troops. But it doesn’t. No eloquence we can bring to this debate can change what this bill fails to do.”

Below is John Kerry’s full statement from the Senate floor today in opposition to the Senate “compromise” on torture:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. The last week before we leave for a long recess is always extraordinarily busy—particularly when an election is only 42 days away. Sadly, it’s too often part of how business is done in this institution.

Today, the leadership of the Senate has decided that legislation that will directly impact America’s moral authority in the world merits only a few hours of debate. I am talking about moral authority that is essential to waging and winning a war on terror, and that is critical to the safety of American troops who may be captured.

If, in a few hours, we squander that moral authority, blur lines that have for decades been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, no promise can restore it.

Four years ago, we were at a similar situation. An Iraq War Resolution was rushed through the Senate because of election year politics – a political calendar, not a statesman’s calendar. Four years later the price we are paying is clear for saying to a President and an administration that we would trust them. Four years later, there is enough blame to go around and each of us must assume our share of the responsibility.

But today we face a different choice – it is to prevent an irreversible mistake, not to correct one. It is to stand up and be counted so that election-year politics do not further compromise our moral authority and the safety of our troops.

Every Senator must ask him or herself, does the bill before us treat Americas’ moral authority as a national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence? Does it make clear that the United States government recognizes beyond any doubt that the protections of the Geneva Convention have to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops? Does it make clear that the United States does not engage in torture - -period?

Mr. President, a veteran of the Iraq War whom I know, Paul Rieckhoff, wrote something the other day that every Senator ought to think about as they wrestle with this bill.

He wrote that he was taught at Fort Benning, Georgia about the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He didn’t know what it meant until he arrived in Baghdad. Paul wrote,

“America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency. But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.”

We each need to ask ourselves, in the rush to find a “compromise” we can all embrace, are we strengthening Americas’ moral authority or eroding it? Are we on the sides of the thousands of Paul Rieckhoffs in uniform today, or are we making their mission harder and even worse, putting them in greater danger if they are captured?

Paul writes eloquently,

“If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves. The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.”

Mr. President, I wish I could say this compromise serves Americas’ moral mission and protects our troops. But it doesn’t. No eloquence we can bring to this debate can change what this bill fails to do.

We have been told in press reports that it is a great compromise between the White House and my good friends, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and Senator Graham. We have been told that it protects the “integrity and letter and sprit of the Geneva Conventions.”

I wish that what we are being told is true. It is not. Nothing in the language of the bill supports these claims. Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted.

We are supposed to believe that there is an effective check on this expanse of presidential power with the requirement that the President’s interpretations be published in the Federal Register.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Let’s assume the President publishes his interpretation of permissible acts under the Geneva Convention. The interpretation, like the language in this bill, is vague and inconclusive. A concerned Senator or Congresswoman calls for oversight. Unless he or she is in the majority at the time, there won’t be a hearing. Let’s assume they are in the majority and get a hearing. Do we really think a bill will get through both houses of Congress? A bill that directly contradicts a Presidential interpretation of a matter of nation security? My guess is that it won’t happen, but maybe it will. Assume it does. The bill has no effect until the President actually signs it. So, unless the President chooses to reverse himself, all the power remains in the President’s hands. And all the while, Americas’ moral authority is in tatters. American troops are in greater jeopardy. And the war on terror is setback.

Could the President’s power grab be controlled by the courts? After all, it was the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan that invalidated the President’s last attempt to consolidate power and establish his own military tribunal system. The problem now is that the bill strips the courts the power to hear such a case when says “no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions . . . in any habeas or civil action.”

What are we left with? Unfettered presidential power to interpret what—other than the statutorily proscribed “grave violations”—violates the Geneva Conventions. No wonder the President was so confident that his CIA program could continue as is. He gets to keep setting the rules – rules his Administration has spent years now trying to blur.

Presidential discretion is not the only problem. The definitions of what constitute “grave breaches” of Article 3 are murky. Even worse, they are not consistent with either the Detainee Treatment Act or the recently-revised Army Field Manuel. These documents prohibit “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” defined as “the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments.” The definition is supported by an extensive body of case law evaluating what treatment is required by our constitutional standards of “dignity, civilization, humanity, decency, and fundamental fairness.” And, I think quite tellingly, it is substantially similar the definition that my good friend, Senator McCain, chose to include in his bill. And there is simply no reason why the standard adopted by the Army Field Manual and the Detainee Treatment Act, which this Congress has already approved, should not apply for all interrogations in all circumstances.

In the bill before us, however, there is no reference to any constitutional standards. The prohibition of degrading conduct has been dropped. And, there are caveats allowing pain and suffering “incidental to lawful sanctions.” Nowhere does it tell us what “lawful sanctions” are.

So, what are we voting for with this bill? We’re voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We’re voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some un-defined lawful sanctions. The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President.

The word of the President. I wish I could say the words of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy sent his Secretary of State abroad on a crisis mission – to prove to our allies that Soviet missiles were being held in Cuba. The Secretary of State brought photos of the missiles. As he prepared to take them from his briefcase, our ally, a foreign head of state said, simply, “put them away. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

We each wish we lived in times like those. Perilous times, but times when Americas’ moral authority, our credibility, were unquestioned. Unchallenged.

But the word of the President today is questioned. This Administration said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, that they would exhaust diplomacy before we went to war, that the insurgency was in its last throes. None of these statements were true, and now we find our troops in the crossfire of civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. They keep saying the war in Iraq is making us safer, but our own intelligence agencies say it’s actually fanning the flames of jihad, creating a whole new generation of terrorists and putting our country at greater risk of terrorist attack. It is no wonder then that we are hesitant to blindly accept the word of the President on this question today.

The President said he agreed with Senator McCain’s anti-torture provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act. Yet, he issued a signing statement reserving the right to ignore them. He says flatly that “The United States does not torture” – and then tries to bully Congress into allowing him to do exactly that. And even here, he has promised to submit his interpretations of the Geneva Convention to the Federal Register -- yet his Press Secretary announced that the Administration may not need to comply with that requirement.

We have seen the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, the Senate can not just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given the way in which everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror. When the President says the United States doesn’t torture, there has to be no doubt about it. And when his words are unclear, Congress must step in to hold him to hold him accountable.

Mr. President, the Administration will use fear to try and bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them.

Just as they pretended Iraq is the central front in the war on terror even as their intelligence agencies told them their policy made terrorism worse, they will pretend America needs to squander its moral authority to win the war on terror.

They are wrong. Profoundly wrong. The President’s experts have told him that not only does torture put our troops at risk and undermine our moral authority but torture does not work. As Lieutenant General John Kimmons, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, put it:

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. We can’t afford to go there.”

Neither justice nor good intelligence comes at the hands of torture. In fact, both depend on the rule of law. It would be wrong – tragically wrong – to authorize the President to require our sons and daughters to use torture for something that won’t even work.

Another significant problem with this bill is the unconstitutional elimination of the writ of habeas corpus. No less a conservative than Ken Starr got it right: “Congress should act cautiously to strike a balance between the need to detain enemy combatants during the present conflict and the need to honor the historic privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.” Ken Starr says “Congress should act cautiously.” How cautiously are we acting when we eliminate any right to challenge an enemy combatant’s indefinite detention? When we eliminate habeas corpus rights for aliens detained inside or outside the United States so long as the government believes they are enemy combatants? When we not only do this for future cases but apply it to hundreds of cases currently making their way through our court system?

The Constitution is very specific when it comes to Habeas Corpus. It says “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” We are not in a case of rebellion. Nor are we being invaded. Thus, we really don’t have the constitutional power to suspend the Great Writ. And, even if we did, the Constitution allows only for the writ to be suspended. It does not allow the Writ to be permanently taken away. Yet, this is exactly what the bill does. It takes the writ away—forever—from anyone the Administration determines is an “enemy combatant.” Even if they are lawfully on US soil and otherwise entitled to full Constitutional protections and even if they have absolutely no other recourse.

Think of what this means. This bill is giving the administration the power to pick up any non-U.S. citizen inside or outside of the United States, determine in their sole and unreviewable discretion that he is an unlawful combatant, and hold him in jail—be it Guantanamo Bay or a secret CIA prison—indefinitely. Once the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines that person is an enemy combatant, that is the end of the story—even if the determination is based on evidence that even a military commission would not be allowed to consider because it is so unreliable. That person would never get the chance to challenge his detention; to prove that he is not, in fact, an enemy combatant.

We are not talking about whether detainees can file a habeas suit because they don’t have access to the internet or cable television. We’re talking about something much more fundamental: whether people can be locked up forever without even getting the chance to prove that the government was wrong in detaining them. Allow this to become the policy of the United States and just imagine the difficulty our law enforcement and our government will have arranging the release of an American citizen the next time our citizens are detained in other countries.

Mr. President, we all want to stop terrorist attacks. We all want to effectively gather as much intelligence as humanly possible. We all want to bring those who do attack us to justice. But, we weaken – not strengthen – our ability to do that when we undermine our own Constitution; when we throw away our system of checks and balances; when we hold detainees indefinitely without trial by destroying the Writ of Habeas Corpus; and when we permit torture. We endanger our moral authority at our great peril. I oppose this legislation because it will make us less safe and less secure. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

Newsweek interview w/Republican Sen. John Ensign ...

NEWSWEEK: There have been a lot of critiques from both sides on the war in Iraq. Some say critics are appeasing the terrorists. Others say dissent is part of a healthy democracy.

John Ensign: When you are at war, leaders have a heavy responsibility to be careful what they say. Back in the Civil War, Robert E. Lee used to read the Northern newspapers. He saw the discord in the North and that is the reason he drove to Gettysburg. These extremists around the world are looking at the division here in America. It is emboldening them. They think America is weak.

Q: But polls show growing public dissatisfaction with how things are going in Iraq.

A: I think that has a lot to do with leadership. We need statesmen right now. We don't need politicians taking polls and have their governing based on polls. We need people who will have the courage to do what is right.

Q: You have visited Iraq on a number of occasions. What is going on in the country right now?

A: Most of the country is pretty positive. Baghdad obviously is not a great place. There are major challenges to winning this whole war against Islamo-fascism [or] whatever you want to call it. Iraq is the central front in that war. Osama bin Laden said that.

Q: Do you think U.S. troops should be involved in civil strife within Iraq?

A: This is not about civil strife in Iraq. This is about a war. This is a central front in the war against people of the radical Islamic faith. They have tried to hijack a great religion.

Q: But what about the fighting between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites?

A: Some are trying to turn it into that. But it is much bigger than that. We cannot afford to allow the enemy to win in Iraq. The positive news is the Iraqi police force [and] the Iraqi defense force is getting better. The better they get, the sooner we should get out of there.

Q: What about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? A number of Democrats and Republicans have been calling for his ouster.

A: It is not a number of Republicans. The president has full confidence in Rumsfeld. We are at war and it is time to not only be behind our troops but to be behind our commander in chief.

Q: You have billed yourself as a fiscal conservative. What has it been like for you to be in Congress while the deficit has ballooned along with governmental spending?

A: That has been the biggest frustration since I've been here. I believe when you are at a time of war, when we had Katrina, we should have reprioritized our spending.

Q: Why do you think a GOP-controlled Congress and White House have had a difficult time controlling spending?

A: The deficit would be under $100 billion dollars [this year] if it weren't for Katrina and the war.

moreon...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046056/site/newsweek/

One of Wolf Blitzer's sources at Simon & Schuster has told him that this book has information that is "election altering".

There is a God.

More on Woodward:

A new Bob Woodward book says President Bush has deceived the public on the level of violence in Iraq and that Henry Kissinger is an important adviser to Bush on the war.

Log on to http://www.cbsnews.com for details.

Posted by: April at September 28, 2006 04:22 PM

I also am "glad" my parents (whose birthdays would have been Tue. and Wed. this week, were they alive) are dead so that they can't see the dissolution of the United States of America as they knew it.... Both were staunch Dems, and even though the funeral for one of my mom's brothers was on election day in 1964, my folks stopped off to vote before we headed out of town to her brother's funeral. They took their voting seriously.

I've been thinking of them both all day, hoping I wasn't defaming their memories in being glad they couldn't see the US hit this horrible low point today. Both of them had hearts as tough as melted butter when it comes to kids, and they would have been horrified over the national debt to be passed on to the future generations, over their youngest grandson with the guards in Afghanistan where he does not belong because he is the father of two young sons who won't remember him when he gets back. I honor my parents' memories, but I'm glad they can't be here for this. It would have broken their hearts.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.

At a GOP fundraiser, Bush accused Democrats of using a new intelligence estimate that ties the war in Iraq to rising extremism to win votes in November.

The National Intelligence Estimate -- compiled by leading analysts across 16 U.S. spy agencies -- concluded that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. If the trend continues, the analysts found, risks to U.S. interests at home and abroad will rise.

The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation, Bush said.

With 40 days left before the Nov. 7 elections, Bush is pushing back against Democrats who point to setbacks in Iraq, a resurgence of violence in Afghanistan -- and now the new report -- as evidence that the nation needs a change in political leadership.

The stakes in the war -- and the election -- are high, Bush said.

"Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing," Bush said. He said the Democratic Party -- the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman -- has become the "party of cut-and-run."

If Democrats really believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has made America less safe, then they should make that case to the American people, Bush said.

"Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat," Bush said, adding that had he not been removed from power, the former Iraqi leader would still be killing innocent people, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and firing at U.S. pilots.

"Americans, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam is not in power."

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/bush.ap/index.html

... and Republicans, the party of Lincoln, are nothing but a bunch of F***UPS!!!

Republican are no longer the Party Of Lincoln had Lincoln been around today he would be a Democrat for sure, because todays republican would have argued for peoples rights to own slaves it would have impeeded their ability to make money and hurt the economy to make them give up slaves.

BRB gonna hold my nose and turn on SoftBall with Chris Matthews

"Americans, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam is not in power."
Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 04:47 PM

After what's happening today in the Senate & House, I see no difference between the morality & humane ideals of Iraq under Saddam Hussein than those same moral values/ideals in the US under Bush.

I thought I was pissed by the Senate bullcrap, these comments by the Idiot Supreme re: 'cut & run obstructionist' has my blood boiling over.

Hey Dumnuts, your lameass party controls all branches of the federal govt, in case you hadn't noticed. The only obstruction going on is of the facts and truth, by YOUR bootlickers.

To the STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID people who have ALLOWED this country to be sunk under the weight of a collosal baffoon who couldn't drink his way out of a paper bag, I say...

YOU SUCK!

Saddam Hussein would have been the U.S.'s best hedge against an emerging Iranian hegemony - a hegemony that would have been unthinkable had not Bush facilitated an unprecedented alliance between the Persians of Iran and the Arabs of Iraq.

Bush is utterly clueless about the negative impact that he's had on the geopolitical equation.

Softball headlines news Allen a racist wow, I guess thats more important than anything else today.

I guess at least they are talking about a Republican wrong doing. But its not the biggest issue of the day :(

Gee, when Saddam was in power, I dont recall a terrorist haven in Iraq, or seeing 100's of dead tortured Iraqi's showing up in the streets on a daily basis, or a global jihad based in Iraq.

I haven't heard Saddam brought up in months, suddenly, he's the threat again.

F YOU W

Monkey

He has to bring him up, Clinton forced the issue quite by accident I am sure. Iraq is losing him poll numbers and support after all the hard work Bush has done in the past month trying to focus primarily on terrorism, he got yanked back hard to Iraq by peoples not supporting it and as long as he is focusing on Iraq and Saddam no one will (In the MSM that is) will push real hard about the Clinton statements not that they would have anyway

Anyone wanna place dibs on how long it will be (God forbid) before we see an American soldier or citizen on TV being treated in the manner in which we have officially told the world how to treat others?

Then what?

Anyone wanna place dibs on how long it will be (God forbid) before we see an American soldier or citizen on TV being treated in the manner in which we have officially told the world how to treat others?

Then what? How will this hysterical nation react?

We condem that organization or nation tell them how wrong they are threaten to retaliate oh wait that would be what they will be doing Duh

Sorry for the echo... I'm twice as P.O.ed as I thought.

HOW can ANY specific acts be forbidden or allowed under Common Article 3...??? How much more clearly can it be stated that ALL forms of torture of any kind whatsoever, anywhere, at any time is strictly prohibited...? WHAT needs clarification?

Common Article 3 is a short read, written in concise elementary English.... WHAT is not to understand???

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part I : General provisions

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.

Geneva Rules & the War on Terror:

Q/A r/t Geneva Convention before it was "altered" for "clarity" - can see where things were headed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4879942.stm

Posted by: madame defarge at September 28, 2006 03:24 PM

You do it the weekend of the 28th and I'll join you. (I'll be in your neck of the woods that weekend.)

The bill gives the president license to undermine enforcement of the most basic human rights protections in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, it would strip the courts of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. As a result, the president would have new authority to decide much of the scope of authorized conduct and the severity of any punishment, giving him unparalleled power to unilaterally determine whether the federal government can carry out cruelty and abuse.

Also, the bill undermines America’s commitment to due process by allowing convictions on the basis of evidence that was literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either the federal government or other countries. Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for many of these acts, providing a "get out of jail free" card that is backdated nine years. Further, the bill fails to commit the government to consider violations of the McCain anti-torture amendment criminal acts under the War Crimes Act.

A recent addition to the bill expands who can be designated a so-called "enemy combatant." Anyone the president designates an enemy combatant could be arrested and detained without charge indefinitely and without access to the courts.

http://www.aclu.org

Among other things, the legislation would:

Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", broadly defined, in trials that would provide foreign nationals with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

Permit unfair trial procedures, such as the use of coerced evidence in military commission trials.

Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences.

Endorse executive power to determine who is or is not an "enemy combatant", and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.

Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.

Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.

Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under international law. The President would be given the power to interpret "the meaning and application" of the Geneva Conventions.

Endorse the administration's "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

http://www.amnesty.org

From Hardball: 61% of Iraqis polled root for people who kill Americans.

President of Finland criticizes proposed US terror legislation:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/President+Halonen+criticises+proposed+US+terror+legislation/1135221900572

UN Slams Bush Terror Law
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=156475&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29186

This is what the Admin wants to keep, acc/radical right http://www.newsmax.com:
(1) induced hypothermia; (2) long periods of forced standing; (3) sleep deprivation; (4) the "attention grab" (the forceful seizing of a suspect's shirt); (5) the "attention slap"; (6) the "belly slap"; and (7) sound and light manipulation.

Ted Kennedy:

The war in Iraq is fueling Islamic radicalism and terrorism around the world, and this week we learned that all sixteen agencies in the U.S. intelligence community agree on this critical point.
(snip)

For three years, the Bush administration has repeatedly told the American people that the war in Iraq makes America safer. In fact, on the recent anniversary of 9/11, the President declared that "the world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

Now we have clear evidence -- the unanimous opinion of every agency in the U.S. intelligence community -- that this simply isn't true. Earlier this week, we learned that a National Intelligence Estimate in April makes the case, in no uncertain terms, that the war in Iraq has increased the global threat of terror, and that the "Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists."

We can't trust the White House to tell the truth about this report. They've only grudgingly released selected segments. It's up to each of us to sound the alarm about the damage that the President's folly has done to our national security.

The National Intelligence Estimate provides clear evidence to make our case, and we've put together a fact sheet that compares its analysis with the rhetoric of the White House. Use it to make sure everyone you know learns about this breathtaking and sobering report, particularly undecided voters or Republican voters:

There's never been a more important time to raise awareness about our weakened national security. We have just 40 days left before the election.

Yesterday, I sent a rallying call to every supporter of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and our campaign has given them an additional $1,000,000 to get our message out and help with get-out-the-vote efforts to elect a Democratic majority in the Senate on November 7th.

We need to make sure that every American understands the true impact of this tragic and misguided war, and the National Intelligence Estimate provides an opportunity to do just that.

According to the Estimate, U.S. intelligence concluded in April that the war in Iraq is a recruitment tool for a new generation of extremists. The White House, in its defense, insisted that "the characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document."

So, under public pressure for the truth, the President agreed on Tuesday to release the classified report -- but not the entire document. You can read the public portion of the report, review news articles on the entire document, and spread the word here:

Last week, I talked to you about the promise of the Internet for our democracy. This is exactly the time to seize that potential and spread the word far and wide.

President Bush needs to come clean with all Americans and honestly address the weakened position his Iraqi debacle has left our nation in. Above all, we need a Democratic Congress that will hold him accountable for his misguided policy.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/28/a_must_read

From Hardball: 61% of Iraqis polled root for people who kill Americans.

Posted by: Cyrano at September 28, 2006 05:41 PM

That sounds like a slanted way of telling it - on Hardball.
I read that there was support for opposing the Americans unless they would agree to get out within a year. Why are we there?!

It's like when my father-in-law was practically on his death bed & he happened to find out that the President of South Vietnam HAD NEVER ASKED FOR OUR HELP. The people of Iraq did not to my knowledge ask for our help in getting rid of Saddam, nor was it our duty to do so. There are plenty of dictators that we ignore or prop up, democratically popular leaders that we deplore or impose sanctions against.

Sounds like Iraq has both a civil war or inter-tribal war, is fighting what they see as an Occupation, and then there are those who are pissed because the infrastructure is still lacking (schools, utilities, safe roads etc) along with oil profits, and then on top of that there is general Jihad with insurgents entering from outside who were not there appreciably before.

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 05:32 PM

But the people at Gitmo are NOT, strictly speaking, military prisoners of war.

Under the Geneva Conventions, following precedent laid down in the Nuremberg trials, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime. That makes the Iraq war illegal.

Any prisoners taken are civilians, whether they've committed crimes or are innocent. What about the habeas corpus rights of civilians? They need to have charges brought against them, or they need to be deported to their home countries.

That's what puts them in a legal black hole, as I understand it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/
US Constitution & all of the Amendments
Article I, Section 8 (supervision of military and war powers granted to Congress, NOT the president - the AUMF granted to Bush was only to go after OBL, NOT authorization to order the invasion of, or start a war in Iraq, a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11); Article I, Section 9 (habeas corpus); Article III, Section 2 (public trials); Article VI (treaties); and don't forget to check out the several sections that mention impeachment.
Under The Bill of Rights/Amendments: check out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendments which would all be affected by the TORTURE BILL.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/deceng.htm
Declaration of Independence
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html
US Code: War Crimes Title 18, Part I, Chapter 118: 2441
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. (It's written in elementary English. There is nothing whatsoever in this document that needs "clarification.")
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
Third Geneva Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
Fourth Geneva Convention
[Invading another country for no reason whatsoever, is a war of aggression, and it was determined at the Judgment of Nuremberg that it is a war crime. The Geneva Conventions incorporated that into their text, and wars of aggression are illegal and war crimes. The Geneva Conventions are a direct result of the Nuremberg Judgment.]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judcont.htm
Nuremberg Judgment

Links to Kerry's speech at Johns Hopkins today. . .Audio has both speech, and Q and A. A bright if poignant counterpoint to the rest of this awful day.

general site:
http://www.sais-jhu.edu

audio:
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/media/sept06/kerry092806.mp3

GO PATRICK LEAHY!!!!!!

NonnyO
Well Hamdan v Rumsfeld could expose the Admin to prosecution, right? Military tribunals are not supposed to try suspects according to military law or the Geneva Convention.
If Common Article 3 applies to Al Quaeda then the Admin could be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act, right?

If the Geneva Conventions was intended to protect noncombattants in times of armed conflict - the admin holds that this only applies to conflicts between states, not "the global war on terror." Al Quaida is not a state. That is their logic. They call it a war, yet conventions handling war don't apply. That constitutes limbo, and it's a "cover" for bizarre tactics and holding even citizens indefinitely without counsel charge or trial.
They also interpret the law as not applying to them when they use torture that would be illegal by law. They saw US law is trumped by law of war but that they aren't covered by law of war either because they say Geneva Conventions don't apply to stateless Al Quaeda. The admin has already ignored the McCain Amendment of 2005, whereby cruel & degrading treatment was prohibited (but there were no penalties). So of course now the Admin wants a green light from Congress. They want tribunals or modification of the law (ability to ignore Common Article 3).
If they can't do this, they have committed war crimes punishable even by death penalty. What federal judge under Gonzalez would initiate this? (He called the Geneva Convention "quaint").

The Admin doesn't have a good case, but they've amassed alot of power (also illegally). Doesn't this remind you of how we went to war? It was so transparent (speaking of "Clarity") the intentions of the Admin. They "rushed to war" and they're "rushing" through legislation to get off the hook. All of the Republicans who went along with this are complicit.

GO CARL LEVIN!!!!!

I'm disgusted...
Have we not learned anything since BushCo rammed the Iraq War down our throats exactly the same wa-- by betting that the Dems wouldn't stand up to the outrage right before an election-- exactly the same MO.
I feel sick... We have no representation. Who can we vote for?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Senate today rejected an amendment to a bill creating a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects that would have guaranteed such suspects access to the courts to challenge their imprisonment.

The vote was 51 to 48 against the amendment, which was offered by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont. The action set the stage for final passage of the bill, which was approved on Wednesday by the House of Representatives.

The bill’s ultimate passage was assured on Wednesday when Democrats agreed to forgo a filibuster in return for consideration of the amendment. Any changes in the Senate bill, however, would have made it impossible for Republican leaders to meet their goal of sending the bill to the White House before adjourning on Friday to hit the campaign trail.

Senate Nears Final Vote on Detainee Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html

re Rove et al-- they will use this vote as an example of Dems talomg no stands & having no backbones. Unfortunately, even with public disgust at Bush this party shows no evidence of standing up for what is right.

Posted by: DiAnne at September 28, 2006 06:15 PM

Yes, al Qaida is "technically" a gang of thugs. On an international level, not a city or county level, but they are NOT an organized army representing a country. They are civilian criminals, for all practical purposes because they do NOT represent any country, nor are they an organized army representing any country. Criminals who commit horrible crimes, murder, yes; but still civilian criminals.

The 'most important' part of this bill that DimWit wants passed is retroactive immunity for being charged with war crimes for him and his administration. That they've already committed war crimes via the illegal war AND the torture they've already sanctioned at Gitmo and through renditions is a given. And that makes them liable for war crimes... and impeachment.

That's their fear....

Reid is correct.

The whole bill is unconstitutional and illegal.

If the Repugs modified the bill from the agreed compromise, why are the Dems sticking to the agreement not to filibuster?

Posted by: aimzzz at September 28, 2006 06:32 PM

The $64 Trillion Dollar Question.... WHY?

The so-called representative for my state(Frist) blames the Supreme Court for stopping the prosecution of terrorists...

Is that actually Chinkster?

There should be some way to though out all current representives, and start over :( I am about tired of them all. actually I am way past tired of them all.

Posted by: aimzzz at September 28, 2006 06:36 PM

Frist's brain is fried. I often wonder what drugs he's taking that he can say some of the things that are so insane.....

There should be some way to throw out all current representives, and start over :( I am about tired of them all. actually I am way past tired of them all.

WHY did McCain vote aye????????

Bryon Dorgan fighting the good fight on fair trade on the Newshour.

Oh, calm down, monkey. It's really not that big of a deal.

::ducking and running::

as opposed to cutting and running,
Otter

I had hope up till the last minute now hope is gone. What freeken Democrats besides Leiberman voted for this thing there were quite a few waiting for the data to come out :(

Well Bush has just been obsolved of any quilt or punishment for violating the Geneva Convention :(

All of the senators and representatives who voted for that piece of toilet paper that allows torture, strips away habeas corpus, and retroactively exempts war criminals from being charged with their crimes are

T R A I T O R S

to what was The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, US law....

I am going to hug my child and pray that none of this comes back to bite our brave men and woman in uniform. But it will the chickens always come home to roost.

This is all just so sickening. As I read your comments my heart breaks for what we've lost, and my anger at those blind sheeple who made this possible is renewed.

Crooks and Liars has Jack Cafferty telling it like it is:

BushCo. committed war crimes and this is their way of pardoning themselves.

Watch it here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/28/cafferty-what-are-we-becoming/

What has happened to our country? Do people not care? Does anybody think this bill makes anyone safer? :(

Posted by: April at September 28, 2006 07:19 PM

Yes, but will the chicken come home to roost over there so it won't have to roost over here?

Bok n' Forth

Is there any hope at the Supreme Court, or are they satisfied now that Congress OK'd it?

Updated: 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush’s plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president’s desk by week’s end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/

Death of a dream...

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 07:33 PM
"Death of a dream..."

The American Dream

Just in case anyone wants to give the traitors a piece of their minds, here's the list of democratic traitors:

Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)

thanks, DU

Rockefeller (W. Va.) ????

My country 'tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty
Of thee I sing

song sung blue,
Otter

Democrats saying Aye:
Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

Gutless Connecticut for Liebermans saying Aye:
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

United Scumbags of America

Paula Zahn just reported that Jack Abramoff had 450 meetings with top White House officials including Karl Rove and RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.
Their response: No big deal.

(1) America is unsafe because they hate us.

(2) They hate us for our freedoms.

(3) Therefore America is safer tonight than it was yesterday.

ipso facto whacko,
Otter

Rumsfeld: No one anticipated insurgency's strength

(CNN) -- Donald Rumsfeld's Iraqi war plan worked beautifully for three weeks. U.S. troops quickly deposed Saddam Hussein and captured Baghdad with a relatively small force and with lightning speed.

But with Iraq on the verge of civil war three years later, the secretary of defense now admits that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended.

"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN for the documentary, "CNN Presents Rumsfeld -- Man of War," which debuts Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.

moreon...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/rumsfeld.profile/index.html

Yeah, and screw you too, ya lyin' sack of crap. What you mean is you never thought it would be become the terrorist haven that it is today.

Rot in hell.

Lott On Iraq: ‘Why Do Sunnis Kill Shiites? … They All Look The Same To Me’

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), who famously suggested the U.S. wouldn’t have “all these problems” had Strom Thurmond been elected President, said today that the religious differences among Iraqis makes the conflict very difficult for him to understand:

“It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people,” he said. “Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israeli’s and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.“

Speaking shortly after a meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Lott added that Iraq wasn’t among the White House’s priorities.

“No, none of that,” Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. “You’re [the media] the only ones who obsess on that. We don’t and the real people out in the real world don’t for the most part.“

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/lott-iraq/

ANOTHER SCUMBAG BANGING MISS LIBERTY FROM BEHIND

Hi ALL!!
Just ret'd from Austin Tx where our daughter was married this past weekend.
Sheesh,trying to catch up with all these great posts is a full time job.
We met up with an wonderful woman attorney, activist that worked for Ann Richards and she marched me across the street from the wedding ceremony to vs. her grave site. What a solemn place for Ann to rest and the many accolades to Ann in Austin were a reminder to me of why we do this. We need to keep on plugging as a tribute to Ann if for NO other reason,however,there are many reasons to do so.
This woman's husband is a NAT'l GEO photographer and has gone all over the world to do stories on war torn areas and as a couple they have been to Iraq three times in the past two years. We were so blessed to have had the wedding on their turf and have established a life long friendship over political skull and bones! They work endlessly and tirelessly for many causes protecting our rights and those of the oppressed,hungry and ill and vets for peace,women and children too.
On the plane ride over I finished Joe Kline's book POLITICS LOST. Kline had an excerpt about voters NOT caring about issues (from some 70's polling review)but they do care about who can fight the best and then the best candidate wins. Kline contends this is still true and the reason we lost the last go around in 04'. Clinton has now grown a spine for the dems and the fight has only begun. I felt hopefull ...until... I read(on the way back)John Dean's book CONSERVATIVES W/O CONSCIENCE. After reading that one I proceded to puke in the plane's jon as we don't have a chance unless we fight to the death. This is a MUST read as we think this cycle we will do well...think again!! Dean lays it out as to how authoritarian leaders have authoritarian followers,( evil NOT excluded)what they're about and how to beat them at their own game. From what I read and surmised we're STILL behind the 8'ball and need to muster ALL the courage we can get and then some. When you read how Dean has laid out how "THEY" think,then ACT you will get motivated. Some of these issues re terror and culture of death won't be of much surprise,but there's "STUFF" in there I thought NO human cabable of doing.
McCain's on the wrong side this time and ALWAYS on both sides of the fence. It's called CYA (cover your ass). Keeep in mind the republican party of today abuses power in any way ,shape or form....and it's not going away any time soon,McCain included.

To whoever it was that asked about the Supremes they could say this is still unconstitutional however given the majority on the court now I am thinking it wont happen. They could do what our constitution mandates they do, but will they? They are not on the court to serve at the pleasure of the President or any political party but to serve the intent of our founding fathers. If you look through history and for once we are actually at an actual Historic moment if anyone knows what that is anymore, when pushed with an actual constitutional moment the supremes usually pull the mantle of the constitution around them and even if they personally or politically disagree they do the right thing. We will see if that is the bred we have in there now.

I am so disgusted at this crap, I told my husband I wasnt going to vote so the idiot handed me a pair of sizzors and said hun will you cut my hair my little looked at him like he was nuts to put a sharp object in my hand lol. But he was right I needed to chop on somthing and breath, while I was cutting he said you will vote you do not know how not to. But the question in does it really matter? From where I am sitting tonight it doesnt look like it does. Again I ask what the hell are we leaving our children.

irc anyone?

Breaking news flash from ONN (the Otterworld News Network):

PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES NEW "BORDEN DOCTRINE"

Vice-President Promises To Give All terrorists, Suspected Terrorists, And People Who Look Like They Might Become Terrorists Someday "Forty Whacks And A Cell"

Craven Congress Cops Out, Concedes, Colludes in Crazy Capitol Punishment Caper

First Lady To Sing New National Anthem Before All Baseball Games, NASCAR Races, And White House Prayer Breakfasts:

Crack that whip
Give the past the slip
Step on a crack
Break your momma's back
When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it

Now whip it
Into shape
Shape it up
Get straight
Go forward
Move ahead
Try to detect it
It's not too late
To whip it
Into shape

Shape it up
Get straight
Go forward
Move ahead
Try to detect it
Its not too late
To whip it
Whip it good

are they not men? they are repo's,
Otter

I have just sent off the below letter to a new Dem candidate who is running to fill Dayton's seat (he voted against that garbage today, and for the amendments). Amy Klobuchar is way ahead of that worm Mark Kennedy who is running some of the same kind of Turd-Blossom Swiftboating Slime-Ball ads that he ran against a rep candidate two years ago (yikes, does he twist words in a debate!). Klobuchar is a prosecuting attorney and has a good head on her shoulders, so she will make a good senator... BUT, I will not vote for her or any other Dem candidate on a national level if they support that stupid torture bill.

So... this is what I sent her. Now I have to go finish crying for our country, as she was...

Lady Liberty must be crying tears of blood....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Ms. Klobuchar -

I just want to know one thing before I cast my vote for you on Nov. 7: Will you initiate or support a bill to repeal S 3930 The Military Commissions Act of 2006... aka the Torture Bill to progressive bloggers...?

Today is one of the saddest days of my life. The bill that passed not only approved of torture, it stripped away habeas corpus, and retroactively granted immunity for the people who authorized torture and the people who have actually done torture (I've been listening to C-SPAN all day). It just passed the Senate a short while ago by a 65-34 margin. Everything about the bill is illegal, according to the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and US law.

It makes George W. Bush the final arbiter of what laws he wants to uphold and what laws he wants to break, and the person who defines the morals and values of The United States of America. Bush has been acting like a de facto dictator for five long years, the Rubber Stamp Congress has granted him everything he's asked for, no matter how ridiculous, and this bill just handed him the "unitary executive" dictatorship he's been after. I feel positively sick to my stomach, literally.

If you would not support repealing S 3930, the Torture Bill, I will not be voting for you. A simple yes or no answer to my question will suffice. I will never vote Republican, but I would vote for the Independent candidate if he does not condone torture.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Stealing another page from the world of science fiction, a triumphant Bush Administration announced today that its torturers will hereafter be called pain technicians.

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 08:19 PM

Ah yes, another "no one could have anticipated" moment from this regime...

Damn, I'm sick of this crap.

In a related story, Tony Snow categorically denied that Dick Cheney and President Bush had been fitted with mind-control implants by the ancient race known as "The Shadows".

PattiF
Very interesting adventure & post. Yes, I think John Dean is right and authoritarian leaders have authoritarian followers - they never dare question authority & it is the "stern father" framing, not the "nurturer." That's why they can condone torture yet say we "coddle terrorists."

Otter
Are they not men .. they are repos LOL
"Whip It" shall indeed be the new national anthem.

Monkey
I am reading bottom to top - this blows my mind
"Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.“ Trent Lott
Now if he meant it in a truly compassionate universal way but we know he doesn't - he means they all look foreign ("them").

OnCall
I read too fast and thought you'd written "How many torturers does it take to change a light bulb?" - I don't know.

Only it's the Monkey who's Shocking

Cover me when I run
Cover me through the fire
Something knocked me out the trees
Now Im on my knees
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Dont you know when youre going to shock the monkey

Fox the fox Rat the rat
You can ape the ape
I know about that
There is one thing you must be sure of
I cant take any more
Darling, dont you monkey with the monkey
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Dont you know youre going to shock the monkey

Wheels keep turning Somethings burning
Dont like it but I guess Im learning
Shock! - watch the monkey get hurt, monkey

Cover me, when I sleep
Cover me, when I breathe
You throw your pearls before the swine
Make the monkey blind
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Dont you know youre going to shock the monkey

Too much at stake
Ground beneath me shake
And the news is breaking

Shock! - watch the monkey get hurt, monkey

Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey to life

Peter Gabriel

(Reading "Whip It" made me remember about this)

This is written almost 2 years ago. For shame, public, senators.

Shock the monkey

Most of the American media continue to duck the most important revelation from the ACLU's lawsuit against the government: that the incidents of torture were deliberate and systemic policy, rather than the actions of a sadistic few.

Today there is an editorial by William Pfaff, writing for the International Herald-Tribune, which is quite disturbing. The torture policy was not accidental, and began very early in the Bush administration. Pfaff writes:

Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration made it known that the United States was no longer bound by international treaties, or by American law and established U.S. military standards, concerning torture and the treatment of prisoners.

By the end of 2001, the Justice Department had drafted memos on how to protect military and intelligence officers from eventual prosecution under existing U.S. law for their treatment of Afghan and other prisoners.

This resonates with something Neil Lewis said to the effect that the interrogators felt their harsh techniques were justified by the fact that the detainees were terrorists, that they had attacked us, that they were likely to strike again, etc. (snip)

But this argument amounts to saying that the enemy is subhuman, so inhumane treatment is not only justifiable but necessary. But if we treat another as less than human, we give up some of our humanity in the bargain. (snip)

By adopting torture as policy, we reduce ourselves to the level our enemy allegedly lives on. At the same time, we dissolve our credibility and renounce our moral standing.

Here's Pfaff:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism. It originally was intended to be a form of what later, in the attack on Iraq, came to be called "shock and awe." It was meant as intimidation. ... Destroying cities and torturing prisoners are things you do when you are losing the real war, the war your enemies are fighting. They are signals of moral bankruptcy. They destroy the confidence and respect of your friends, and reinforce the credibility of the enemy.

http://www.sonic.net/~ctweney/blog/archives/000226.html

The Monkey and the Engineer
by Grateful Dead

Once upon a time there was an engineer.
Drove a locomotive both far and near.
Accompanied by a monkey that would sit on a stool
Watching everything the engineer would move
One day the engineer wanted a bite to eat,
He left the monkey sitting on the driver's seat,
The monkey pulled the throttle, the locomotive jumped the gun
And did 90 miles an hour down the mainline run.

Big locomotive right on time, big locomotive coming down the line.
Big locomotive No. 99, left the engineer with a worried mind.

The engineer called up the dispatcher on the phone,
To tell him all about his locomotive was gone.
Get on the wire, switch operator to the right,
Cause the monkey's got the main line sewed up tight.
The switch operator got the message on time,
Said there's a Northbound livin' on the same main line,
Open up the switch I'm gonna let him through the hole,
Cause the monkey's got the locomotive under control.

Big locomotive right on time, big locomotive coming down the line.
Big locomotive No. 99, left the engineer with a worried mind.

I love you all. What a great community,

Karen, on glass no. 7

Very good Karen - you deserve it!

The children at the Kids on Fire summer camp are intent as they pray over a cardboard cutout of President George Bush. They raise their hands in the air and sway, eyes closed, as they join the chant for "righteous judges". Tears stream down their faces as they are told that they are "phonies" and "hypocrites" and must wash their hands in bottled water to drive out the devil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1883730,00.html

So macabre - the article references David Byrne of Talking Heads & Michael Moore too. It's about Jesus Camp in .. Devil's Lake, ND.

NonnyO:

You keep right on writing those letters of yours, young lady, I think you're starting to get the hang of it.

:0)

write on write on,
Otter

"People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States," Bush told reporters after the closed-door meeting.

--------------

Oh, not to worry, Mr. President, we do remember that. And you would never let us forget it even if we did. In fact, we think just that very same thing every time we see you on television or read about you in the papers.

shrubiana delenda est,
Otter

Hmm.

From the Otterworld Quoted Without Comment Department, this terse but trenchant entry, reposted in its entirety from the finestkind blog Amygdala http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/ >:

---------------

Thursday, September 28, 2006

"COME ARREST ME. Holy shit. 'Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by President Bush.'

"Overthrow this government. By force.

"Detain me.

"All of you need to stand up and say this. Now.

"Because it's going to be later, if not sooner.

"I call for the overthrow of the government of the United States of America. By force."

---------------

short sharp shocked,
Otter

It's like christmas in christo-fascist disney land!

House of Representatives Passes Warrantless Wiretap Bill

Just now on C-Span - House of Rep. passed H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, by a vote of 220 ayes to 199 noes. One Democrat voted for the legislation, and five Republicans voted against the bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll499.xml

Latest from a friend in NM who has been very active with this issue (torture):

http://tinyurl.com/n4578
http://tinyurl.com/gn7yw

Fellow named Glenn Greenwald: "For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006." And from Amazon.com, a surprising CV: "Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney, and author of the political blog, "Unclaimed Territory." Greenwald has written for American Conservative magazine and appeared on a variety of television and radio programs, including C-Span's "Washington Journal," Air America's "Majority Report" and Public Radio International's "To the Point." His reporting and analysis have been credited in The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Salon, Slate and a variety of other print and online publications."

The articles include a blow-by-blow description of the process: votes on amendments, whether all Dems voted together (usually so, surprisingly) and what dissenters there were from both sides. Also Greenwald's analysis and commentary. Examples:

Sen. Leahy gave a superb closing speech, lamenting that the days when Congress imposes a meaningful check on the Presidency "are long past," and pointing out that the way our Government is operating contravenes all of the political values he was taught growing up. He was properly and genuinely angry as he described the simply astonishing fact that President Bush now has the power to abduct people from around the world and consign them to life in prison and torture them with no opportunity of any kind to prove one's innocence.

But it is still difficult to understand the Democrats' strategy here. They failed to try to mount a filibuster because they feared being attacked as coddlers of the terrorists. But now they are going to vote against the bill, thereby ensuring those exact accusations will be made, and loudly (the White House already started today). Yet at the same time, they absented themselves the whole time from the debate (until they magically appeared today) and thus lost the opportunity to defend their position. They make this same mistake over and over.

What I wish he would address is whether there is a hope for the Supreme Court to overturn these bills.

So much for freedom of the press in Iraq - restrictive new laws - is this "liberty"?

Excerpt:

Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29media.html?ei=5094&en=38c9900bc0642a2b&hp=&ex=1159502400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Everything Bush has heralded as an advance has turned into crap -- He has to be the paragon of the "the reverse Midas touch."

This is good.

A Distinct Lack Of Intelligence
The Nation: The White House Just Doesn't Get It

Sept. 28, 2006
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow holds a copy of the National Intelligence Assessment. (AP)

Quote

We must never forget that our system of government is based on the utility of freedom that truth will expose error — and just such an accounting is long overdue.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Go To Comments

(The Nation) You would think that a consensus report from all sixteen U.S. intelligence services concluding that he has blown the war on terror would be a really big deal to the president. But that assumes that George W. Bush values intelligence.

Clearly, he does not. So the news that a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concludes the threat of terror against the United States has increased since 9/11, largely thanks to his irrational invasion of Iraq, has not disturbed Bush's branded "what me worry" countenance.

Instead, predictably, the Administration's response to the leaked conclusions of the shared assessments of both civilian and military intelligence agencies was the same old historically ignorant claptrap that leaves U.S. policies completely out of the equation.

"Their hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins. "Those seeds were planted decades ago."

What seeds are those? It was "decades ago" that the CIA encouraged Muslim fanatics worldwide to go to Afghanistan to fight a holy war against a secular regime backed by the Russians. The end result of that engagement was — after their troop withdrawal and the consequent U.S. attention deficit — a devolution into civil war, warlordism and, eventually, the takeover of the country by Osama bin Laden's friends, the religiously extreme and oppressive Taliban. Sound familiar?

It should: The same deadly process has been taking place under Bush's watch in Iraq since our idiotic invasion in 2003.

Read the rest at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/opinion/main2049093.shtml (originally from The Nation - thanks to CBS for printing this opinion)

DiAnne,there's NO hope now as the courts will favor Bush. That's what I expected after reading John Dean's book (there's a chapter on the courts )and why I puked on the plane.

PattiF
That's what I figured - the whole system is stacked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6113386,00.html

Iraq terrorist calls scientists to Jihad

-- Any idea how many technical types of been trained in the West? Ever attend University in the 70s, 80s and 90s and check out where the Engineers came from? Not saying they would turn to radical Islam involving Jihad, but did also read that many returned to places like Saudi Arabia and COULD NOT FIND JOBS despite their advanced training. Some of these turned to radical religion, such as Bin Laden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1883854,00.html

US - Iraq Failing to Deal with Death Squads

Senior US officials have accused the new Iraqi government - which they previously championed - of failing to deal with the scourge of sectarian death squads, which are dragging the country into civil war. Fresh figures published yesterday show that more than 250,000 Iraqis have been displaced by the sectarian violence since February.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1883784,00.html

Take UK Troops Out of Iraq (say Senior military advisors)

Senior military officers have been pressing the government to withdraw British troops from Iraq and concentrate on what they now regard as a more worthwhile and winnable battleground in Afghanistan.

They believe there is a limit to what British soldiers can achieve in southern Iraq and that it is time the Iraqis took responsibility for their own security, defence sources say. Pressure from military chiefs for an early and significant cut in the 7,500 British troops in Iraq is also motivated by extreme pressure being placed on soldiers and those responsible for training them.

Hmm.

---------------

WASHINGTON (AP) - Breaking with their party, a handful of Democrats in competitive congressional races voted to approve President Bush's system to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects.

In doing so, they took away one arrow Republicans plan to use in their soft-on-security attack on Democrats.

"It's time for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to face justice," Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said, projecting a tough-on-terrorism position and sounding very much like Republicans who are gunning for his House seat Nov. 7.

[snip]

Now that lawmakers have gone on the record on the issue, Republicans can return to their districts in the campaign's homestretch with a political weapon in hand. They can claim they are working to keep the country safe. They also can make the oft-repeated Republican argument that Democrats are weak on security and, perhaps, aiding terrorists.

That approach was obvious when House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Democrats who opposed the legislation voted in favor of more rights for terrorists. "The same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled if we followed the Democrat plan," Hastert said.

"The speaker is a desperate man," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi responded, criticizing Hastert for having to "stoop to that level."

[snip]

Democrats who voted with the Republicans now can make the argument that they view national security as a priority and, thus, try to fend off GOP's frequent charge that electing Democrats would be dangerous.

"They're trying to play it safe," said Robert Erikson, a Columbia University political scientist.

[snip]

The six House Democrats running for re-election who voted in favor of the legislation are in GOP-leaning districts that Republicans are making a play to win in November. They are: Democratic Reps. Melissa Bean in Illinois, Jim Marshall in Georgia, John Barrow in Georgia, Leonard Boswell in Iowa, John Spratt in South Carolina, and Edwards in Texas.

"They are voting in line with what they perceive to be the views of a majority of their constituencies on this issue," said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist.

He suggested that these Democrats cast their votes not because of this election year but because of the next few, saying: "They're just trying to avoid trouble in the future."

[snip]

MORE ... http://tinyurl.com/eq3w4

----------------

the race belongs not only to the swift and strong,
Otter

God Bless you Truth. We are praying for your family.

From happier days....

Once upon a wayward wind,
I reached into the dark.
I found a great fire within,
That only took a spark.
There I found the Truth Prevailed,
A Sparrow brought the drink.
Independence preached the blues.
We found so many links.
A funny Monkey cheered us on.
In perfect butchered French.
The Coast Guard came, did the same.
We've been here ever since.
Like a dream the fire burned,
In each and every soul.
We stood as one, like we begun,
And refused to let it go.
The good doctor, always On Call,
Provided a deep examination.
No discussion, a hot White Russian,
Was Dianne's only explanation.
John told tales of great balloons.
And we all believed.
As darkened clouds shut out the moon,
Not one of us concede.
Bound together,for each our own.
As one we stand or fall.
We found a home, each came alone.
Where one dream unites us all.
A dream that burns within the breast,
And shows thine eyes the way.
Where visions topple tyrannies.
And mercy wins the day.
Yes, we say, Truth Shall Prevail.
And we will make it so.
High water is only hell,
If there is no where left to go.
Soon the dark will open up,
We shall seek out one another.
But tonight, we stand and fight,
As sisters and as brothers.
A simple dream of better days.
Has changed us all forever.
Simple dreams can change the world.
When we dream together.

One more to add to the total of what yesterday's vote has cost our nation. Written from the heart...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/181035/651

Posted by: Christy at September 29, 2006 09:16 AM

Beautiful

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "They killed my mother! God help me, they killed my mother!" Osama Rumani sobbed into his cell phone before handing it to his brother Ali, who was crying even harder.

At the other end of the line were relatives in Canada. As Ali spoke to them, Osama cursed the unknown killers through his tears: "May God orphan you. May you lose your mother and go through this pain. Shoot her once, shoot her twice, break her leg, her arms, but why this?"

Osama covered his face as he cried. His mother, Umm Luma, was an ordinary citizen, well-loved in the neighborhood where she was gunned down in front of her home.

In recent months, terrorists and death squads in Iraq have increased attacks on civilians. Though the Pentagon says the sectarian violence is not tantamount to civil war, it concedes that the swelling sectarian strife has produced an upsurge in attacks, kidnappings and execution-style killings.

According to a Pentagon report, Iraqi casualties jumped 51 percent this summer, and the Baghdad coroner's office reported receiving 3,400 bodies in June and July. Ninety percent of them had been killed execution-style, the report said.

Umm Luma lost her husband to illness two years ago, after she had reared four sons and two daughters.

"She had a strong personality, she was our leader at home," said her niece, Rafal Abbas.

But beneath Rafal's calm façade, she is haunted not only by the murder she witnessed, but also by the fear that the killers might come back.

Before Umm Luma's death, the family says it had received two written threats in a year. Wrapped in the second was a bullet. The message was chilling.

"The time has come to bring down fair punishment on you traitors, you half men, by chopping off your rotten heads that sold religion, honor and the country to the occupation," it began.

"Where will you escape Umm Luma? Await the rage, the slaughter and the murder. Our swords are on the necks of every traitor, agent and coward."

The threat was signed by the Brigades of Death, a Sunni extremist group. Like similar organizations, it claims Iraqi Shiites are conspiring with the Americans.

But Umm Luma had no political affiliations and neither do they, her relatives said. They said they had no enemies.

The family fled nonetheless, even though no one -- least of all Umm Luma -- thought the note-writers would kill a woman. The false sense of security led Umm Luma home after a week.

On September 16, she left the house to buy bread for breakfast and a car drove up. Someone inside called her name. Her niece remembers well how the events unfolded.

"Are you Umm Luma?" asked a man in the car.

"Yes, dear. What would you like?" Umm Luma responded.

The first bullet ripped through her arm, knocking her to the ground, said Rafal. The man, who couldn't have been older than 18, then exited the car and shot Umm Luma four more times.

"It is something that I will never forget," Rafal said.

As Rafal cradled her aunt's body in her arms, another car -- similar to the attackers' -- passed before a stranger on a motorcycle pulled up and asked what happened.

"He approached her and slapped her on the cheek, asking, 'Are you Umm Luma?' " Rafal recalled.

"Yes. Leave her alone. What do you want?" Rafal shot back.

"I wanted to see if she was dead or alive," he replied before following Rafal into the house.

"I was baffled by this guy. No one in the area had seen him before. He asked weird questions, 'Where are the boys? Where do they live? Tell the boys to come,' " Rafal said. She did not respond to the stranger.

Today, family members are living with this nightmare. They feel hunted, Rafal said.

"We are living in extraordinary fear. If I am home alone, I get terrified," she said. "Yesterday, the door blew open and I fainted because I thought that they had come for us."

As his cousin explained the family's fear, Osama broke down, sobbing and shaking as he recalled tending to his slain mother that day.

"I saw my mother on the street. I picked up her brains with my own hands and wrapped it," Osama said, repeating the words, "picked up her brains."

Umm Luma dreamed of a secure Iraq, Rafal said, but now her loved ones live with the fear that they might not live to see that dream's achievement.

"We are scared of all of Iraq," Rafal said. "If we go out, we are afraid someone is going to kill us. Even at home we are afraid and we pile things against the door."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.victims/index.html

Nice work George W Bush and friends, bringing hope and freedom to the world, eh?

To hell with you...

Posted by: dwahzon at September 29, 2006 09:19 AM

That poor family it is heartbreaking :( I will pray for them and others like them and for us all.

Posted by: monkey at September 29, 2006 10:06 AM

I cried half the night read this story this morning and cried some more, then DW posted her link and I cried some more I have not cried so much since losing Angie. This does not come close to what it felt like to lose a child, it does however come close to the feeling I had that I had lost a beautiful dream when I lost her. I am sorry for mentioning her so much lately but I can not help but think how she feels looking down on all this mess. Her Birthday is Monday so she is every second on my mind.

Dynamite in new Woodward book, according to NY Times (which was able to buy a copy before its release date):

"The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

"On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29account.html

Hello and greatings from the wonderful irreverant Indy, He asked that I post this as his contribution to our feelings on what has happened in last few days. He said I did not have to name him as the one but I have chosen to do so because he has always had wonderful points to make and always matches historical leasons to the events of the day. Plus I just miss him. I know others do to.

On August 3, 1857, Frederick Douglass delivered a "West India Emancipation" speech at Canandaigua, New York, on the twenty-third anniversary of the event. Most of the address was a history of British efforts toward emancipation as well as a reminder of the crucial role of the West Indian slaves in their own freedom struggle.
The general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just. For a man who does not value freedom for himself will never value it for others, or put himself to any inconvenience to gain it for others. Such a man, the world says, may lie down until he has sense enough to stand up. It is useless and cruel to put a man on his legs, if the next moment his head is to be brought against a curbstone.
A man of that type will never lay the world under any obligation to him, but will be a moral pauper, a drag on the wheels of society, and if he too be identified with a peculiar variety of the race he will entail disgrace upon his race as well as upon himself. The world in which we live is very accommodating to all sorts of people. It will cooperate with them in any measure which they propose; it will help those who earnestly help themselves, and will hinder those who hinder themselves. It is very polite, and never offers its services unasked. Its favors to individuals are measured by an unerring principle in this—viz., respect those who respect themselves, and despise those who despise themselves. It is not within the power of unaided human nature to persevere in pitying a people who are insensible to their own wrongs and indifferent to the attainment of their own rights. The poet was as true to common sense as to poetry when he said,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.
When O'Connell, with all Ireland at his back, was supposed to be contending for the just rights and liberties of Ireland, the sympathies of mankind were with him, and even his enemies were compelled to respect his patriotism. Kossuth, fighting for Hungary with his pen long after she had fallen by the sword, commanded the sympathy and support of the liberal world till his own hopes died out. The Turks, while they fought bravely for themselves and scourged and drove back the invading legions of Russia, shared the admiration of mankind. They were standing up for their own rights against an arrogant and powerful enemy; but as soon as they let out their fighting to the Allies, admiration gave way to contempt. These are not the maxims and teachings of a coldhearted world.
Christianity itself teaches that man shall provide for his own house. This covers the whole ground of nations as well as individuals. Nations no more than individuals can innocently be improvident. They should provide for all wants—mental, moral and religious—and against all evils to which they are liable as nations. In the great struggle now progressing for the freedom and elevation of our people, we should be found at work with all our might, resolved that no man or set of men shall be more abundant in labors, according to the measure of our ability, than ourselves.
Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.
Sir, I have now more than filled up the measure of my time. I thank you for the patient attention given to what I have had to say. I have aimed, as I said at the beginning, to express a few thoughts having some relation to the great interest of freedom both in this country and in the British West Indies, and I have said all that I mean to say, and the time will not permit me to say more.

April...

No need whatsoever to apologize for expressing your heart.

Butterflies Are Free To Fly

OK, loved ones. I am off to protest that torture is now legal. I carry each of you with me, and especially Angie and Bethany.

Here's another excerpt from that same article:

"The book describes an exchange in early 2003 between Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the retired officer Mr. Bush appointed to administer postwar Iraq, and President Bush and others in the White House situation room. It describes senior war planners as having been thoroughly uninterested in the details of the postwar mission.

"After General Garner finished his PowerPoint presentation — which included his plan to use up to 300,000 troops of the Iraqi Army to help secure postwar Iraq, the book says — there were no questions from anyone in the situation room, and the president gave him a rousing sendoff.

"But it was General Garner who was soon removed, in favor of Mr. Bremer, whose actions in dismantling the Iraqi army and removing Baathists from office were eventually disparaged within the government."

Posted by: Karen at September 29, 2006 10:35 AM

Thanks Karen I know my peace loving Angel would love that :) I bet her and your Bethany are fast friends.

SAN SEBASTIAN, Spain (AP) -- Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President George W. Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years."

Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of September 11.

"We have destroyed the world in the name of security," Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, "World Trade Center." The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape.

"From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11.

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

The director of blockbusters such as "Platoon," and "JFK" said the U.S. reaction to the attacks was out of proportion.

"If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature," he said. "We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with," said Stone.

Stone rejected allegations that U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks in advance and said the real conspiracy came after.

"I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9/11 is a waste of time," he said. "The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9/11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That's all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out," said Stone.

"This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed."

In the United States' favor, Stone posited that it's not responsible for all the world's problems.

"You can't see that the United States is responsible for all the evil in the world because you can see so many dictators and so many bestial acts all over the world now. .... There is something in the human heart, the international human heart, that is evil," said Stone.

"That's the evil that turns its mind and ears on humanity and is able to say 'I can kill a person in the name of God or religion.' This is not a human being, this a fanatic. And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9/11," said Stone.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/film.oliverstone.ap/index.html

Daily News is running with the Woodward story as well:

Chance at Osama pre 9/11, sez book
BY BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, September 29th, 2006

The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/456839p-384345c.html

*****

I wonder if Clinton knew that this book was coming out?

Posted by: Cyrano at September 29, 2006 10:56 AM

Sounds like its more than possible.

There's a scene for ABC to add to the DVD version of "Path to 9/11"!

I woke up thinking that no matter what this Admin says or does here, they can't fix things in Iraq and Afghanistan and can't hide that either. They are so desperate and cornered animals are dangerous.

Kerry on Bush Defense of Failed Policies in Iraq, Afghanistan

“Bob Woodward says the Administration is in a state of denial. It’s worse than that.

The lying needs to end and the incompetents who gave us a Katrina foreign policy have to go.

The Administration has a stand still and lose policy in Iraq which isn’t the center of the war on terror, and a cut and run policy in Afghanistan which is the center of the war on terror. The only clear thing about the president’s policy is that it’s clearly not working.

American troops are coming home without arms and legs, for a strategy our military and our leaders know won’t work, and a policy that worsens terrorism.

The repetition of presidential platitudes in daily speeches only compounds the immorality of a policy that is reckless with young Americans’ lives, and leaves America’s moral authority in tatters.

We have seven times more troops in the crossfire of a civil war in Iraq, which our intelligence agencies confirm fuels terrorism, than we have in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda roams free. Rhetoric about providing money to rebuild Afghanistan is hollow from an Administration that has cut aid to Afghanistan by 30% this year, and even requested 67% less than that for next year. Even Don Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday we need more troops in Afghanistan, but President Bush remains stuck in a state of denial.

This administration cut and run from the truth, and every day this administration refuses to face reality is another day they play into the hands of the terrorists.

President Bush needs to start telling the truth, and acting on it.”

http://tinyurl.com/g9ghl

Just passing through and though I'd post this link. It needs to be voted up on yahoo to get more coverage. Just one more lie of Bush's that needs to not be ignored. There are so many.

Frist may shelve intelligence bill for second year in row

RAW STORY
Published: Friday September 29, 2006

Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will not allow a key intelligence bill to be brough to the Senate floor and, according to senior leadership aides, "may shelve the measure entirely."

Writer Tim Starks at CQ describes the intelligence authorization bill as "a potential Pandora’s box for Republicans in the run-up to the November midterm elections," given the perception that Senate Democrats would use such a bill to hammer President Bush's Iraq war policies. "Frist does not want to give them the platform to do so," writes Starks, "because he considers a rehash of the war to be a waste of the Senate's time."

A second failed year for the bill would "neuter the Intelligence panels," the article states, meaning in essence that Congressional committees would be unable to provide strategic guidance to the US intelligence community.

Excerpts from the subscription-only article follow...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Frist_may_shelve_intelligence_bill_for_0929.html

Here are some excerpts from today's blog by Glenn Greenwald. The whole thing is at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/.

.. George Bush and Dick Cheney will never face even another midterm election ever again. They will be free to run wild for the next two years with a Congress that is so submissive and blindly loyal that it is genuinely creepy to behold.

We are a country ruled by a President who has seized the power to break the law in multiple ways while virtually nothing is done about it.

Yesterday, we formally vested the power in the President to abduct people and put them in prisons for life without so much as charging them with any crime and by expressly proclaiming that they have no right to access any court or tribunal to prove their innocence.

We have started one war against a country that did not attack us and, in doing so, created havoc and danger -- both to ourselves and the world -- that is truly difficult to quantify. And we are almost certainly going to start one more war just like it (at least), that is far more dangerous still, if the President's Congressional servants maintain their control.

For all their imperfections, cowardly acts, strategically stupid decisions, and inexcusable acquiescence -- and that list is depressingly long -- it is still the case that Democrats voted overwhelmingly against this torture and detention atrocity. The vote total on yesterday's House vote on Heather Wilson's bill to legalize warrantless eavesdropping reflects the same dynamic.

.. The only branch of government that has shown any residual willingness to defend the Constitution and the rule of law is the judicial branch. But critical Supreme Court decisions such as Hamdan -- which at least affirmed the most minimal and basic constitutional protections -- depend upon the most precarious 5-4 split among the Justices. One of the five pro-Constitution Justices, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old. If George Bush has free reign to replace Stevens, it will mean that the Supreme Court will be composed of a very young five-Justice majority of absolute worshippers of Executive Power -- Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and New Justice -- which will control the Court and endorse unlimited executive abuses for decades to come.

A final word: just imagine what Bush/Cheney's cabal would be like if they never had to worry about voter disaffection again. Two term limit for President? Why, when things are going so well? Nuke Iran? Why not; they want nukes, we'll give them nukes. We're not wimps, and it will serve as a warning to North Korea. I mean, they have just made torture and indefinite detention the official policy of the United States: is there anything you can imagine them NOT doing, and with the blessings of a Republican Congress? And a hand-picked Supreme Court?

Linda, great to hear from you,been a long time. Looks like you will have another weak candidate for governor down there, sure you are disappointed.

Posted this story announced by Paula Zahn last night that was on cnn. Sounds like Bush might not be any better that Bob Ney or Tom DeLay just covered his trail better. I agree that torture story is drowning out everything else including the NIE report on Iraq.

karen hope you have recovered from number 7 last night.

Hang on Stevens, Stevens hang on.

Report Links Rove and Disgraced Lobbyist Abramoff

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092906Z.shtml
A bipartisan Congressional report, completed by the House Government Reform Committee, documents hundreds of contacts between White House officials and the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his partners. The report, based on email
messages and other records subpoenaed from Mr. Abramoff's lobbying firm, found 485 contacts between Mr. Abramoff's lobbying team and White House officials from 2001 to 2004, including 82 with Mr. Rove's office.

Thugs.

Ira- I suspect Charlie Crist would have beaten either Jim Davis or Rod Smith. Crist has positioned himself as a moderate. The Christian Coalition hates him because he's pro choice, and his fellow Republicans view him as a "liberal." He's promised to impliment the constitutional amendments re classroom size that were passed 4 years ago and have been virtually ignored by Jeb Bush and his congress, but I'm not sure his own party will go along with it. He's also promised to do something about our insurance crisis- Floridians losing their homes because they can't afford $400 per month homeowners premiums. He'll be a better governor than Jeb, no doubt- Jeb and his ilk wanted the nomination to go to Gallagher. They're really not fond of Crist. Not to sound defeatist, but it's 5 weeks 'till the election and most Floridians don't even know who's running on the Democratic ticket. They've seen almost no ads for Davis at all. So, I'm trying to find positive things about Crist to like, and there seem to be quite a few. Off again. Have a great day.

Posted by: dwahzon at September 29, 2006 09:19 AM

Look at this paragraph specifically:

"Trouble is, it wasn't the Dungeons and Rendition Act that started my stepson down this path. Merely the final spark. He's been thinking about leaving for some time. Watching Ted Koppel's The Price of Security a few weeks ago just about clinched the deal. It was on that show our family heard the results of a Discovery Channel-Time magazine poll. Of the 1001 respondents, 47% said Arab-Americans should have their ethnic origin stamped on their identity cards. With a margin of error at 3.3%, that's half of Americans. And 25% agreed that it would be a good idea to put Arab-Americans in camps until their loyalty can be appraised. The pollsters didn't inquire if respondents thought torture should be used for this determination. Nor if Arab-Americans should be required sew a red crescent on their clothes. Nor whether the government should be allowed to grab suspects off the street and disappear them into secret prisons outside the reach of attorneys."

Now would anyone care to explain how that is different from pre-WWII Germany when they made Jews wear yellow stars of David on their clothing and place those same stars on their businesses.

Yet, when Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, we did not make all blond hair white males wear a scarlett letter. Nor did we put all blond white men go to jails and get tortured because they clearly had the wrong color hair.

Why is this acceptable now? Would they accept it if we had equal punishment for all races, shapes, sizes, and hair color?

This sickens me. I'm absolutely sickened.

OK folks, inspiration time. Go read SusanG's diary now. We can all use a good kick to keep us going now. As SusanG says, "it's time to kick some ass for democracy."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/29/105037/615

Good to see action ideas -

MoveOn is having mass calling for GOTV on Saturday at house parties.

World Can't Wait is looking for help to run ads on MySpace.

& for Safe Voting:

This emergency legislation is not ideal but it is all that we have right now. It is important that everyone call their Senators and Representatives to urge them to support this legislation. The legislation encourages states/counties who do not already require paper ballots to have paper ballots on hand in the event the electronic voting machines break down, and if they do, the Feds will pay for it. There have been huge problems with the machines all around the country in the recent primaries, such as break downs, machine counts that are clearly off but there is no way to verify the actual vote because there are no paper ballots, etc. So please, even if your state/county requires paper ballots, call your Senator and Congressional Representative and tell them to vote for this bill so that there will be a paper trail in other jurisdictions in the event recounts are required in the November election. This is VERY IMPORTANT!

House switchboard: 202-225-3121, Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121

BREAKING: DNC Voting Rights Institute Endorses 11th Hour Emergency Paper Ballot Legislation!
Donna Brazile Posts Open Letter Encouraging Citizens to Pressure Lawmakers!
(While, So Far, All Republican Congress Members Remain Apparently Uninterested in Ensuring American Citizens Can Vote This November!)
In her role as Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI), Donna Brazile has issued a statement to The BRAD BLOG moments ago in support of the Congressional Emergency Paper Ballot legislation now pending in the U.S. House and Senate.

Announcing that "We still have time to address the e-voting security crisis!," Brazile writes in her "Open Letter to Supporters of Democracy of America" in support of the House (HR 6187) and Senate (S. 3943) bills introduced this week calling for Emergency Paper Ballots at the polls this November, in the light of voting system failures across the country in primaries so far this year.

(That is from Elizabeth Walters - there is a long statement from Donna Brazile. See http://www.bradblog.com)

Why is this acceptable now? Would they accept it if we had equal punishment for all races, shapes, sizes, and hair color?

Posted by: Suz at September 29, 2006 11:29 AM

No, they wouldn't... the fact is, they are all chickenshits.

Tard & Fettered

others of us are making virtual cell calls this weekend to help Progressives, Diane in tight senate races.

Picked up this story which agrees with my theory that Republicans fully understand that their torture bill is unconstitutional and and will be overturned for failing to provide habeas corpus and 4th and 13th Amendment grounds. It was another last minute political stunt. A Hail Mary orchistrated by Karl Rove.

"The President is expected to sign the measure in the next few days. The tribunal legislation is likely to face legal challenges, especially over the constitutionality of the ban on habeas corpus— denying prisoners' the right to challenge their detention." reports ABC The Note

It's the Bok-Bok-Bok Administration.

Posted by: monkey at September 29, 2006 11:39 AM
Posted by: Suz at September 29, 2006 11:29 AM

The fact is our government is still run by mostly white men with the feeling they are entitled to do as they please given their birth or station in life at the present. There are still to few minorities or women in either the House or the Senate. I may be wrong here but I feel this leads to an overall impression and feeling that White upper and middle class men can do as they please and dam the rest of us.

From Center for American Progress:

YOU, TOO, COULD BE AN ENEMY COMBATANT: Congress has handed the Bush administration extraordinary new powers to define who is an "illegal enemy combatant," potentially subjecting legal U.S. residents, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. This request -- and Congress's willingness to grant it --has faced severe criticism since, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) points out, in "five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. Not one has been brought to justice. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today." The administration can now declare an illegal enemy combatant any "person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." As Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman notes, this legislation may also authorize "the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States." Additionally, Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman states that these powers won't be limited to wartime, since the "illegal enemy combatant" status applies to anyone "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant."

(snip) Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast explains, "The danger is that this will enable the president to continue to misconstrue the Conventions as permitting practices which they clearly prohibit. For example, the bill prohibits 'grave breaches' of the Geneva Conventions but fails to state whether the prohibition applies to the CIA's 'alternative interrogation procedures.' Unless Congress makes clear that such techniques as waterboarding, stress positions and extreme sleep deprivation are categorically prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, the president will resolve the ambiguity by continuing to engage in them." The legislation also chillingly turns back the clock on rape and sexual assault, narrowly defining rape as forced or coerced genital or anal penetration and utterly leaving "out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law." It also defines sexual assault as requiring physical contact, which would "not include ordering a terrified female prisoner to strip and dance, which happened in Rwanda, or compelling a male prisoner to strip and wear women's underwear on his head, or photographing naked prisoners piled together, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib."

(snip) Agrast notes that the legislation likely violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal said the bill's creation of a different system of justice for non-citizens may violate the Constitution's 14th amendment, which requires equal protection of the laws to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction. "If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version." Nine retired federal judges recently sent a letter to Congress arguing that "eliminating habeas jurisdiction would raise serious concerns under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. The writ has been suspended only four times in our Nation's history, and never under circumstances like the present. Congress cannot suspend the writ at will, even during wartime, but only in 'Cases of Rebellion or Invasion [when] the public Safety may require it.'"

The new mascot for Fundiementalist Reich-Wing Govermental Gangbangers:

Lady Liberty, weeping, nailed to a cross.

she lost her torch inside that chamber door,
Otter

And if your blood pressure ain't sufficiently high enough yet, folks, not to worry -- it will be just as soon as you read through the latest entry by Glenn Greenwald on his 'Unclaimed Territory' blog at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/ ...

---------------

Friday, September 29, 2006

Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt reveal the true impulses underlying yesterday's vote

At this point, the true depravity of Bush followers should surprise nobody. But still, there is something peculiarly revealing and revolting about this disgusting, giggly little chat between Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt yesterday. Their topic? The "very enjoyable day trip to Gitmo" which Styen took, courtesy of the U.S. military. What is there to say about things like this:

HH: Well, the alleged enemy combatants lost their habeus [sic] corpus rights today, thanks to the steely indifference to liberty, as the Democrats would put it, of the Republican majority in the Senate. Do they appear put upon to you, Mark Steyn?

MS: No, they don't. It's interesting to me. They were being treated very lavishly . . .

And this:

HH: Mark Steyn, did you get a chance to talk to any of the interrogators at Gitmo?

MS: Yes, I did, actually. (laughing) I spoke briefly to a rather lovely female interrogator. As you know, Muslim young men often have complicated attitudes to women. And they...and she, in fact, found that although Saudi males were incredibly hostile to her the first couple of times she interrogates them, that they've been deprived of female company for so long, that actually, they warm up to her by about the third or fourth meeting.

MS: So I found the interrogation, I think...I had the opportunity to kind of eavesdrop on a couple of interrogations, which are certainly surreal, if you're used to this sort of anti-American propaganda, where the guys are in dungeons and chains, chained to these little, wooden chairs under the bare light bulb, or some guys beating the information out of them. In fact, they're interrogated in a La-Z-Boy recliner, which is this oddly surreal point. It's a very unusual set up down there.

The whole thing is worth reading just to really savor what so many Bush followers really are. At the end, Styen cracks some really clever jokes about how fattened up the detainees are and how they'll have to lose weight when they want to go back to waging jihad (the "big, bloated, chubby Afghans").

[snip]

---------------

more righto-fascist sleazeweasels showing their true colors: black and blue,
Otter

Zogby releases his new poll in Connecticut Senate race showing Liebrman at 46%--Lamont at 44%. The ten point spread has apparently narrowed substantially and hopefully Lieberman's vote yesterday will help tighten the race even more. Lieberman was already popping champaign corks..not so soon.

Posted by: Ira at September 29, 2006 11:57 AM

The thing that totally cracks me up is Lieberman claims to be running as an Independant Democrat now we know the Voters in Con. are not happy with him because of his pro-Bush line. So one would think that to prove to them that he is independant from Bush he would have made at least one stand on one issure that varied from the Administrations. Now even the ones who questioned that maybe they were wrong will see that they werent, I believe this will push a lot of the loyalty voters towards Lamont we will see how it plays out.

Just a tiny bit even a wee small bit of encouraging news about the people of this country, MSNBC and Keith Olbermann beat Fox ratings wise the other night. The actual ratings I would be real interested to see are the Re-Runs of Olbermann at 12 am when his rerun is put up against O'Lielies

Also I know a lot of us may have missed it yesterday or did not find it important however I want to come to the defense of our Military men and women about the report from the Independant Contractor who claims that they left him when they were attacked.

This angers me in so many way. Lets start out with the injustice of our Military having to guard someone making 250,000.00 a year to their pultry 30,000.00. Lets move onto the fact that not only do they face that indignity every single day then one of the idiots makes a claim like this and the news runs it, in defense of MSM they did actually defend our military pretty well with information that showed that far from leaving the Military did guard the vehicle in which the Contractor was hiding till help could come and get him out. He just did not see them because he was ducked down and they were on the other side of an overturned SUV. But this kind of story makes me sick, why are we hiring Contractors to make our people in Militaries life harder? Why are we paying these people so much money? Because it is us who is paying them, when our Military recieves so little? If the Contrators do not realize they are recieving these high paychecks because they are in a dangerous place they are pretty stupid and need to be kept our of there anyway.

Linda Enterkin, if you come by again here is a new book you might want to read about Florida:

How to Steal an Election: The Inside Story of How George Bush's Brother and FOX Network Miscalled the 2000 Election and Changed the Course of History (Paperback)
David W. Moore

Its really great to see Linda, aimzz and other original JK bloggers back here after a long absence. Hoepfully they will stay with us from November 8,2006-November 8, 2008, we need every voice.
Does anyone remember hardrain?

Posted by: April at September 29, 2006 12:31 PM

The mercenaries are frequently employees of Halliburton subsidiaries, DynCorp and KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root). Their monthly salaries are in the five figure range.

Three MN residents killed in Iraq were mercenaries (aka 'private security officers'). In-state news, when they reported the deaths, said of two of them that they were employed by DynCorp; I'm not sure who employed the third one who was killed, just in-state 'news' info that he was a 'private security officer.'

The first time I heard DynCorp was the employer of the first one killed, I Googled DynCorp, found out it was a subsidiary of Halliburton. Wikipedia has a long article about Halliburton, ties to lots of people we now know are in charge of the government, and it lists the subsidiaries. There's also a group called Blackwater that hires mercenaries, and Blackwater was the group who sent mercenaries to NOLA to guard the city after Katrina/Rita. Halliburton & KBR are receiving tax money from a no-bid contract to repair and rebuild military bases in the south after Katrina/Rita. And Halliburton/KBR is the outfit building 'detention centers' on US soil with a $385 billion dollar open-ended contract.

The detention centers (aka concentration camps!) on US soil are allegedly for "the influx of illegal immigrants" in an emergency situation. However, the immigration flap has died down in media and is largely ignored. If those new concentration camps are sitting empty, who's going to fill them to make a profit for Halliburton...????? Who's going to guard the prisoners, besides DynCorp and KBR, both Halliburton subsidiaries???

"The Problem" with private armies is the fact that they owe their loyalty to the corporations who sign their paychecks. They do not take any oaths to 'preserve, protect, and defend' the US, or the US Constitution....

Ira
I remember Hardrain - I have a nice music tape by him.
He used to sing in the subways, Cambridge.

A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall
by Bob Dylan

Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
And what did you hear, my darling young one?
I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin',
Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world,
Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin',
Heard ten thousand whisperin' and nobody listenin',
Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin',
Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter,
Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, who did you meet, my blue-eyed son?
Who did you meet, my darling young one?
I met a young child beside a dead pony,
I met a white man who walked a black dog,
I met a young woman whose body was burning,
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow,
I met one man who was wounded in love,
I met another man who was wounded with hatred,
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?
I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.