Truth 2 Power Project: Al-Qaeda

Showing posts with label Al-Qaeda. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 22

Al-Qaeda's Preferred Candidate - John Sydney McCain

(Note this has been diaried, but deserves repeating)

Al-Qeada has Endorsed John McCain for President of the United States

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

...

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."

That's right while the McCain campaign and RNC are sending out mailers accusing Barack Obama of supporting "Terrorists of who bombed the Capital, Pentagon and killed Americans" - the actual terrorists apparently (heart) John McCain, because he's committed to continuing to weaken America by spilling our blood and treasure on the sands of Iraq - a country that was no threat to us - rather than fight and catch, well, Real Terrorists.

McCain and Co have been having a completely nutty over ex-terrorist Williams Ayers. 40 Years ago he was a member of a group who used bombs to protest the Vietnam War. In 2001 - just a few weeks before 9/11 - he stated that he wished they'd ~~bombed~~ done more to stop the war.

But... let us point out that Ayers was never prosecuted or convicted of anything. His former group, the Weathermen did not "attack Americans", the bombs did not target people but things and the only American actually killed by them was one of their own members in an accident.

The 60's and early 70's were a very different time, there weren't just bombings, there were police riots at the Democratic Convention - there was the tragic shooting of students at Kent State by National Guard troops. The FBI and CIA conducted illegal surveillence and infiltration operations which resulted in the wrongful imprisoning of dozens of individuals including Geronimo Pratt and Leonard Peltier, not to mention others who were essentially executed in the streets by police.

But we aren't in the 60's anymore.

We aren't arguing over the Vietnam war. We haven't had riots in the streets, even though we have had the same type of illegal surveillance of innocent U.S. citizens. (The NSA passing out the tapes of our troops having phone-sex, as well as spying on journalists and peace workers)

The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News.

The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists.

We have had the sanctioning of kidnapping and torture as part of official U.S. policy, simply by making up a new word "enhanced interrogation".

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

None of this "We didn't know" - "it was just a few random incidents" crap. All of it, abu Ghraib, Water-boarding in Gitmo, Secret Prison were authorized and approved from the very top, despite the fact that it violated both international and U.S. Law!

We've completely destroyed our own moral authority and standing in the world.

We should be ashamed. American should be, and can be better.

Al-Qaeda knows this, and they know that this makes their job far easier. They want John McCain because he will continue on the exact same path of George W. Bush.

"The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."

Forget William Ayers. Forget trying to re-fight the Vietnam War. It's time we started to start seriously fighting this war. We need to end the tragic distraction of Iraq and finally start getting the job done. We need recapture our moral authority. We need to retire al-Qaeda to the trash heap of history.

John McCain is not going to do it. Al-Qeada knows it. We know it.

Time to turn the page on all of Bush's failures, including McCain.

Vyan

Sunday, April 6

Morgan Spurlock: A Real American Hero to the Rescue

n this midst of this weeks news that President Bush is so intent on "smoking him out of his holes" that he walked out of a recent NATO meeting about Afghanistan because - well, the meeting had gone on too long for him.

Bush is no fan of windy meetings and evidently had had his fill. He left behind Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to represent him for the rest of the session, which concerned NATO operations in Afghanistan, but his departure was so sudden and unexpected that he left some of his motorcade behind, inculding his press pool, when he got into his car and headed back to his hotel.

Who knows maybe it was past his bedtime, what with Jetlag in Romania and all..

So in this bleak time we have but ONE MAN to look toward to help save this nation from itself, and track down the most deadly butcherous mass murderer in all history.

Who is that lone solitary figure of Bruckheimer-ish virility and manhood?

Morgan Spurlock maker of "Super Size Me" and FX's "30 Days".

Let us not forget that on George Bush's Watch, the Taliban and Al Qeada have merged operations, and also that in Pakistan - where Bin Ladin is most rumoured to be - there is a non-aggresion treaty between that government - our supposedly ally - and the Taliban.

Does that mean that the ally of our ally is not our enemy it? Or does it?

In the spirit that this farcical "Search for Osama" has become, Spurlock now brings you : Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

Coming this Fall.

I know some of you are probably waiting on baited breath for the new season of 24 where Jack Bauer (Sets Congress Straight about Torture - but I for one can't wait for this.

Vyan

Wednesday, October 24

Fox Thinks Al Qeada Set the CA Fires

Just like preverbial boogey man of Myth, Fox News sees Al Qeada under every rock. Al Qeada is responsible for the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq. Al Qeada is responsible for Shia Death Squads. Al Qeada in Iraq has been "defeated", except when they haven't. And now, Al Qeada has allegedly set the California Wildfires which have displaced nearly 1 Million people - at least that's what Fox "Newsman" Steve Doocy thinks.

Via Thinkprogress:

This morning on Fox News, hosts of the show Fox and Friends blamed the wildfires in California on a new culprit: al Qaeda. They pointed to a 2003 FBI memo, which raised the possibility that al Qaeda may try to set wildfires around the western United States. They also noted that men in a "hovering helicopter" saw "a guy starting one of these fires."

And, oh yeah, in that reported memo - California wasn't even mentioned.

DOOCY: You’re looking live at pictures from San Diego — Santiago, CA, where the wildfires continue. We were talking earlier in today’s telecast with Adam Housley and apparently police officers in a hovering helicopter saw a guy starting one of these fires. And Allison Allison Camerota, an FBI memo from late in June of this year is popping up this morning and it is ominous.

CAMEROTA: This actually has happened for many years in the past as well. An FBI sent out to local law-enforcement said that an al Qaeda detainee had given them some information that the next wave of terrorism could be in the form of setting wild fires. Adam Housley said lots of people on his block were asking him about it. Obviously this is something the FBI has looked into. They will continue to investigate it.

Oh, a Detainee said so? Well, geez, we know we can certainly take that one to the bank. I mean, Curveball was just so SPOT. ON. with the mobile labs wasn't he?

CARLSON: If they have this person in custody it probably won’t take long to be able to develop a link if there is one.

KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI’s Denver offices reported three days ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper, they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.

DOOCY: Brian, the plot they say, according to this detainee, and they don’t know if the detainee is telling the truth. The plot was to set three or four wildfires. But they don’t mention California. They mention Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. We do know for a fact that a number of the fires in southern California are of a suspicious nature and they are investigating arson.

It's fair to argue that there has been some evidence of arson in the California Wildires. This has been a situation that has gone back for generations, year in and year out - since as a matter of fact - most of Southern Calfornia is a mild desert! But to state that their might be active al-Qeada cells and sympathizers in HelL-A is going a bit far.

Not that CNN'S Glen Beck hasn't already been circling that block with his claim that it's...

"unfortunate that a handful of people who hate America ... are losing their homes in a forest fire today".

Is it "unfortunate" that they lost their homes or "unfortunate" that the supposedly "Hate America" by becoming successful in the entertainment industry? Which one is it Glen?

Of course now he's claiming that this was just a joke and is now playing the well worn right-wing victim card. Y'see it's all those lefty liberal bloggers who are really the mean people.

BECK: Let me get to your phone calls here in a second. I want to have a -- I want to have a frank and open conversation with you here for a second. Apparently, I have upset a few liberal bloggers. Woe is me. And I need to be extraordinarily clear on one thing. Not with you. And I'll explain in a second.

These people -- they're amazing. They're incredible. They claim that I'm serious when I'm joking and try to cause trouble, and then they say I'm joking when I'm serious and try to cause trouble. There's no way -- if you disagree with any of these people -- there's no way that you can ever win. And here's the interesting thing: Even if you agree with these people, there's no way you can ever win.

If you've listened to me for years, you know wildfires are deeply personal to me. Wildfires make blood shoot out of my eyes. But for the bloggers, it doesn't matter what I really think. It doesn't -- they're not trying to convince you I'm a bad guy. You know. You know who I am. What they're trying to do is convince people who don't watch the TV show, who don't listen to the show. They're trying to convince them that I'm an evil supervillain.

Because those people can be convinced. So let me just -- let me tell you, so you know, so you can tell those who want to make me into an evil supervillain. Who do you have to be to think that it's a good thing that anybody's house burns down? Who do you have to be?

Who do you have to be Glenn? Maybe you have to be a guy That thinks it's FUNNY that people's homes have burned down when you disagree with (some of) them politically??

How could we ever think anyone on the right-wing would stoop so low as to make fun of people who've lost every possession in the worst firestorm in history, after they've been so kind in their responses to people like Graeme Frost, Bethany Wilkerson, The 82nd Air Borne, Capt Jon Soltz, Micheal J. Fox, John Edwards, Cindy Sheehan and the 9-11 Widows?

After they've attacked sick kids, why exactly would anyone think twice about Beck and his ilk attacking the victims of a massive fire?

But not to worry, it was just a joke - minus the funny part.

And who knew that the right-wing hated the rich people who live in expensive houses on the hill so much? Maybe they can get them some fresh juicy new tax cuts to help buy a new house somewhere else as long as it isn't already flooded with the other kinds of people - y'know the middle-class and the poor? And while they're at it how about a few man-made Islands or something for the looming construction boom of new Luxury Condos far away from anyone who can't afford them? That outta be Posh, like totally Paris and Nicole.

One big problem with Glenn's entire view is that so much of these fires have affected Orange County and San Diego, both of whom are giant Red Swaths in an otherwise Blue State. Orange County was so gracious that they've bought us both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan not to mention B-1 Bob Dornan, Dana Rorbacher (sic) and from San Diego we've have had Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis and Darrell Issa.

If you subscribe to the Fixed News view of things on the other hand, the ones who "Hate America" are apparently the enormous enclave of Islamo Fascists who've decided their best weapon against the Imperialism of the West is to Flick a Bic. In that case, trying to burn down John Wayne's house almost makes sense.

And all this time while Fox and Beck are keeping us distracted with their pathological nuttiness - the real issues raised by these fires goes ignored while the White House Censors the head of CDC on the issue of the human impacts of Climate Change.

Today, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the "Human Impacts of Global Warming." Gerberding told the committee that global warming "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans," but gave few specifics, instead focusing on CDC’s current preparation plans.

CDC officials are now revealing that the White House heavily edited Gerberding’s testimony, which originally was longer and had more "information on health risks":

"It was eviscerated," said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.

The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

The White House’s deletions included "details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels."

I'm thinking right now that one particular risk happens to be trying to breath in a smoke cloud so large you can See it from Space!

So while Fox is chasing phantom al Qeada in the hills of Malibu (just as they've been chasing phantom AQI through the streets of Najaf and Fallujah for four years now) the impacts of gradual and steady planetary warming, which can clearly contribute to the types of dry conditions that help facilitate the tragedy that hit Southern California, remain ignored and forgotten by an Administration that has a long history of denying fact and science.

Vyan

Wednesday, September 12

ABC shelves Path to 9/11 DVD. Yay!

Last year during the fifth anniversary of 9/11 ABC televised a mini-series "dramatizing" some of the events which supposed led to attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Now, amid virilent criticism of the accuracy of it's docu-drama, ABC has declined to release the film on DVD and it's writer/creator, avowed conservative activist, Cyrus Nowresteh is now hopping mad. From Today's WSJ.

Left-leaning pundits, politicos and bloggers waxed hysterical about its supposed inaccuracies and anti-Clinton bias, though the vast majority of them had not seen it.

This passive self-censorship is just as effective as anything Joseph Stalin or Big Brother could impose. The result is the same: the curbing of free speech and creative expression, and the suppression of a viewpoint that may be an inconvenient truth for some politicians.

But ABC pulling the DVD had nothing to do with "left-leaning pundits" and everything to do with the film being a pile of lying crap.

More blather from Nowresteh via Raw Story.

Last Wednesday, in a front page LA Times Calendar piece "Clinton and the missing DVD," reporter Martin Miller gave voice to the latest series of charges from the mini-series’ neo-con writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh who now claims that out of deference to Hillary Clinton, ABC is shelving the five hour mini-series which was hyper-critical of her husband’s counter-terrorism record.

Oh, so now this is a dastardly plot by the villious Hillary Clinton - do tell?

In his latest FrontPage booking, Nowrasteh whines, "Last year at this time it was a coordinated effort from the Clintons, Sandy Berger, the DNC, and the far-left loony blogosphere to swamp ABC with emails and phone calls and threats to get them to block the broadcast, or recut the movie. Since then it’s been more subtle. I know there have been phone calls to top execs at Disney from President Clinton himself, and friends of the Clintons, of which there are many in Hollywood."

Wow that Hillary sure is powerful. I wonder if she got some help from that dirty bastard George Soros?

Frankly, if this is what happened - if the "far-left loony blogosphere" actually managed to cause ABC to fix the gross errors in this movie, which as a card-carrying member of that loony far-left I blogged about thoroughly here, here , here, here and here last year (and I was far from alone) - I would be impressed.

Yet somehow, I don't think that's what happened.

I think the fact that film essentially defamed John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton by manufacturing failures of inaction on thier part which didn't take place and ignoring many successful aggressive anti-terrorist actions that did probably had more to do with it. And then there's also the issue of intellectual theft.

Don't take my word for it, listen to what Peter Lance, author of "1000 Years of Revenge" one of the books that was propurtedly a major source for "Path" has to say about it...

.... 1000 Years For Revenge, was one of the three works on which ABC based the mini. They acquired it for a quarter of a million dollars in 2005 under threat of litigation, after they’d lost the book in a bidding war with NBC.

Nowrasteh then proceeded to launder most of my critical findings on negligence by the FBI and the two Bush administrations and give Path a twisted pro-Bureau slant through the eyes of ex-ABC News correspondent John Miller, who now works as Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the FBI.

"Years" documents how various failures under Bush 41 within the NYPD and NY Office of the FBI were critical in allowing Ramzi Yousef, the original WTC bomber to roam free for several years and eventually conceive of the plot which became 9/11 to finish the job he'd started in 1993.

There was a rival book on the bidding table called "The Cell" which was essential a "Disney-ized" version of similar events, but was so white-washed it was " Like telling the story of John Dillinger’s takedown without mentioning FBI agent Melvin Purvis"

As it turned out, ABC failed to acquire the rights to "Years" after a fierce bidding war - so naturally Nowresteh simply appropriated parts of it to fit into his fictional narrative and went on his merry way. More from Raw Story.

Now, in July as the cameras began rolling on what ABC first called "the History Project," something told me that I should get a look at Cyrus’s script. When I turned to the first page of "Night One," I saw that Nowrasteh had lifted much of my book, scene by scene, dialogue for dialogue. He’d even titled the first two hours, "The Mozart of Terror," the name I’d coined for Yousef.

But beyond the hijacking of 1000 Years, what was most galling, was how Cyrus, hungry for some book on which to hang his story, had now embraced The Cell, the very book he’d bad-mouthed to me and elevated John Miller, who was about to take a job as chief FBI flak, to a lead character.

Worse, he’d taken the hapless Det. Lou Napoli – who had ignored Ronnie Bucca’s warnings and failed to follow the WTC bombers – and turned him into a lead member of the FBI posse out to stop bin Laden, a bullpen of real and fictional characters now led by John O’Neill.

Unable to legally acquire my book, Nowrasteh had simply appropriated it and used what he wanted from it and then set up The Cell with its pro-FBI slant as the "based on" underlying work for his re-telling of "History."

Nowresteh's unauthorized lifts from "Years" led to a lawsuit which was eventually settled for $250,000 and gave ABC the rights to the material that Nowresteh stole prior to it's airing. The settlement also included a gag-order to keep Nowresteh's theft and distortion of history and facts from becoming public - an order which Peter Lance has now knowingly breached in order to get the facts out.

Facts such as these which were not included in the film.

Bill Clinton personally authorized each and every agressive action suggested to stop and/or contain Osama Bin Laden (Roger Cressey)
Under Clinton the CIA had standing orders to Kill Bin Laden (9/11 Report Page 199)
No U.S. military personnel were ever on the ground in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and ever had visual contact with Bin Laden (Richard Clarke)
Bill Clinton specifically ordered Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton to develop a plan to put Special Forces on the ground in Bin Laden's camps, but it was the Pentagon who balked - not the White House. (Richard Clarke)
The Development of the Armed Predator, under Clinton, to address the logistical problems which plagued Special Forces in Afghanistan
Richard Clarke's urgent Jan 2001 warnings about Al Qeada to Condi Rice and call for an immediate Principles Meeting which was ignored for 9 months.
The Bush Administration doing nothing in response to the U.S.S. Cole bombing once Al Qaeda had been confirmed as the culprits in early 2001.
The Midnight Ride to Condi's Office by Tenet, Cofer Black and Clark to warn that something big "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" was coming, which was ignored.
The August 6th PDB.
George Tenet's personal briefing of Bush in August at the Crawford ranch to reemphisize the PDB and make clear that "They're Coming Here"
The fact that the Armed Predator, though ready, was not even discussed for deployment by the WH until Clarke's "urgent" meeting finally took place on Sept 5th.
Sept 11th, G.W. Bush and the seven minutes of "My Pet Goat".

In the Nowresteh retelling of events, the failures of both Bush 41 are Bush 43 are completely white-washed - while any misteps by Clinton are magnified and many are completely fabricated. In Cyrus-World Clinton did everything wrong, Bush (41 & 43) did everything right.

Fortunately most of live elsewhere and know better.

But how could we expect this film to give the Clinton Administration a fair and accurate shake when it was first announced and publisized triumphantly by Rush Limbaugh?

"The film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration in doing anything about militant Islamofascism or terrorism during its administration. It cites failures of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and Sandy Burglar."

The fact is that this film was never conceived of, and never will be considered a "documentary" or for that matter true. Numerous members of the 9/11 Commission have spoken up to point out that it fails to reflect their findings. It well past time that people like Mr. Nowserteh learned Freedom of Speach is not Freedom to Lie.

I myself regret that "Path to 9/11" won't be available on DVD since I actually missed it's original airing - I also love a good comedy.

Ok, ok... a really bad unintentional tragic hypocritical paranoid propaganda-laced bullshit black comedy (if you look at it from a Heathers-like perspective of "This is what some people actually think happened? Fuck Me Gently with a Chainsaw!" - but still a comedy.

Vyan

Wednesday, April 25

Moyers exposes the LapDog Media

Following just one day after the announced by Dennis Kucinich that he is putting forth Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney for Lying to us into a War - Tonight at 9pm, PBS is airing the new Bill Moyers documentary "Buying the War", a film which analyzes just how much the mainstream media helped to manipulate the American Public into believing the need for our attack and occupation of Iraq.

The Washington Post’s Tom Shales calls it "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year, but it’s as disheartening as it is compelling." From Thinkprogress:

Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead.

Bush and Cheney may have been the primary purveyor of the lies, but the mainsteam media were his willing cheerleaders in the march to war...

Watch Preview Video from Thinkprogress:

Exhibit A — the first event recalled in this report — is a news conference by President Bush on March 6, 2003, which Moyers says is two weeks before Bush "will order America to war." The press conference was a sham, with Bush calling only on "friendly" reporters who’d ask friendly questions. The corker was this scorching investigative query: "Mr. President, how is your faith guiding you?"

"At least a dozen times during [March 6th] press conference," Moyers says, Bush would "invoke 9/11 and al-Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America." The link between al-Qaeda and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was never proved and had to be taken on faith, Moyers recalls, as did the administration claim that Hussein had developed, was developing, or might soon develop weapons of mass destruction.

Moyers' documentary recounts how overseas reporters were far more skeptical of claims linking Saddam to Al Qaeda unlike Beltway-Punditocracy who were too far "inside the bubble".

Bob Simon of 60 Minutes: Saddam was a dictator, a control-freak. To introduce a wild-card group like Al-Qaeda is just something he wouldn't do, so I didn't believe it for an instant.

It also talks to reporters from Knight-Ridder who were skeptical of the claims of Iraq who found that some of their papers would instead be replaced by more administation friendly reports from the New York Times (by Judith Miller) or the Washington Post.

It wasn't clear to us we were hearing so much about Iraq, when the [9-11] attack clearly had al-Qaeda written all over it.

Stewart v McCain : The Smackdown

As posted on onegoodmove.org

Presidential candidate John McCain squared off with the heavyweight champion of fake news Jon Stewart. It was a bare knuckle brawl in which Jon landed the first blow and McCain found himself on the mat staring up at at least three Blackhawk helicopters. McCain countered with mistakes were made, but we are where we are. Jon landed a second blow on fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. It was a glancing blow, that McCain countered with mistakes were made, but we are where we are. The knockout blow came when Jon called McCain on the idea that we aren't supporting the troops if we don't go along with the President. McCain countered with mistakes were made, but we are where we are.

Quicktime Video 18.3 MB : 00:11:48
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.

Further Commentary from ThereisNoSpoon ok Dkos.

Tonight on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart owned John McCain and showed the world what a REAL Democratic leader who understands how to tell the truth and sound authoritative doing it looks like. I say this without exaggeration: it was the most amazing rhetorical performance I have seen from any progressive in the last six years. In one 10 minute debate with John McCain, he did the following:

--compared the daily horrific tragedies in Iraq with the VA Tech shooting to show just how bad things are over in Iraq

--obliterated the very idea that we are fighting a "war" in Iraq, challenging McCain to explain how military strategy and battleships could possibly factor into "winning" in Iraq

--insisted that the "war" as such was over once we had captured Saddam Hussein

--obliterated the idea the timetables for withdrawal will allow the "terrorists and Sunni insurgents and Shia militias" to win, by telling the truth that it's THEIR country and they can wait us out as long as they want

--called McCain's bluff when he said that withdrawal would constitute surrender, by stating matter-of-factly that these groups are fighting not with us but with one another while we babysit them, and then going on to state unequivocally, quoting Petraeus, that any solution must be political rather than military. And that benchmarks and timetables are an essential part of diplomatic and political solutions.

--demanded that McCain explain to him how criticizing the President was a greater failure to support the troops than extending their tours of duty, initiating stop losses, and failing abjectly to keep Walter Reed up to snuff.

--explained that Al-Qaeda's stated purpose is to draw America out into a long and bloody that drains our lives and our treasury...and that even granted the premise that terrorists in Iraq want to follow us back to America, they will do so one way or another.

--challenged McCain to show him what the "new strategy" was, and laid out the truth quite clearly: that we can either put over 350,000 troops on the ground there (full occupation), or withdraw (ending occupation).

And there's so, so much more where that came from.

Indeed there is, it's more than worth a viewing or three.

Vyan

Sunday, November 19

Kristol: Republican Support for Iraq will Crumble in 3 Months

From Thinkprogress:

This morning on Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol said that that the current Iraq strategy of “Iraqification” is “failing” and has been “discredited.” Noting that CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said he finds “despair” about Iraq when he comes to Washington, Kristol said he was “very worried” that if conditions in Iraq did not improve within 2 to 3 months, “political support will crumble not among Democrats, but among Republicans. Gone.

Now we all know just how wonderful PNAC luminaries such as Kristol have been at predicting anything, but for once I think they just might be onto something. Particularly since Bush's own semi-secret advisor at steerings us smack-dab into Vietnam Redux, Henry Kissinger has already jumped the shark.

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq.

Well, duh!

The Neo-con's 19th nervous breakdown continues in the Washington Post.

..Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress....The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting (Kenneth) Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war....

Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard," said David Kuo, a former deputy White House director of faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."...

And has apparenlty lost it's own Holy War.

And what does Bush's Bestest Brit Buddy Tony Blair say? Iraq has been a "disaster"

Tony Blair has publicly agreed with the opinion that the violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion has been a disaster.

The UK prime minister was responding to a question by Sir David Frost in an interview on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

Of course a little piling on from the Left starting with Helen Thomas, doesn't make the picture any prettier.

It's over for them and their big dreams of pre-emptive wars and conquest of the Middle East. If anything, this group has left America weakened by the tragic military misadventure in Iraq. They convinced President Bush it would be a "cakewalk" to invade and occupy Iraq but it has turned out otherwise. Those power-driven ideologues have learned that the price for their dream was high -- too high.

So much for their calamitous "Project for A New American Century," which laid out the agenda to transform several Arab nations to their liking. It also meant sending Americans to kill and die for reasons yet to be explained by the president.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says ending the War is her Highest Priority.

This morning, I visited our brave men and women at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. It is a place of prayers, of honor, of respect, and reflection. And I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end.

I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq.
This unnecessary pre-emptive war has come at great cost. Nearly 2,900 of our brave troops have lost their lives and more than 21,000 more have suffered lasting wounds. Since the war began, Congress has appropriated more than $350 billion, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world.

I'm beginning to think Ap-IPSOS might have to start polling Laura and Barney soon, everyone else seems to be getting the picture.

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Right Decision? 41% Wrong Decision? 51%

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep Troops? 46$ Bring them Home? 48%

"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"

Has Clear Plan? 19% No Clear Plan? 71%

Many had thought that the ouster of Rumself on the day after the election signalled a change in direction on Iraq - but with Gen Abizaid arguing to Congress that we can't add troops, and we can't leave - exactly where does that leave our nation and troops other than being trapped in the cross-fire between Sunni's fearful of Shiite political influence and Shias sick and tired of Sunni violence?

But with Bush recent comments in Vietnam - "We'll succeed unless we quit." - it doesn't exactly look like the Prez is really getting the message of all those beating drums in the distance.

The real irony is that we could have won Iraq. Bringing Peace and Democracy to a region of the world that had been devasted by roving death squads, sectarian and religious violence while combating the influence of Al Qeada is something we've done before... in Bosnia.

Despite years of ethnic cleansing and the growing influence of Muslim Radicals - we the U.S. in equal partnership with Europe and Russian ended the violence. The former killing fields of Bosnia are now a thriving and rich Democracy - thanks largely to President William Jefferson Clinton who had to fight tooth and nail with a Republican Congress to accomplish the mission.

The real question is can a similar solution from the Baker-Hamilton group, involving regional powers such as Syria and Iran, a political accomodation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and a credible Force Transition Plan to give the Iraqis their country back fom our ongoing occupation be something that that President Bush can either get behind or most importantly - Implement with any Competence What-So-Ever?

My best guess would be... Hell No.

He's going to do nothing be stonewall, completely ignoring the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton just as he's ignored 90% of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Congress will attempt to force the President to comply, he'll fight back and Veto, then they'll fail to override and the War will trundle on, the bodies will pile higher, the blood trail will thicken for the next two years until the next President comes into office and either gets serious about cleaning this mess up with some genuine good faith diplomacy or simply runs from Iraq like a scared rabbit.

Either option is better than what we have now, but the former is far more desirable than the latter.

The one thing we can count on: is that we'll get neither from Bush.

Vyan

Thursday, October 26

Cheney confirms detainees were Water-Boarded

On Tuesday Vice-President Dick Cheney while speaking with a conservative talk show host confirmed that terrorist detainees may have indeed been Water-boarded.

In the interview on Tuesday, Scott Hennen of WDAY Radio in Fargo, N.D., told Cheney that listeners had asked him to "let the vice president know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives."

"Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?" Hennen said.

"I do agree," Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation."

Cheney added that Mohammed had provided "enormously valuable information about how many (al-Qaida members) there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth. We've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that."

"Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" asked Hennen.

"It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.' We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in," Cheney replied. "We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."

Yet again we see the Adminstration doing a fast soft shoe by using the Bybee Definition of Torture - which allows you to do everything short of inflicting permanent physical damage to a subject. This is a deliberate deceit that can not be allowed to go unrebutted.

The intent is clearly to confuse and manipulate the American public by treating a sustained simulated drowning as being nothing more than bobbing for apples. This confusion has even managed to dupe several Republican Sponsors of the recently passed Military Commissions Act.

Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have said that a law Bush signed last month prohibits water-boarding. The three are the sponsors of the Military Commissions Act, which authorized the administration to continue its interrogations of enemy combatants.

It's too bad their wrong.

The law does prohibit many things that are clearly torture - including sexual abuse - but it also leaves open a huge door to all forms of treatment which are non-lethal, do not leave permenent bruses and do not cause permanent damage to a limb or organ failures.

From EspionageInfo.com

The techniques and technologies of torture can be grouped into three categories: hardware, software, and liveware. The term "hardware" refers to the equipment used; software refers to the techniques of torture that are taught to interrogators. Torture liveware refers to the human element of torture, typically the interrogator.

Torture hardware. Examples of torture hardware include shackles for the arms, legs, and even thumbs, whips, canes, beating devices (i.e., clubs, rubber hoses), water, electrical generators to administer electroshocks, and devices that suspend someone painfully above the ground. In fact, the list of physical harm that can be inflicted is long. Any possible route to inflict pain that can be conceived of has been used.

Machines that generate intolerable noise ("white noise") or bright pulses of ultraviolet light are sometimes used. Hardware can also have a chemical nature. Some drugs can cause physical discomfort, pain, and disruptions to the body's biochemistry. Examples include curare,

insulin, and apomorphine. Drugs such as these differ from psychoactive drugs that alter thought processes or biochemical activity in the brain. Food and water deprivation, or maintaining an uncomfortable position for a long time, can also induce biochemical changes.

Electromagnetic radiation can also be a means of torture. Studies in animals have shown that electromagnetic waves of certain wavelengths can destroy lung and brain cells. While not necessarily lethal, these effects are debilitating and can be painful. Electromagnetic stimulation can have other nonlethal effects on humans. Extreme emotions of rage, lust, and fatigue can be caused. A 1950s research program called "Operation Knockout," which was funded by the United States Central Intelligence Agency, discovered that electroshock treatments could be used to cause amnesia. Memories could be erased, and the subjects reprogrammed. This "psychic driving" is a form of torture.

The most widely used torture hardware is electro-shock. Pulses of energy, which are therapeutically useful in some medical treatments, have been adapted as a torture technique. The application of electricity stimulates muscle activity to such an extent that involuntary and painful muscular contractions occur. Longer pulses of electricity produce successively greater debilitation. For example, a five-second discharge from a cattle prod can completely immobilize someone for up to 15 minutes

Torture software. The use of intimidation, threats, harsh and comforting language, and even silence are all techniques that, when combined with the hardware of torture, can extract information from a victim.

Such interrogation techniques have become standard operating procedures for interrogators. Indeed, manuals have been written for interrogators. One example is the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, which was written by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and whose existence became known in 1997 as part of a Freedom of Information Request. A second example is the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, which trained interrogators until 1991. The U.S. is by no means unique in providing such training.

Another older CIA Manual (KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation) was written in 1963 and lists in a section titled "Coercive Counter-Intelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources" the options ...

Deprivations of Sensory Stimuli
Threats and Fear
Pain
Heightened Suggestability and Hypnosis
Narcosis
Detection of Malingering

But even this manual is not neccesarily what it seems. In the section on Pain it states:

Interrogates who are withholding but feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yeild are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can interpret the pain as punishment and hence expiation.

Intense pain is likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping distress. A time-consuming delay results, while an investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue.

Apparently Cheney didn't even bother to read the manual. But some others actually have read it - or least still retain some basic common sense.

A man cleans, numbers, and stacks skulls near a mass grave at the Cheung Ek torture camp run by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where Pol Pot tortured and murdered between one and two million people to eliminate perceived opposition in the 1970s. AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS.

The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human rights experts and many experts on the laws of war, however, consider water-boarding cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that's banned by U.S. law and by international treaties that prohibit torture. Some intelligence professionals argue that it often provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.

Cheney argues that we are doing this "for the good of the Nation", "to protect Americans". Well Pol Pot felt the same way when he tortured and murdered two million people who he thought might oppose him.

This is indeed a "no-brainer" - water-boarding is torture. Torture produces unreliable results. Certainly we are not dealing with a Khmer Rouge situation since we only have 50,000 detainees in custody (Not unless you start to count the estimated 600,000 people who've directly and indirectly lost their lives as a result of the Iraq War). But this is a slippery slope that we can't afford to ride like a snowboarder. Non-lethal techniques can too easily turn deadly with resistant subjects. As I've often mentioned we've already had 26 detainee deaths in custody as a direct result of abuse - so the argument that people are getting a lot more than being "dunked in water" should be out the window.

Lives are at stake, but not just the lives of the detainees. Our lives. Inaccuarate or just plain old disinformation can be very devastating to our battle against terrorism.

It was only after viewing the videotaped confession of Ibn Sheik al-libi in detention at Gitmo that Colin Powell decided to use claims that Saddam and Al-Qeada were in "cooperation". That confession was false. Al-Libi was a Fabricator. Yet even to this very day, in the wake of a Senate Intelligence report to the contrary - Cheney and the Whitehouse refuse to accept the truth. Saddam was not linked to Zarqawi or Al-Qaeda.

This guy - the one who shot his friend in the face with birdshot - is the person we're expect to trust when it comes to protecting the United States? We're supposed to believe him when he says "we don't torture" and just ignore the moutain of evidence to the contrary?

To paraphrase the President himself on This Week - It's not a question of patriotism, it's a question fo judgement.

It's time to bring this Adminstration under control. Well past time, the bodies and skulls are already starting to pile up.

Vyan

Republicans hold the keys...

Speaking the truth - regardless of your party affiliation - something that has been in short supply but has been a godsend. Democrats have been doing it for some time, but it's not until people on the other side of the ideological line start singing the same song that things truly begin to change.

People like former CIA Operative Larry Johnson, Republican, close friend and collegue of Valerie Plame-Wilson and extreme critic of the Bush Administration for their bumgling on foreign affairs, their scapegoating of the CIA for their own psychotic insistence that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had nuclear weapons, was connect with al Qaeda - all of which were fever dream fabrications.

People like Tyler Drumheller, former CIA Operations Chief for Europe, the man who delivered the Iraqi Foreign Minister to Bush in the pre-war era to confirm the Saddam had no WMD's - only to see this highly credible source discounted and instead the ravings of a lunatic code-named Curveball were given more weight.

Republicans such as Francis Fukuyama, one of the prime architects of the neo-conservative movement has stated that Conservatism has failed

Republicans such as John Dean who has called the actions of the Bush Whitehouse "Worse than Watergate", and stated that we are headed fast toward a new form of neo-facism where 23% of our populace will be the shocktroops for the new Reich-wing of fear and intimidation.

Republicans such as Bob Woodard who says the President is in a tragic State of Denial.

Republicans such as former UN weapons inspector and U.S. Marine Scott Ritter.

Former Bush EPA head and moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman who has tried, in vain, to proclaim "It's My Party Too" - only to have her pleas fall on deaf ears.

Republicans such as former State Department Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powel's "go to guy" who has said "I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes -- oh my God, Vietnam. That includes Iran-contra, Watergate."

This current state and future of this country is not a partisan issue. It is not about Democrat vs Republican - it's about Fact VS Bullshit.

The neo-con cabal (as Wilkerson put it) has used fear and cynical manpulation to destroy our internation prestige, and our national pride. We are now a country that tacitly condones torture and coerced confessions of terrorism suspects -- not proven convicted terrorists - suspects.

These are the actions of tin-pot banana republic, not the most perform super nation on earth.

This country withstood 40+ years of the cold war - where we were quite literally on the brink of mutally assured destruction every single minute, and we never even conceived of openly santifying the types of treatment that is now officially sanction at Gitmo, Bagram AFB in Aghanistan and Abu Ghraib.

These people don't know what the FUCK they're doing.

To quote Bill Maher (again) from this week's "New Rules"

And finally, New Rule, in two parts: A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid. And B), if you're someone from one of the think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War, and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, and the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war...you have to stop making predictions!

How many times do these nitwits have to get it wrong before we kick their asses out of office?

Repeatedly the Repubicans in power play the fear card. Claim any who disagree with them are "morally confused", "soft", "appeasers of the enemy". In Orange County one immigrant candidate (vietnamese) tries try scare other legal immigrants (Hispanic) away from the polls with threats of being arrested. In Virgina - Senator Macaca-witz Allen lies repeated about his racist past and present. In Tennesee - they've practically put an Aunt Jemima apron on Rep Harold Ford Jr. as he vies for the Senate.

Their actions have been so heinous even Chris Matthews the MSNBC paleo-con has finally called them the Racists that they've been ever since the Civil Rights movement.

They'll stop at literally nothing to retain and maintain their influence and power.

How much of this crap are expected to put up with?

They couldn't protect the people of the Gulf Coast from a natural disaster that we could see coming FROM SPACE!

They can't provide our troops proper armor, proper medical and psychatritic treatment or even uncontaminated water.

They can't protect our children even within the U.S.A. from Pedophiles stalking the halls of congress.

They laugh at our faith and devotation to God - exploiting it as they would a junkie in desperate need of his next fix.

This has to fucking stop.

The best way to do it - is simply and cleanlythrow the bums out. We need to tip the scales and place Democrats back into power - but don't just sit back and expect them to play Mr. and Mrs Fix-it. Ride their asses until they create some genuine accountability for this misguided pointless war. Where the hell did our $9 Billion go? What are we paying another $491 Billion for in Iraq? When are going to talk tough and serious with the Iraqi Government about getting their SHIT together? Why are they forcing our children to fear safe sex? To question Science and Fact?

Meanwhile even Disney/ABC TV has finally noticed there just might some problems with electronic voting systems. Hmm. Ya thinK?

November 7th is just the beginning of the fight, the beginning of the process to repair our honor - our prestige.

There's no excuse not to make your voice heard, and be sure that your vote is truly counted.

The time is now. Stand UP!

Vyan

Wednesday, October 25

Looking toward a New Democratic Dawn

Well, we have just two weeks left and the Republican Regime in Congress is finally in it's last throes. Things are definately looking up, our numbers look good for taking over the House and Probably the Senate. So why am I so worried?

Oh yeah, making predictions is a dangerous business - just ask Bill Maher.

And finally, New Rule, in two parts: A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid. And B), if you're someone from one of the think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War, and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, and the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war...you have to stop making predictions!

Aint that the truth?

I know I should heed Maher's advice too, but I just can't help myself - so here goes...

Democrats are going to take BOTH HOUSES. Say it, see it - believe it!

Doesn't that feel good? Just take a moment and bask in the possibilities.

.

.

.

.

Ok, moment over.

The one thing we can't afford is overconfidence. The Repubs have the cash on hand to still do some damage on November 7th, even though by all rights - based on their policies and governing - they shouldn't have a prayer of surviving as the majority in either house.

How bad does it have to get before America throws these bums under the bus?

Unable to actually campaign for anyone other than Dennis the Menace Hastert the President took his "message" directly to the people this Sunday with an appearance on This Week (Counterpointed by John Kerry who also appeared)

BUSH: Frankly, I hear disparate voices all over the place from the Democrats' side about Iraq. We got some saying: Get out. The person I ran against in 2004, Senator Kerry, said at a date certain, time, withdraw.

We got one of the top leaders in the House said: Let's move troops to an island and maybe respond from there.

I would suspect most voters are going to be saying: What is the plan? Or most voters will be saying: How come the majority of Democrats voted against the detainee program where we're going to question high-value detainees to determine whether they've got information necessary to protect the country?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've used some pretty tough rhetoric, though. You said this election's a choice between Republicans and Democrats who want to wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.

Can you name a Democrat who wants to wave the white flag of surrender?

BUSH: I can name a Democrat who said there ought to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq, whether or not we've achieved a victory or not. And I...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that surrender?

BUSH: Yes, it is, if you pull the troops out before the job is done. Absolutely, George.

Kerry in response...finally using the "L" word.

In an exclusive appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rebuked President Bush's assertion that those who advocate a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq are supporting "surrender."

"That's reprehensible. It's a lie," Kerry said.

Yes, it is a lie. Kerry went on to explain that calls such as his and Senator Feingold's for a Date Certain on removing our troops should not be cast in stone. But that this was "the stick" to be used to push the Iraqis to govern and protect themselves. Kerry was right during the 2004 election that we need to set goals for the Iraqis and gives those goals consequences - and he's right now.

"I think you have to be more blunt: I think you have to say, 'No young American is going to die or give their life or limb for Iraqi politicians who refuse to compromise,' " Kerry said. "They have to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them."

Of his date-certain approach, Kerry argued, "You have to set a date because it's the only way to get Iraqis to respond," adding, "The date is not a date in a vacuum. I mean, I'm not stupid."

Kerry later summed up the situation.

"Either they resolve the political differences within this year because they want to, or they don't want to. If they don't want to, there's nothing American troops can do," he said.

On the issue of whether Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War - Bush:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you don't think that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war...

BUSH: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... Right now.

BUSH: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But whatever you call it, aren't American men and women now dying to prevent Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other?

BUSH: No. George, I -- it's dangerous. And you're right, no matter what you call it.

Kerry:

"The president just misled America again in that interview," he said. "Al Qaeda is not the problem in Iraq."

Kerry added, "The violence in Iraq today, George, is between Shia and Sunni; this is a civil war."

Bush:

The fundamental question is: Are we on our way to achieving a goal, which is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It seems like, every month, we're going farther from that.

BUSH: Well, I don't know why you would say that. I mean...

STEPHANOPOULOS: The casualties are going up.

BUSH: ... if that's the definition of success or failure, the number of casualties, then you're right. But that's what the enemy knows. See, they try to define success or failure.

I define success or failure as to whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves. I define success or failure as whether the unity government's making difficult -- the difficult decisions necessary to unite the country.

I define success or failure as whether schools are being built, or hospitals are being opened. I define success or failure as whether we're seeing a democracy grow in the heart of the Middle East.

Well, since the Iraqi government can't even pick up the bodies -- let alone open new schools, new hospitals and fresh new shopping malls - in the President's own terms, this isn't a "success"

BUSH: Because a democracy in the Middle East, a society based upon liberty, will be a defeat for the terrorists, who have clearly said they want a safe haven from which to launch attacks against America, a safe haven from which to topple moderate governments in the Middle East, a safe haven from which to spread their jihadist point of view, which is that there are no freedoms in the world; we will dictate to you how you think.

You mean a safe haven like say - our "ally" Pakistan? By the way - how's that Afghanistan thingy coming along?

As Kerry made plain, the path to creating a stable Democracy with Iraq (or Pakistan or Afghanistan or anywhere else) means doing something this Adminstration is absolutely incapable of doing - employing effective Diplomacy.

They refuse to pay attention to tensions and issues between Shia and Sunni, still claiming that the big bad bogeyman of Al Qaeda is behind everything that is wrong in Iraq even though according to General Abizaid - there are only about 1000 Al Qeada fighters IN Iraq.

The President claims that those who simply wish him to abide by the FISA law and prefer that we honor our international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions -- are somehow "soft" on terrorism, although the Whitehouse can not name a single Democrat who doesn't want us listening to Al Qeada's communications or to lawfully interrogate detainees.

Republicans have made this theme "The Stakes" central to their campaign to retain control of the House and Senate and so far this strategery has been a total bust.

Protecting America isn't the issue - the issue is what America becomes in the process of protecting itself. The only way to bring this Administration to heal before 2008 is for Democrats to take over Congress and start implementing some freaking oversight.

It's clear that Bush with his suddenly frequent TV appearances (including O'Reilly) as well as Veep Cheney last night on Hannity and * are simply trying to keep the happy talk flowing to the base.

Never mind about Foley, Hastert and that "idealistic liberal with the brain tumor" David Kuo. Everything will be just fine tomorrow - bet you're bottom dollar Daddy Warbucks.

Yeah, right.

You can see the desperation in Tony Snows eyes as he puts on his dog and bone show at the White House. (Here ya go Stretch - Fetch This Quote) Just take a look at some of his more recent nutball statements.

No, it was 30 times

It's "Silly and Gratuitous" to ask Bush if he made any mistakes with North Korea. (Yeah, it's not like they suddenly got The Bomb on his watch or anything....)

"Please show me where the NIE says were not winning" (How about where it says "If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide." on Page 1 or "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives." on Page 2!)

"Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi because he was in the country." Which is sort of like saying Bill Clinton had a "relationship" with the Unibomber since they were both in the country at the same time too, and y'know Clinton was like trying to capture the Unibomber just like Saddam was trying to capture Zarqawi. (But then again, we probably shouldn't give the Wing-nuts too many bright ideas when it comes to Clinton smears - so you didn't hear that one from me ok?)

Sniff. Smell that? That's fear baby. Pure and undiluted.

But it's not like the media is really doing much to get the truth out:

Matt Lauer

Chris Matthews : Nancy Pelosi is too "scary" and "San Francisco" to be on 60 Minutes.

Nicole Wallace on the CBS Evening News: Polls show people don't want Democrats to Control Congress. (Except that they Do by a margin of 57 to 40%)

CBS reported the Barron's study which allegedly indicates that Repubs will keep both the House and Senate, but failed to mention the inconsistencies in thier methodologies. (It's almost as if they were gaming their methods to produce a desired outcome - shocking for a GOP friendly paper isn't it?)

And let's not even get into what Faux News has to say.

Despite all this and all the BS and psychoticbabble coming from the Wingnut Brigade - CQPolitics currently shows just 8 Democratic House seats in potential "jeopardy" by merely leaning Democratic:

Zero Democratic seats show No clear winner. Zero are leaning Republican.

Compare that to 1 Republican seat where a Democrat is currently favored:

Ariz. 8 -- Kolbe*

Five more that Lean Democratic

Nineteen with No Clear Favorite.

And an additional 21 that only Lean Republican.

I'm not expecting Democrats to run the table, but if they do that's a 36 seat pickup. Ouch!

The picture in the Senate isn't so clear. Democrats are at risk in New Jersey where there's no clear favorite in the Menendez race.

Republican Senate Seats Leaning Democratic.

Republican Senate Seats with No Clear Favorite

Republican Senate Seats Leaning Republican.

Va. -- Allen

Losing Menendez would be a major blow, but it's still possible for Democrats to reach the magic six if they can knock out Senator Macaca-witz in Virginia.

Unless there's a huge series of election night upsets across the country - Democrats are standing on the verge of gettig it on!

I for one, though not overconfident, have my sunglasses ready for that dawn. Just in case.

Vyan

Sunday, October 22

By Every Means Unneccesary - Why Habeas is Gone Forever

This week President Bush in his head-long rush for Jack Bauer Justice signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pdf)", and act which essentially ends the great Writ of Habeas Corpus, allows for coerced and hearsay evidence and codifies various forms of torture as authorized under the law.

But the most shocking element of all of this is the very strong likelyhood that we just might not see the return of Habeas in our lifetimes.

Why not?

Because under the Consitution the Congress actually does have the authority to do what they did - Suspend Habeas.

In Hamdi V Rumsfeld the SCOTUS stated:

Likewise,we have made clear that,unless Congress acts to suspend it,the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance,serving as an important judicial check on the Executive 's discretion in the realm of detentions.

Habeas Defined:

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

Military Commission Act:

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.

U.S. Constitution Under Article I (Limits and Powers of the Congress) states:

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.

In this case the "Invasion" is the ongoing infiltration of the United States by the agents of al Qeada - an endless condition of War where the public safety is always in jeopardy. So when exactly will the "public safety" no longer require it?

Never.

Historically speaking, George Bush isn't the first President to attempt to suspend Habeas. In 1861 President Lincoln Suspended Habeas during the Civil War, and had his decision overtuned by Justice Taney in Ex Parte Merryman.

Ex parte Merryman (literally "from one side," and therefore meaning "on behalf of Merryman") is the case of Lt. John Merryman, of the Baltimore County Horse Guards, who was imprisoned on May 25, 1861, in, of all places, Baltimore's Fort McHenry, on order of Union General Winfield Scott. Union troops had just occupied the city and began arresting suspected secessionists.

In Taney's response he stated:

As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress.
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives."

In 1864 Congress passed a law which fit Haney's requirements and Suspended Habeas for the duration of the War and Reconstruction - this eventually lead to Ex Parte Milligan.

Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended.
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.

In short, the Congressional Suspension of Habeas in response to a Rebellion (or Invasion) was upheld, and most likely would be upheld again even by the current Supreme Court since Congressional Authorization is exactly what they requested under Hamdi, which leaves all of us pretty much screwed for the foreseable future.

Even a New Congress is unlikely to overturn this law since 34 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate supported it - with only a slim margin projected for the Demcratic Majority in November - such a reversal would be far from Veto proof.

There are however some potential bright spots among the darkness.

in response to Hamdan V Rumsfeld John Dean argued against the MCA as it was being drafted.

Since the inception of the Bush Administration's war against terror, the President has claimed - unreasonably and without justification - that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to this war with stateless forces such as al Qaeda (or similar organizations) for they are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. But Bush is wrong.
The Hamdan Court explained that "Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because ... it appears in all four Geneva Conventions" applies here. Moreover, the Court noted, Common Article 3 prohibits "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."

So the question is no longer purely a Constitutional one, but one which begs whether the Military Tribunals which have now been authorized actually satisfy Geneva as "regularly constituted courts". But clearly they do not include "all the judicial guarantees" - since Habeas is regards to "Enemy Combatants" is now non-functional.

Under Article VI it states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

By Ratifying Geneva in 1948, we have made it a part and equal to our own law and Constitution. This is further reiterated by Justice Stevens in Hamdan.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered "war crimes," punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.

Even though Bush has attempted to Redefine both Geneva, Torture and War Crimes with this Act - rewriting 18 U.S.C.18 U.S.C.§2441 into a laundry list what allegedly is and isn't covered - the core issue here is still whether these new tribunals are "regularly constituted" and whether this breach of Geneva would actually overide Congresses own legitimate authority to suspend Habeas?

On that point I am far from certain of the outcome.

There is another argument to made however - the Suspension of Habeas under the MCA (quoted above) clearly applies to "Alien Enemy Combatants" not neccesarily U.S. citizens, although U.S. Citizens can clearly be considered Enemy Combatants under this law - Hamdi (who is a U.S. Citizen) supports this view - the disparate treatment here between U.S. Citizens (who still retain some form of Habeas relief) and Non-Citizens who do not may present a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Challenge.

Hamdi was the first case to extend the 14th to cover areas outside the U.S. (such as those being held in Gitmo), this just might be the first case that I know of - if such a challenge is brought - to extend the 14th to Non-citizens under U.S. Jurisdiction and control. There are two suits against the MCA already, time will tell...

Although Habeas is now gone for aliens, the ability to challenge ones status as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant itself has been upheld and is retained in the current law (as part of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal).

``(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.--A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Basically there are two Tribunals, the first of which is established by the President or SecDef for establish the status of a detainee. (Ironically, this is in according with Geneva, which requires that all persons of unknown status be given a hearing to determine their status). Under both the MCA and the Detainee Treament Act of 2005, the findings of the CSRT can be appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

This Judicial Obsticle Course is at least a maginal improvement over the current sitaution where we already know most of the combatants held at Gitmo are innocent and we've refused to release them.

[A deposition by Brig. Gen. Karpinski's (former Abu Ghraib CO)] cited the comments of another official, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, who told her, "I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians! We're winning the war!" A former commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion notes in a sworn statement, "It became obvious to me that the majority of our detainees were detained as the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were swept up by Coalition Forces as peripheral bystanders during raids. I think perhaps only one in ten security detainees were of any particular intelligence value."

Clearly if one is found by the CSRT to not be an Unlawful Combatant, one would not automatically go free. What should occur - in a far more prefect world than this one - is that they would then be relegated to the regular Civilian or Courts Marshal as a "Lawful Enemy Combatant". The CSRT itself is far from a "Get out of GITMO Free" Card. If the CSRT finding is "Unlawful", the detainee then skips "Go" and heads forward to his Military Tribunal Only if the President subsequently seeks to press charges -- if he does not, that person disappears into a black hole. Forever.

The very existence of this law is extremely onerous - particular the section which reduces the Geneva-based prohibitions against "Offenses to Personal Dignity" and instead prohibits torture - sort of.

TORTURE: Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commis-sion under this chapter may direct.
...
The term `serious physical pain or suffering'
means bodily injury that involves--
``(I) a substantial risk of death;
``(II) extreme physical pain;
``(III) a burn or physical disfigurement of a
serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or
bruises); or
``(IV) significant loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental
faculty.

Guess what folks, the Bybee memo is now the law. A simple reading makes it plainly obvious that non-lethal methods of humiliation, and "non-severe" pain, which leave no visible marks, burns, cuts or abrasion and do not risk "organ failure" -- are absolutely permissable. This act is like a "How To" manual on how to became a Totalitarian Dictatorship, which is further underscored by the fact that coerced testimony is now allowed

STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.--A statement obtained before December
30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment
Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
``(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
``(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

And for coercion which occured after the DTA this is added:

``(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

What is most tragic here, is the well known fact that Coercive Interrogation Techniques Simply don't Work. The subject is more likely to lie and fabricate than actually provide valid information. These heavy-handed uber-macho measures by the Administration are completely unneccesary. Ibn al-Libi was tortured and lied to us. Abu Zubaydah actually gave us some good information before he was tortured, then started lying after he was. If we want good and accurate information to protect Americans, coercian and pseudo torture is not the way - and it completely destroys the moral justification for our War against terror when we behave like terrorists.

Innocent muslims such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar have already been unlawfully detained (kidnapped actually in Omar's case) rendered to Egypt and Syria where they were tortured.

In Iraq AP Reporter Bilal Hussein has been held by U.S. Forces for the past five months - without a hearing.

These are not isolated cases - to date the U.S. nearly 50,000 people under detention worldwide. We're talking about a major humanitary crises here.

But if you listen to the Wingnut Brigade, the Human Rights and Dignity of these individuals of no concern to them what so ever - the goal of this law is FEAR - especially the fear into the New York Times and WaPo Editorial Board.

From RedState.com

One sees immediately why the definition of treason makes the Washington Post editorial board queasy. If they vacation in the Caribbean (how déclassé) they would prefer it not be at Club Gitmo and definitely not preceded by Donald Rumsfeld's bully boys kicking in their door, being flexi-cuffed, tossed in a blacked out LearJet with bogus registration numbers, dressed in an orange jumpsuit and then allotted a no-amenities guest room with Abdul.

Let's get serious - this isn't about stopping the next major bombing attack on U.S. Soil - it's about shutting up James Risen and all the reporters who've released classified material (like Bob Woodward) which happen to be a) True and b) Display a propensity for the Bush Administration to violate the law (such as FISA).

Now they've managed to use the law itself to justify their lawbreaking. Undoing this law completely will be difficult if not impossible until the Presidency changes hands, and even if it is corrected the damage to our international prestige may in fact be permenent. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is laughing at us as we gradually destroy ourselves and our own values.

Heckuvajob Bushie.

Vyan

Truth 2 Power Project

Vyan

Wednesday, October 22

Al-Qaeda's Preferred Candidate - John Sydney McCain

Sunday, April 6

Morgan Spurlock: A Real American Hero to the Rescue

Wednesday, October 24

Fox Thinks Al Qeada Set the CA Fires

Wednesday, September 12

ABC shelves Path to 9/11 DVD. Yay!

Wednesday, April 25

Moyers exposes the LapDog Media

Stewart v McCain : The Smackdown

Sunday, November 19

Kristol: Republican Support for Iraq will Crumble in 3 Months

Thursday, October 26

Cheney confirms detainees were Water-Boarded

Republicans hold the keys...

Wednesday, October 25

Looking toward a New Democratic Dawn

Sunday, October 22

By Every Means Unneccesary - Why Habeas is Gone Forever

Contributors

Blogroll