Torture, Sadism, and the End of Habeas Corpus

IT'S NOT OVER!! LET'S GET TO WORK!!!!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/27/14112/4703

From My DD:

Beating Back This Bill
by Matt Stoller, Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 02:45:47 PM EST

There are two debates going on, one internal and one in public. In public, the Democrats are rolling over, hence the anger at moral scolds like Obama. In private, it looks like the Democrats are not rolling over on this. They are furious about this compromise, which eviscerates Habeas Corpus. Here's video of Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Skelton is objecting to this bill, though a few days ago Skelton was saying "I will need to look at the final bill carefully, but elements of the compromise I have seen are promising." He's angry that the Democratic amendments were turned down.

The Senate is where this bill can be stopped. The key Senators to move are the Maine Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. If we can shift them, we can stop this bill from being passed.

Susan Collins
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Fax: (202) 224-2693

Olympia Snowe
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5344
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599
Fax: (202) 224-1946

CALL, FAX, WRITE!!!!!

The whole world is watching
The whole world is watching
The whole world is watching

holy kao, is it 1968 again already?,
Otter

Posted by dickbell at September 27, 2006 04:55 PM

Brilliant essay, Dick! Kudos!

May I suggest you immediately send it to a local paper for publication? ALSO send it to all the Senators (but delete the last paragraph for the senators).

Those clowns just MUST get it through their thick skulls that the American public will not be happy after the fact when they find out the wording on this piece of horror they will be visiting on this country. Things are bad enough; they don't need to officially make this country a unitary executive dictatorship under the most incredibly cruel and vicious and stupid man who's ever held that office.

If any senators have a conscience, they have to filibuster this crap (without any prior "authorization" from the neoCons). Otherwise, why should we have any respect for them if they visit such horror on the people of this nation? Don't they realize that this nonsense could also get them arrested and tortured, all on the word on one man if he, and he alone, deems them a "threat" to the security of this nation, since that seems to be one of DimWit's latest talking points?

I highly recommend you at least get the thread header to a newspaper and see if they will publish it, even if you don't have time to send it to all senators.

Oh, and Dick, if you have any local TV stations that have local shows about politics, send your essay to them, too.

sorry dick and others this post is seriously off topic but it is so outrageous here locally I had to repeat. Our City Counsel was delivering a moving tribute this afternoon to a courageous fallen local police officer who bravely gave his life for our local security on Sunday breaking up a domestic disturbance. The Republican candidate running to replace Tom DeLay inappropriately took her time when she should have been express her sorrow through her tribute to our fallen officer, and turned it into a political speech attacking the illegal immigrant who shot the officer and to make a political statement against illegal immigration. Our rather conservative City Counsel made up of a majority of Republicans all walked out in their middel of her speech when this candidate started making her political speech during the officer's funeral this afternoon. They unanimously told our local tv station that it was totally inappropriate and disrespectful to the family of the fallen officer to be making a political speech when they were showing their respect to a fallen officer. Its a local story but reflects the desperation some of these politicians,even at a time of sorrow.

Your post dick about the torture bill is right on point but I don't agree with your call for a filibuster; as reprehensible as this bill is. It is up to us to be the media, to demonstrate and write letters to our newspapers, I just don't see a filibuster as doing anything but handing Congress to the Republicans for another 2 years. I am sure that no one here will agree with that position, I just doubt there would be more than a handfull of Senators who are not up for election in 45 days who would support a filibuster.

Ira,

You are right--it is up to us, and we are but a few. But this may be the most stomach-turning moment of the past five years. The bill is simply horrifying. I do not know what tomorrow may bring in the Senate, but if we do not do OUR jobs with the media and the offices, it will not matter what the sane Senators do.

I am still shaken by the spectacle I saw on Monday of the Cornyn-Berenson-Rivkin trio reassuring each other that the Constitution does not matter and the Geneva Conventions are wide open to interpretation as we please.

Are we THIS powerless????

Tonight Toby, Leah, Sue, and Pete (four activists with whom Dick and I have been working) are in jail because they stood up in the House today and told those Members who voted for torture just what they were: traitors.

I am here to tell you that the wrong people are in that jail tonight. The people we entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of representing citizens in a democracy have broken our trust and the law. The people who stood up and spoke out against that travesty are the true citizens. And, I might add, they speak for me.

It is time, people. It is PAST time.

Karen just in case you did not know this but John Cornyn was our Chief Justice on our Texas Supreme Court not that many years ago. To hear an ex jurist on our state's highest court say that the US constitution does not matter, makes me wonder if he took the same required course in Constitutional law that every lawyer in Texas is required to take before taking the state bar exam. That statement is truly reprehensible and I am ashamed to call him my US Senator.

Olbermann is laying out the details of Bush Administration inaction on Al Queda.

From the other side of my skull in NOLA...

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.

Ira,

Sen. Cornyn did not SAY this in so many words. He said it by speaking to the many EXCEPTIONS we must make in time of war, with terrists, etc. When he was reminded (by the four lawyers/military folks) that many of the current GITMO detainees are INNOCENT and have been held for FIVE YEARS without a legal hearing, he merely shook his head.

He is arrogant, mean, and just wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution. By the way, Mr. Sullivan asked me not to share this, but when he went up to Sen. Cornyn and offered to shake his hand after the testimony (Sullivan is the brilliant lawyer who spoke eloquently and was incredulous at much of the testimony of Berenson and Rivkin), Sen. Cornyn refused to do so.

I share it because I am not as nice as Mr. Sullivan, and because Sen. Cornyn is one mean and nasty man. I am sorry he was a judge in Texas: I simply cannot imagine a fair and just statement coming out of his mouth.

Just heard from Dianne Feinstein re: my letter, and her position/rhetoric seems to be neutral, determined to offend the least number of people, principles be damned. She does seem to want a "balance" between the need to play hardball against enemy combatants, and the need to keep American democratic institutions intact.

She's disappointed me. But that's par for her and most of the Democrats.

I haven't had too much time to be here lately but I want to share something that happened today that I thought was quite commendable.

I was sitting in the classroom I assist when the teacher began reading the headlines to the students while we were waiting for the rest of ths students to arrive. She spoke quietly and succinctly when she read the headline on warrant-less wiretapping. And she said quietly and simply: It's against the law. Our President and our Congress shouldn't be breaking the law.

The room was quiet. Not a word was said. A few minutes later, class began. But I was impressed with the quiet statement of fact, the quietness of the room as her statement resonated, and I was impressed that she courageously said that to a room full of people.

Less then two minutes of words...message given and maybe received.

The shocking thing to remember about Cornyn is that he was essentially excusing the threats being made against judges during the Shiavo debacle, providing senatorial cover for Tom Delay's sad campaign of judicial intimidation.

What we have here is a former Texas judge giving comfort to people who want to terrorize other judges. Shocking.

According to CNN:

71% of Iraqis want US forces out within one year.

According to last phone call received: The Senate is "debating" the torture issue now and will vote in the morning.

Thank you for writing about this. I cannot believe that the Senate is considering accepting this bill with its implications on habeas corpus. We still have time to stop the bill from passing in the Senate: http://myoccupation.blogspot.com/2006/09/save-writ-of-habeas-corpus.html

Vote is called for 9:30 am in the morning.

PLEASE call early and often.

Posted by: Karen at September 27, 2006 10:50 PM

When I checked the C-Span web site I didn't see anything indicating a debate on this ugly piece of legislation. Seems to be replays of something from the past.

What "debate?"

The last "compromises" I read about were supposed to have been made as late as this afternoon.

Do the senators even KNOW what the entire bill says in it's final edited format...? Or, since they've only talked about it in the very vaguest of terms, do they only know what they've been told it's supposed to say?

karen maybe I am missing something about this discussion and understand that we oppose this bill for legitimate constitutional reasons, but isn't it also likely that this bill will be challenged in the courts after the election and will likely be struck down as being unconstitutional. If that is the case isn't this just another Karl Rove gambit like the creation of the Office of Homeland Security that Republicans used to defeat folks like Senator Max Cleland. If that is their sole intent and they realize that after the election it will likely be struck down in the courts, why then would we want to once again fall into that political trap and allow Republicans to spend the next 41 days screaming that Democrats and Progressives don't care about national security? Didn't we learn from the 2002 debacle? Just playing devils advocate, sort of.

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 12:14 AM

Ira,

I am not so confident that this legislation is being used by the Republicans soley to force the Dems into a politically unpopular position to win the mid terms. I am convinced however that the neocons will take any opportunity to increase their power over the rest of us. If that means torture and suspending habeus corpus, they will do it to consolidate their power. Realizing the frighteningly conservative makeup of the Federal Appeals courts and the Supreme Court, I doubt that this law if approved by Congress would be overturned. So, without vigorous protest against this legislation from the Democrats, and others as well, the Dems will look much weaker defending this country and its ideals than they possibly could against "terrirists". The fact of the matter is Republicans are much better at winning and stealing elecions than Democrats ever will be unless the Democrats have a messenger who can rally Americans to protect and fight for America's best values. This is one time that the Democrats would do themselves some good by standing up for what is right about this country and not playing into the fear meme.

Furthermore, fewer Americans trust Bush now than they did several years ago. When Americans are reminded that it will be Bush making the important decisions regarding torture and habeus corpus, it might just give them pause and withdraw their support such anti-American legislation. The majority of Americans don't trust him, and that is something the Democrats can use to their advantage in this debate. That way the election becomes what the Republicans are trying to avoid - a referendum about George Bush.

US Press Unmoved by Terror Report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5386136.stm

Examines response by several major US news sources, with commentary.

This is very good, from about a week ago, on Senator Byrd's site, when he called for Rumsfeld's resignation. It is a tirade worth reading.

http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2006_september/rumsfeld_resignation.html

Hey our Microsoft Mom Dem across the water is gaining on the Repub Sheriff, due to grassroots effort locally & nationally. That could be one more woman in Congress. Won't be soon enough but we still need her there.

Finding alot of stuff on the "internets" (blogs) about "spineless Dems" and "filibuster" and so on. That's one reason I don't read alot of blogs. Seriously, the Dems may need more leadership but there are just not enough Dems. Those willing to fillibuster would not be enough even if some Repubs joined. There will also be Red State Dems, which is a reality for the Dems to gain control. If in the next election, we come out with a 50/50 Senate, the VP would still help the Repubs control it, but bad Supreme nominees could be stopped. It would also be easier to get 40 willing to filibuster. Dems Senators spoke against this bill and House Dems voted clearly against it. The media is bored with it now that the McCain chapter is over. Our objective media, of course.

Timely poster re despots who legalized torture:

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
Rex 84

If this Wikipedia info is correct... a law made over 20 years ago has the authority to round up people and incarcerate them for no reason whasoever....

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/27/the_united_states_of_torture.php
The United States Of Torture

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/26/habeas_needs_your_help.php
Habeas Needs Your Help
{{{Recommended Reading, especially for the links....}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism
House approves bill on terror detainees
WASHINGTON - 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.

For nearly two weeks, the GOP has been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.

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, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi 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," said Pelosi, D-Calif., 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 Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: "This bill is everything we don't believe in."

Overall, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted 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.
~~~~~~~~~~
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 (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa. "And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops."

{{{More on link.}}}

The House resolution number is HR 6166. The Senate bill number is S 3930.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1093PaHcC::
HR 6166 Index.... I haven't read it yet, but this is the link to the index, and the words are links to text, it seems....

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml
Roll Call vote for HR 6166 (I'm happy to report my rep voted against this obscenity, even though I notice a different MN Dem who has been in the House for many, many years voted for it. Ugh.) The list is much too long to post on the blog, so I'll let you check out your own reps.

Giuliani Defends Clinton on 9/11 Efforts

By MATT SEDENSKY
Associated Press Writer

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president's counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.

-snip-

"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists - the Islamic fanatics - who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

-snip-

Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.

"The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism," Giuliani said. "What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory."

http://tinyurl.com/ohlzv

Once again, it's time to punish those who forget why we are in Iraq in the first place.

Hint: NOT ONE GOOD GODDAM REASON!

White House Refuses to Release Full NIE Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092706R.shtml
The White House refused Wednesday to release in full a previously secret intelligence assessment that depicts a growing terrorist threat and has fueled the election-season fight over the Iraq war. "The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it that the Bush administration selects," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
{{{Go Teddy!}}}

House Passes Bush's Interrogation Bill
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092706T.shtml
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill backed by President George W. Bush setting rules for interrogating and trying foreign terrorism suspects, dismissing warnings from Democrats that courts will reject the plan.
Excerpt:
But Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said the bill sends a signal that "America's leaders are willing to abandon our values ... in favor of thuggish tactics they hope might make them safer for a little while."

Guantanamo Prisoner Brings Suit in European Court of Human Rights:
Boumediene has been tortured and abused at the hands of U.S. forces throughout the course of his imprisonment at Guantanamo. He has been severely beaten and short-shackled, placed in solitary confinement, and deprived of sleep for extended periods of time.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73290

Does America torture? :
When Bush refuses to call his "alternative" methods torture, when he wants to clarify "cruel" and "degrading" as allowing waterboarding, he reminds me of what Humpty Dumpty told Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15129.htm

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran
By Paul Craig Roberts
The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of US (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15118.htm
Excerpt:
The “coalition of the willing” has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush’s “coalition” was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS “60 Minutes” on September 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the “coalition.” Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that “you are with us” or “be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on September 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the US attack on Afghanistan, states: “’Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age’ is roughly how US officials are putting their case.”

That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the US slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush’s attempt to exercise US hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the US destruction of Pakistan: “One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did.” Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush’s “ludicrous” demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the US: “If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views.”
~~~~~~~~~~
There can be little doubt that the aggressive US use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.

Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.

Hirsch believes that the US military’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in behest of US hegemony.

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the US government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

Posted by: monkey at September 28, 2006 05:10 AM

I deeply resent Giuliani and Herr Boosh and all the other neoCon administration cretins beating us over the head daily, many times a day, with the words 'terrorism, terrorists, threat, war on terror, freedom threatened, war on terrorists, war on terrorism, war on extremists, extremism'..., ET CETERA.

It's as though someone is going through a thesaurus to find the most frightening litany of words they can to keep up the mantra of fear, fear, and more fear, must have fear in one form or another preached at us, beaten over our heads 24/7/365.... Gotta keep those scared sheeple in line, after all....

Faugh! Just once, I'd like it if someone told the war- and fear-mongers to shut the hell up and THINK about the words they are preaching and brainwashing us with...! Daydream: a good sound byte that could be played in Lamestream Media, if any of them ever got off of their fear treadmill long enough to deconstruct the language of the neoCons....

Ah, well. I dream pretty daydreams....

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the US government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 05:43 AM

Never had real organized opposition since the Reagan years.

I puke whenever the radio plays "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me" by Boy George. It IS the official theme song of the Democrats since the Reagan years.

Of course, Reagan's real brilliance for the Republicans was in growing the churches and killing the unions. And bringing in only his favorite nationalities as immigrants, instead of everyone.

I'm off to the Marine base again in two hours. A place where Orwellian rule is already reality, and a place that shows what civilian America will be like as well, very soon (if not already). A place where W can't even buy decent lighting for the troops, but the troops are taught to believe he is their best supporter anyway.

And just to let everyone know - I am NOT voting Democratic this November, at the federal level.

Congress? The Dems are NOT running a candidate in my district.

Senate? Dianne Feinstein has enraged me, so I will be voting for a Green or some other minor party candidate.

I will vote Democratic at the state level, but only to throw out the Governator, who is up for re-election.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at September 28, 2006 06:35 AM

I didn't write that sentence, but I agree with it. I see I forgot to add 'click on link' for full story.....

Posted by: Ira at September 27, 2006 07:23 PM

How disgusting of that Republican.

And it was the Republican policies, encouraging the exploitation of illegal labor at the cheapest possible price, that have resulted in so many illegal immigrants in the first place. Plus some demographics of legal immigrants who are little more than puppets for the Republican Party.

I am sorry for that fallen officer. And I am seething mad at pro-Republican immigrants. Here in SoCal, thanks to the immigrants, the flag of Vietnam has been re-defined as that of the defeated South Vietnam, and South Korea has been re-defined as a Communist regime. And they DARE to accuse *me* of redefining society?!?

Posted by: NonnyO at September 28, 2006 06:57 AM

Good morning Nonny! :)

I knew you were quoting only - but a very good sentence and article you quoted. Thanks for being so resourceful at all times.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at September 28, 2006 07:00 AM

Thanks for the compliment... but I don't sincerely feel all that resourceful this morning. I've been up all night, will listen to the Senate vote today - I expect they'll vote in favor of that ludicrous legislation. I don't know whether I'll howl in frustration or just sit and sob because it's the end of the United States of America. We've been going downhill for many years, and I have been hoping against hope that we would go back to some semblance of the kind of idealistic country we once had, faults and all - but at least a country that followed it's Constitution, Bill of Rights, treaties, laws. These last six years have been a nightmare. I don't know how we'll get through the next two years when/if the Senate loses its mind and passes that horror which will make DimWit the final arbiter in all our laws, our morals, our ethics.... (And all that is on the outside chance The Cretin doesn't start another war, among other things. I truly fear for us as a nation.)

Just as bad, the neoCons have paying WAY too much attention to MN for a few years now, and their convention will be here in '08. We have that suck-up brownie-nose Coleman for a senator (the one whose aged father had sex with a woman in broad daylight outside of a family pizza parlor a couple of months ago) who has done whatever the heck DimWit says, and last night one of the in-state commentators said the governor (up for election this fall in a neck and neck race) has been mentioned as a potential VP neocon candidate. MN has been a Dem state in all but one presidential election in all the years I can remember. Plus which, the TV stations in the Cities broadcast to WI, IA, and via repeaters in the middle of the state, into SD and ND, so it reaches a five-state area. I'd really, really hate to see MN turn red. But, MN is the largest ethanol producer so far, so that may have something to do with it. And, it is the last bastion of blue states, so the push is on, and even in-state media has fawning body language when they speak of the neoCons. Positively revolting....

On a happier note, at least Amy Klobuchar is way ahead in the polls to be the senate replacement for Mark Dayton who is stepping down, and that in spite of some really nasty ads by that idiot Mark Kennedy....

from the NY Times op-ed page yesterday:

The View From Guantánamo

By ABU BAKKER QASSIM
Published: September 17, 2006

I HAVE been greatly saddened to hear that the Congress of the United States, a country I deeply admire, is considering new laws that would deny prisoners at Guantánamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

I learned my respect for American institutions the hard way. When I was growing up as a Uighur in China, there were no independent courts to review the imprisonment and oppression of people who, like me, peacefully opposed the Communists. But I learned my hardest lesson from the United States: I spent four long years behind the razor wire of its prison in Cuba.

I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America's war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.

It was only the country's centuries-old commitment to allowing habeas corpus challenges that put that mistake right -- or began to. In May, on the eve of a court hearing in my case, the military relented, and I was sent to Albania along with four other Uighurs. But 12 of my Uighur brothers remain in Guantánamo today. Will they be stranded there forever?

Without my American lawyers and habeas corpus, my situation and that of the other Uighurs would still be a secret. I would be sitting in a metal cage today. Habeas corpus helped me to tell the world that Uighurs are not a threat to the United States or the West, but an ally. Habeas corpus cleared my name -- and most important, it let my family know that I was still alive.

Like my fellow Uighurs, I am a great admirer of the American legal and political systems. I have the utmost respect for the United States Congress. So I respectfully ask American lawmakers to protect habeas corpus and let justice prevail. Continuing to permit habeas rights to the detainees in Guantánamo will not set the guilty free. It will prove to the world that American democracy is safe and well.

I am from East Turkestan on the northwest edge of China. Communist China cynically calls my homeland ''Xinjiang,'' which means ''new dominion'' or ''new frontier.'' My people want only to be treated with respect and dignity. But China uses the American war on terrorism as a pretext to punish those who peacefully dissent from its oppressive policies. They brand as ''terrorism'' all political opposition from the Uighurs.

Amnesty International reports that East Turkistan is the only province in China where people may face the death penalty for political offenses. Chinese leaders brag about the number of Uighur political prisoners shot in the head. I was punished for speaking against China's unjust policies, and I left because of the threat to my life. My search for work and refuge took me from Kyrgyzstan to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I heard about the Sept. 11 attacks for the first time in Guantánamo. I was not aware of their magnitude until after my release, when a reporter showed me images online at an Internet cafe in Tirana. It was a terrible thing. But I too was its victim. I would never have experienced the ordeal and humiliation of Guantánamo if this horrific event had not taken place.

I feel great sadness for the families who lost their loved ones on that horrible day five years ago. And I would be sadder still to see the freedom-loving American people walk away from their respect for the rule of law. I want America to be a strong and respected nation in the world. Only then can it continue to be the source of hope for the hopeless -- like my people.

--Abu Bakker Qassim was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2002 to May. This article was translated from the Uighur by Nury Turkel.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F2061EFA38550C748DDDA00894DE404482

Keith Olbermann and Countdown speak out -- here's reporting as it used to be done by people willing to speak out about things that those in power would have preferred stay hidden.

Watch it here -- Click on the one titled "Leading up to 9/11" which references rising to Clinton's challenge...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

or here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg&eurl=

I would encourage you to use the msnbc link. That registers with MSNBC as additional hits = support for Keith and the hard-hitting reporting that he and the Countdown staff are doing.

Follow it up with an email or two. With a hattip to dk poster Black Max for assembling this list of email addresses:

kolbermann@msnbc.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, multimedia@msnbc.com, GeneralComments@feedback.msnbc.com, countdown@msnbc.com, letters@msnbc.com, Anne.Keegan@msnbc.com, bob.wright@nbc.com, neal.shapiro@nbc.com, Erik.Sorenson@MSNBC.com

This is important, not because it makes us feel better, but because it is a source of information which will reach those who aren't plugged into the blogosphere and the internet for their news and info about the world. It makes it "OK" for other journalists to start doing their jobs as journalists. And we need to reach the Americans who are unconscious, unaware of just what is being done in their names because the truth has been obscured.

Because of new relevations and several twists and turns, we have now squarely ended up once again being forced to examine Henry Lee Lucas and his crimes in detail.

My God, I do not know how much more of this we can handle.

50 victims on Browne, Lucas confessed to 600. An assumed high number of unsolved murders under a cracker sheriff from nowhere. The missing, the mutilated, the thrown away. The unidentified that were never claimed. Historical mass graves. Necrophelia.

Did you know Lucas'partner was a CANNIBAL...?

Oh. My. God. I do not know if I can move another inch today.

Tom DeLay replacement write in candidate Councilwoman Gibbs steps in it again this morning, insisting that her tirade during fallen officer's tribute was appropriate. Seems like this DeLay crowd never seems to learn.

oncall: curious why you would not think that this torture bill 40 days before an election doesn't have Rove and politics written all over it.

As I recall the Supreme Court already struck down the initial detainee legislation as overly broad, and except for Alito, I am hopeful they will have the common sense to realize that it violates the US Constitution's 13th and 4th Amendments. That in no way marginalizes dcp member's opposition, I just see it as a net loser in the upcoming elections. There is no urgency to passing this legislation and absolutely no reason other than crass politics, that it could not have had a real vote right after the election, that was my point oncall.

Posted by: Christy at September 28, 2006 08:26 AM

Indeed you can, because I've heard you ask that of yourself before, and you always do.

Wishing You Strength & Courage

Heralded Iraq police academy a 'disaster'
$75 million project so mismanaged that campus poses huge health risks

By Amit R. Paley
The Washington Post
Updated: 1:44 a.m. ET Sept 28, 2006

BAGHDAD - A $75 million project to build the largest police academy in Iraq has been so grossly mismanaged that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and might need to be partially demolished, U.S. investigators have found.

The Baghdad Police College, hailed as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country's security, was so poorly constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings in student barracks. Floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart. Water dripped so profusely in one room that it was dubbed "the rain forest."

"This is the most essential civil security project in the country -- and it's a failure," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office created by Congress. "The Baghdad police academy is a disaster."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15022363/

Police Academy 43
"I laughed til I cried"

Bowen's office plans to release a 21-page report Thursday detailing the most alarming problems with the facility.

Even in a $21 billion reconstruction effort that has been marred by cases of corruption and fraud, failures in training and housing Iraq's security forces are particularly significant because of their effect on what the U.S. military has called its primary mission here: to prepare Iraqi police and soldiers so that Americans can depart.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Ned Lamont continues to struggle to find support among Republican and unaffiliated voters in his attempt to defeat three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in November's Connecticut Senate election, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman maintains a 10-point advantage among likely voters in the poll, leading Lamont 49 percent to 39 percent in a three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.

The race has tightened slightly since an Aug. 17 poll that showed Lieberman leading 53 percent to 41 percent.

"Ned Lamont has lost momentum. He's gained only two points in six weeks," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or Sen. Joseph Lieberman stays in for another six years."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15042299/

Can someone please explain to me how this torture bill makes our country & our president any different from Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

Look for Bush to crow about the DOW reaching its 2000 levels today. Several problems with that: The NASDQ is still down by a third as well as the the S&P 500. Its taken 6 1/2 years to reach that level so counting around 30% inflation in that amount of time its still down plus the DOW is now made up of different stocks then in 2000.

We don't discuss economics here much but thought that I should throw that up as tonight's likely evening news story.

Sad to hear that Republicans are anxious to re- elect Lieberman. If we don't win the 6 Senate seats and Liebrman wins, I'm for asking Lieberman to go ahead and become the Republican we all know he truly is.

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 09:43 AM

... and maybe Bush can explain to the citizens how the Dow affects them on a day to day basis in the current economy.

Oh I forgot, he can't explain anything, and apparently, doesn't have to.

Laaaand of the sheep, home of the fleeced.

The Iraqis want us out within a year. What else is there to say - assuming that we, and the new Iraqi government, actually respect the principles of democracy.

It's fair to conclude that chaos is likely after we leave, but how would that scenario be different from what exists today? Can the situation in Iraq today be credibly described as "stable"?

Ironically, the best U.S.-centric argument that I think of for keeping the troops in place is that their presence makes it impossible for Bush to seriously considering invading Iran. And what does that tell you about how crazy things are in the old US of A.

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 08:41 AM

Ira,

It is a crass political move by Rove et al. I don't disagree with that point. My contention however is that the Dems if they handle this correctly can get more out of this than many give them credit for.

oncall:

Just in case any of us thought that Karl Rove had no intention of using today's vote to attack Dems, think again. I am sure their tv commercials were in the can weeks ago before this vote was even concieved but here is their dispicable frame, which is 2002 redeux:

"WASHINGTON — President Bush urged the Senate today 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."
Houston Chronicle

Posted by: Ira at September 28, 2006 01:33 PM

No surprises there. I still believe that the Democrats and others can use this to their advantage. I say this because Americans have a deep mistrust of Bush, and know that he lied to get us into the Iraqi war.

When somebody with actual political power (as opposed to Keith Oberman) gets up and calls Bush out on this, Americans will rally to protect their country. I believe that most Americans don't want to see their country degrade into the equivalent of a modern day Stalinist dictatorship. I believe that most Americans believe this country was founded on principled values. I also believe that Americans want this country to still be admired for the hope and justice for which it stands. Americans will fight this. Whomever becomes the test case will be a national hero.

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.