Making Peace and Charity a Crime!

Thinkprogress has a wonderful list of 21 Reasons to be Thankful. Some of the best gems are:

We’re thankful Rick Santorum will have more free time to find the WMD.

We’re thankful Maf54 isn’t online right now.

I echo their sentiment. I'm Thankful for the 110th Congress, and also Hopeful that the act of Peacefully Demostrating and/or Giving Money to Legitmate Charitable Organizations will no longer be treated as a Criminal Offense.
Here's some more Thinkprogress Holiday Cheer before we get to the depressing stuff...

We’re thankful for “the Google” and “the email” (and the “series of tubes” that make them possible) — but not iPods, which are endangering our nation.

We’re thankful Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who calls climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will no longer chair the Senate environmental committee.

We’re thankful Bill O’Reilly does not resort to name calling - well, besides labeling ThinkProgress as “far left loons,” “kool-aid zombies,” “hired guns,” “vile,” “haters,” a “far left smear website,” and “a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine.”

We’re thankful Ted Haggard bought the meth but never used it.

Amen.

Ok, on to business...

As we enter this Holiday Season, I wanted to take today to point out a series of articles which address how being a Peaceful and Giving Citizen just might land you in Gitmo. First we have the issue of the Pentagon tracking Peace Protestors:

Washington - An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations included intelligence tips about antiwar planning meetings held at churches, libraries, college campuses and other locations, newly disclosed documents show.

One tip in the database in February 2005, for instance, noted that "a church service for peace" would be held in the New York City area the next month. Another entry noted that antiwar protesters would be holding "nonviolence training" sessions at unidentified churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Fortunately, all this hypersensitivity by the Pentagon is all in the past. Right?

The Defense Department tightened its procedures earlier this year to ensure that only material related to actual terrorist threats - and not peaceable First Amendment activity - was included in the database.

The head of the office that runs the military database, which is known as Talon, said Monday that material on antiwar protests should not have been collected in the first place.

"I don't want it, we shouldn't have had it, not interested in it," said Daniel J. Baur, the acting director of the counterintelligence field activity unit, which runs the Talon program at the Defense Department. "I don't want to deal with it."

Mr. Baur said that those operating the database had misinterpreted their mandate and that what was intended as an antiterrorist database became, in some respects, a catch-all for leads on possible disruptions and threats against military installations in the United States, including protests against the military presence in Iraq.

Whew - glad that's over. We shouldn't have people who attend church services being spied upon without probable cause and one of those warrant things.

But then again, is it really? Did they ever mention how this information was gathered in the first place - or that they've stopped gathering it? All they said was it's no longer being kept in the database.

The Government couldn't still be targeting people who engage in "peaceable First Amendment activity" could they?

Uh oh...

In May 2005, David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary about the constitutional implications of a series of "anti-terrorism" laws rushed through Congress after 9/11. Cole said [emphasis mine]:

The statutes described above prohibit virtually all associational support to selected political organizations, while granting executive branch officials effectively unreviewable discretion to target disfavored groups. These laws make it a crime to write an op-ed, provide legal advice, volunteer one's time, or distribute a magazine of any "designated" group, even if there is no connection whatsoever between the individual's support and any illegal activity of the proscribed group.

Guess I better shelve that "Go Hezbollah Go!" Blog I was considering, eh?

But all joking aside this is serious business.

Under these statutes, an American citizen who sends a treatise on nonviolence to the Kurdistan Workers' Party to encourage it to forgo violence for peace can be sent to prison for 15 years. This is so even if he proves that he intended the treatise to be used only for peaceful ends, and that it was in fact used solely for that purpose. Such a moral innocent can be said to be "guilty" by association. [1]

If you think this is an exaggeration and couldn't happen, think again. This is precisely the situation in which Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir found himself.

In response to the humanitarian crisis caused by years of sanctions against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Dr. Dhafir - an Iraqi who has been an American Citizen for the past 30 years - started an organization called "Help the Needy".

For 13 years, Dhafir worked tirelessly to help publicize the plight of the Iraqi people and to raise funds to help them.[7] According to the government, Dhafir donated $1.25 million of his own money over the years.[8] As an oncologist, he was also concerned about the effects of depleted uranium on the Iraqi population, which was experiencing skyrocketing cancer rates.[9]

For the crime of breaking the U.S. and U.K.-sponsored U.N. sanctions on Iraq and sending humanitarian aid to sick and starving civilians, Dhafir was held without bail for 31 months and then sentenced to 22 years in prison. By implication, his were terrorist acts.

Democrats led by Senator Patrick Leahy have demanded a closer look at the contents of the Pentagon Peace Activist Database.

"I fully intend to ask what's in those databanks, because many of them go way beyond any legitimate needs for our security," says Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy.
Congress wants to know not just what data was collected, but why and how it was to be used.

As well he should because it's clear that simply monitoring isn't what they did with Dr. Dhafir and Help the Needy.

Since the day of Dhafir's arrest, February 26, 2003, when 85 (!) agents went to his home, government officials at national and state levels have portrayed Dhafir's humanitarian work as support of terrorism.[26] Simultaneous to Dhafir's arrest, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., others associated with HTN were arrested in Syracuse, New York; Boise, Idaho; and Amman, Jordan. At the same time, about 150 mainly Muslim families who had donated to HTN were interrogated by government agents.[27] On the same day, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that "supporters of terrorism" had been apprehended - a completely unfounded assertion that was reiterated by New York Governor George Pataki in August 2004, just prior to the start of Dhafir's trial.[28]

At the same time, and throughout the trial, local government officials - the prosecutors and the District Attorney - denied that the case had any connection to terrorism. Instead they portrayed Dhafir as a common thief.[29] District Attorney Glenn Suddaby said, "[T]here's no evidence that any of the Help the Needy money went to al Qaida, the Iraqi government, or to buy arms and bullets that could be used against U.S. soldiers."

The likelyhood of more Dr. Dhafir's remains quite strong. In October the Military Commissions Act (pdf) expanded the definition of an "Enemy Combatant" to include not only American Citizens but also any persons who have "materially supported" terrorists.

‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlaw-ful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);

The act makes a clear distinction between U.S. Citizens and "Aliens". Alien Enemy Combatants are denied Habeas relief, Citizens are not. Alien Enemy Combatants are to be tried by Military Commissions, Lawful Combatants are to be Court Marshalled, but exactly what is supposed to happen to Citizen Enemy Combatants such as Dr Dhafir is not made clear.

I for one am Thankful that Sen Chris Dodd has already introduced legislated to restore Habeas and narrow the definition of "Enemy Combatant" to someone who is an actual Combatant.

Still it's clear we have some miles left to travel before we can all sleep easily in our beds. But Halliburton has nothing to worry about.

Neither Breinholt nor West stated that these "powerful prosecution tools" are being used mostly against Muslim charities and individuals associated with those charities, while violations by large corporations like Halliburton, which did billions of dollars worth of business in defiance of [the exact same statutes used against Dhafir - 50 U.S.C. ss 1701,1702] IEEPA, go largely unpunished. At the most these corporations have gotten a slap on the wrist and a fine, but no individual board member or officer has ever faced prosecution. [60] And although many non-Muslim charities work in the same troubled regions of the world as Muslim charities, not a single non-Muslim charity has been closed.[61] None of this was mentioned at the lecture.

By now it should be obvious that Dr. Dhafir and his co-defendants in HTN were nothing more than scapegoats. Terrorism Trophies and Scalps for John Ashcroft and George Pataki's collection while genuine terrorists and international money laundering by companies such as KBR continues unabatted. I'll let the words of Dr. Laila al-Marayati from a 2004 Pace University Law School symposium be final.

The ever-present threat of a "terrorist designation" by the Treasury Department functions based on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent." The use of secret evidence, hearsay, erroneous translations, guilt by association and press reports in recent court cases further erodes the ability of charities to rely on basic assumptions regarding their constitutional rights, especially when the courts ultimately favor the government when "national security" is allegedly at stake. Overzealous surveillance tactics of the intelligence community such as wiretapping, infiltrating organizations by bribing employees to work as spies (thereby disrupting normal and lawful humanitarian activities), and engaging in other forms of harassment - when added to the above bleak picture - will not only chill, but will freeze completely American Muslim charitable giving overseas. Perhaps this is the goal of the U.S. government. However, no one should be fooled into thinking that America or the American people will be much safer as a result.

This Holiday Season all of us who continue to be able to excersize our Constitutionally Protected Rights with impunity and confidence have so very much to be thankful for.

Never take your Freedom for Granted.

Vyan

Our Last, Best Hope in Iraq is slipping away...

So far over 300,000 Iraqi Troops have been trained on our watch, yet the death tolls in Iraq last month reach it's highest rate yet with over 3,700 Civilians killed. We've committed well over $200 Billion to this grand enterprise, yet the results continue to worsen.

The dilemna that faces us now, is that we can't. just. walk. away. We have to leave an Iraq that is capable of defending itself. It's not just about ramping up or ramping down our own troops - it should be about Ramping Up the Iraqi troops. Getting them on the front line. Rotating our own guys back into the rear areas.

We need one thing - an effective Force Transition Plan.

It's not withdrawal or redeployment, it's replacement.

Unfortunately Bush and the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight (except for Cheney who shoots Lawyers just fine) - seemed to have mucked another one up.

The U.S. military's effort to train Iraqi forces has been rife with problems, from officers being sent in with poor preparation to a lack of basic necessities such as interpreters and office materials, according to internal Army documents.

The shortcomings have plagued a program that is central to the U.S. strategy in Iraq and is growing in importance. A Pentagon effort to rethink policies in Iraq is likely to suggest placing less emphasis on combat and more on training and advising, sources say.

More emphasis on training - ya think? After three years they're just figuring this one out?

John McCain has been making tons of noise about increasing our troop levels by 20 or 40,000 - when what we really need is 400,000. Charlie Rangel - in a move eriely reminicent of a West Wing Plot Line - has been calling for a New Draft.

What I've been screaming for months has been - what about 200,000+ Iraqi Troops we've already trained?

Apparently I've finally got my answer and it's not pleasant.

In dozens of official interviews compiled by the Army for its oral history archives, officers who had been involved in training and advising Iraqis bluntly criticized almost every aspect of the effort. Some officers thought that team members were often selected poorly. Others fretted that the soldiers who prepared them had never served in Iraq and lacked understanding of the tasks of training and advising. Many said they felt insufficiently supported by the Army while in Iraq, with intermittent shipments of supplies and interpreters who often did not seem to understand English.

The Iraqi officers interviewed by an Army team also had complaints; the top one was that they were being advised by officers far junior to them who had never seen combat.

Some of the American officers even faulted their own lack of understanding of the task. "If I had to do it again, I know I'd do it completely different," reported Maj. Mike Sullivan, who advised an Iraqi army battalion in 2004. "I went there with the wrong attitude and I thought I understood Iraq and the history because I had seen PowerPoint slides, but I really didn't."

Powerpoint slides? Oh. My. God.

What the hell is wrong with making Training the last leg of each soldiers regular combat rotation? We can train our own guys, but we can't get this done for the Iraqis? This is the master cluster-fuck right here.

There is the allegations that the loyalties of the Iraqis we train have been more with their own religious sect than to the national government. That some of the Shia militia and death squad members who've been causing much of the violence were actually trained by us.

Many worried that the Iraqi units being advised contained insurgents. An Iraqi National Guard battalion "was infiltrated by the enemy," said Maj. Michael Monti, a Marine who was an adviser in the Upper Euphrates Valley in 2004 and 2005.

Some advisers reported being personally targeted by infiltrators. "We had insurgents that we detected and arrested in the battalion that were planning an operation against me and my team," Allen said.

But Iraqi officers may have had even more to fear, because their families were also vulnerable. "I went through seven battalion commanders in eight weeks," Allen noted. Dixon reported that in Samarra both his battalion commander and intelligence officer deserted just before a major operation.

At this point in time the Iraqi people overwhelmingly wish us to leave.

“Seven out of ten Iraqis overall–including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)–say they want the United States to leave within a year.” Note: less than 10% of Iraqis nationwide support a U.S. withdrawal only as “the security situation improves,” the current policy of the Bush administration.

Similarly 61% of Iraqis beleive the violence will decrease once our forces have departed, and 53% beleive our setting a timetable would strengthen their Government. On 23% disagree.

It seems clear that our attempts quell the violence in Bahgdad by beefing-up the American presence only managed to accomplish the reverse.

Perhaps we really do need to pull some of our Combat guys off the front line and have them focus on one thing and one thing only - Training their Iraqi Replacements, and training them Well.

According to everything we've heard for months - there are only about 1000 Al Qeada Fighters in Iraq.

At a certain point, the Iraqis are going to have to take care of Al Qaeda and themselves. We should have a Laser-Like focus on getting them to that point - step by step.

We only lose - if we continue to Fuck That Process Up, exact as BushGov has done so far.

Vyan

KY OP-ed: Hippies still trying to ruin the Country

Yeah, I did a double take and almost covered my 17" monitor with coffee when I saw this blurb on Thinkprogress, following it to Huffington Post and eventually the source, where I discovered that no - this is not a joke. At least not an intentional one. It's a Guest Op-ed by one Jenean McBrearty.

America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.

Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.

Won't win a War? Seems to me we did pretty good in Bosnia and Kosova.

Yeah, I know that taking down Wing-nuts is a bit like shooting a 70-year old lawyer in the face at a Quail Ranch. (ie. Not very sporting) Their mental wings have been clipped. They tend to flop around rather than actually make sense. Facts and History are as maleable as Origami, easily redefined into a broach or a swan. But that doesn't mean that it isn't fun to fill their logical loopholes full of sand.

They still want utopia, and it wouldn't be worth mentioning except that their naivetŽ has aged into a persistent denial of reality that may have devastating consequences.

A Persistent Denial of Reality? Oh, more fitting worlds could not have been chosen.

For example, consider their continued belief that America's armed forces are neo-Nazi stormtroopers who delight in burning babies to further the aims of imperialistic corporations.

"Delight?" Who ever said anything about delight? I don't think anybody is about to have how-down in the middle of a free-fire zone.

My Lai was not a fever dream fantasy of the left. It is fact. As were hundreds of other incidents, the documention of which were recently discovered and reported by the LA Times.

The records were declassified in 1994, after 20 years as required by law, and moved to the National Archives in College Park, Md., where they went largely unnoticed.

The Times examined most of the files and obtained copies of about 3,000 pages -- about a third of the total -- before government officials removed them from the public shelves, saying they contained personal information that was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition to the 320 substantiated incidents, the records contain material related to more than 500 alleged atrocities that Army investigators could not prove or that they discounted.

....

Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.

I have much more detail on this LA Times Article here, which recounts the murder of a 19-year old naked Vietnamese Girl, the Winter Soldier Conference and then Lt. John Kerry's testimony about it before Congress. No need to rehash all of that now.

But I do want to say that I don't think these events were "fun or delightful" for anyone involved, and that this very suggestion is seriously demented.

Back to Wingerville.

Such nonsense, now treated as legitimate by the left-leaning media, denigrates the patriotic values and sincerity of half the nation.

Half? Or just the 23 Percenters?

It undermines the war effort, insults the dead and the survivors of battle and their families, and supports the aims of the enemy.

I think that the actions of few individual solders in Moumoudiya - where a 15-year old Iraqi girl was stalked, raped and murdered along with her entire family to cover up the crime, is what insults our dead, the survivors of battle and their families - not the people who talk about it and admit that it is true reality. I think the denial of the fact that soldiers acting in our name killed 14 unarmed civilians in Haditha is an insult to all of our soldiers who bravely stand up against these acts at great risk to their careers and lives.

Translated into immigration or national defense policy, it is an invitation to the world to destroy our country.

Anyone else follow her around the bend? I didn't. Pointing out that a small percentage of our soldiers may very well have committed War Crimes invites the world to destroy our country while pretending they haven't -- when just about everyone knows better - does not? Eh?

Yet, this Vietnam-era idŽe fixe about the military, despite 40-plus years of proof to the contrary, is understandable when analyzed in the context of the flower children's religious zealotry.

Religious zealotry? You mean like Devout Athiesm? Radical Agnostics? This next bit is going to get good - I can tell...

To renounce their military fictions would mean facing bigger, more important truths: Marxism doesn't work.

Fascism doesn't work either.

Love is not all you need.

Love isn't all you need, but it's a better start than greed.

Western culture is worth defending because it protects freedom, tolerance and the greatest material good for the greatest number.

Western culture doesn't defend freedom, the Rule of Law Does - and it's goal isn't simply to provide material goods, it is to protect the most vulnerable from being denied access to those materials.

Government can't solve every problem.

Neither can industry or the Military.

The American taxpayer has no obligation to support the rest of the world's exploding population.

No obligation other than their own conscience and moral compass, and the fact that those who can afford to provide support are more likely to succeed than those who can not. The strong do not need to prey upon the weak, they can - if they so choose - use their strength to help them get onto their own feet.

P.S. Gluttony is a Sin - Aint it?

Without the military-industrial complex to blame for humanity's ills, the lefty loonies lose their basis for faith in a socialist utopia. Terrorism is tortuous for them only because it forces them to pursue the political goals that will allow them to redistribute America's wealth by pulling the nation together and relying on the hated military for protection.

Oh, the unfairness of irony.

Oh, the insanity.

Thus, lefty loonies deny that terrorists have declared war on America, while insisting that we can win the war through negotiation. They seem to believe the terrorists will spare them because they are nice.

The truth is that there is no way out of our modern warfare dilemmas.

Is it possible to protect non-combatants, given modern weaponry in total war?

Are people who make weapons innocent citizens of their warring governments, or integral non-uniformed soldiers and legitimate targets?

Must we surrender our country to our enemies because our weapons are too terrible to use?

Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old Iraqi firing an Uzi or a soldier from Kentucky?

Which is more sacred: a mosque hiding a weapons cache or a plane of tourists?

Do we want a military strong enough to protect our homeland? Are we willing to pay the price of survival?

Are we doing a Rumsfeld for any particular reason or just for the fun of it?

These are all questions which have already been answered for the most part within the Laws of War and the rules of engagement. For the most part these are false dichotomies. The ticking time bomb scenario which pretty much never happens in real life.

Speaking of ticking time bomb fantasies - it's not exactly a co-inky-dink that "24" executive producer Joel Surnow is teaming with Fox News to create a Right-Wing Daily Show. “The way I look at it, almost every comedy show or satire show I see uses the same talking points against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney,” “24″ co-creator Joel Surnow said. “The other side hasn’t been skewered in a fair and balanced way.”

It hasn't? Have you ever like watched The Fox News? Oh wait, you mean they aren't funny? Well, I really don't think that's Joel Surnow's going to change that fact much.

But anyway - I digress.

Yes, Terrorist have declared War on America. Loony lefties like Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke seemed to know that long before Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush ever had a clue. Not that they weren't told - they were.

It's also true that "terrorist organizations" such as Hamas have become the duly elected government of Palestine, while Hezbollah maintains a great deal of influence in both Lebanon and Iran. Sometimes there are things that can be done in the interests of peace that fall far short of total war, even with enemies this deadly and grave.

This is something we seemed to well understand during the Cold War. Talk, Communication, Discussion and Diplomacy are not Appeasment.

The War among the terrorist of the NRA in Northern Ireland would never have ended without talkin to Jerry Adams.

Oh and where the Hell would we be if Kennedy hadn't talked to Kruschev? (Oh wait, that's a rhetorical question now isn't it?)

Obviously it's possible to talk, to negotiate, and resist the temptation for violence and still be strong. Sometimes doing so is the very definition of strength.

Didn't most of us learn that in grade school?

The world has changed, terrorists aren't just a bunch of random thugs - they run governments now. Certainly we can not afford to just give in and become "weak", but as the world has changed so must our tactics and tools become more nuanced. Meeting thuggery with MORE thuggery is not a solution.

It's crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea. It will come down to their children or ours, their soldiers or ours, their countries or ours.

It's crucial that we come to terms with what it takes to implement genuine diplomacy or else it won't be our children or their's - in the glowing fog of a nuclear winter (if China or Russia get into the mix) it'll be neither!

For aging hippies, it's easier to keep blaming old enemies than to confront new ones, especially the young and ruthless. Hating a military-industrial complex is safer and less tiring. It's less complicated -- and less dangerous.

Sure, and hating hippies is far less dangerous than facing facts.

Abstract institutions neither bleed nor shoot back. Demonstrations, marches and sign-carrying don't accomplish much these days, but they are a lot more fun and allow the fiction of activist moral superiority to persist.

Seems to me that we just managed to change the balance of power in the House and Senate with our "Demonstrations, marches, and sign-carrying" (as well as organizing, fundrasing and strategizing from the Netroots to the Grass Roots). But I digress again.

Their BAWL (Buddha-Allah-Wicca-Lenin) is better than some old Judeo-Christian God.

SPIT-TAKE!!!! What?!?! (Again... pardon me while I whipe this screen off)

In their heart of hearts, lefty loonies do want America to lose in Iraq and every military theater. They want outside enemies to accomplish quickly the demolition of American capitalism, using the violence the lefty loonies are too old, too scared and too well-invested to use.

Really? We want to lose in our heart of hearts? We're too scared to use violence? This is why over 50 veterans - including many from the Iraq conflict - ran for Congress this year as Democrats!

If we hate the Military so much - it seems rather odd that the Military Loves Us ole' Liberals since the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association Rates the Following "Hippies" with an "A".

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

And the following Conservatives with an "F".

(Former FBI Director) Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Rep. Lynn Wesmoreland (R-GA)
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)

How's that for Irony?

After all, lefty loonies want their social justice and their pensions, too.

And that's bad because... social injustice makes sure all the retirement checks clear?

Luckily, no one lives forever. Luckily, there is Generation Jones to take up their slack. America is too great to go down without a fight.

Yet, please be compassionate toward aging, albeit dangerous, erstwhile flower folks. Understand their pain when communism failed. Understand their desire to enforce perfect harmony. Understand their insistence that we love humanity except those in uniforms.

Just don't vote for them in 2008.

This is going to be the big GOP/Conservo mantra for 2008? Don't Vote for the Hippies!

Yeah, that's right - if you vote for all those aging hippies (y'know like Senators-Elect John Tester and Jim Webb) running for Congress and possibly President in 2008 then those in uniform might not be sent into pointless unjustified wars without a plan, without proper armor and without clean drinking water and without being required by law not to Commit War Crimes or Torture.

Cuz all those loony zany crazy-eyed tree-huggin' berkenstock-wearing tofu-eating hippie liberal Hate-America-First scum - just hate to see our soldiers die and kill for no damn good reason.

But Kentucky Conservatives apparently don't give a rat's ass?

If you're from Kentucky and you'd like to let Jenean McBrearty have a peice of your mind - her email is jeneanmacb@hotmail.com.

Tell her Dkos sent cha.

Vyan

Raw Story: Dems going BIG on Oversight

Uh oh, I think Bushgov is in deep deep trouble...

Democrats are "thinking big" on Bush oversight, according to a Capitol Hill newspaper.

"Senate Democrats’ plans to significantly beef up the chamber’s oversight of the Bush administration will go well beyond intelligence-gathering activities and President Bush’s prosecution of the Iraq War to include investigations into the Medicare program, alleged censorship of scientists, climate change and potential manipulation of energy markets, according to aides and lobbyists," John Stanton reports for Roll Call.

So we're finally going to ask what the "F" is up with Dick Cheney's secret meeting with Energy Companies just before the California Rolling Blackouts? We're finally to get that lying weasal Abu Gonzales under oath?

Hallu-fraking-lujah!

But, I wonder and worry, if this just might be too much of a good thing?

As I've noted previously the Wing-Nuts and Neo-Con/Artists are salivating like an overheated dog at the prospects of "Libruls Run Amok" in the Congress.

They're already framing Speaker Pelosi as a "Shrew" and "Wicked Witch of the West".

In her New York Post column -- "Call Her 'Nancy Shrew'?" -- also addressing Pelosi's handling of the Hoyer/Murtha contest, Orin-Eilbeck wrote: "Forget 'The Devil Wears Prada['] the hot show in Washington is 'The Shrew Adores Armani.' In just a few short days, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has turned into a caricature of the shrill, petty woman boss."

Then you've got O'Leilly on Nov 9th.

Now the unintended consequence of the power shift in D.C. is that some Democrats will try to impose a secular-progressive agenda on the country.

First, there will be an attempt to raise taxes — Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel will lead that.

Second, new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will encourage investigations of the Bush administration, seeking to create a scandal which would help the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008.

But that could backfire on the Democrats as most Americans do not want Mr. Bush attacked. They want to see if the Democrats can do better. They do not want to see their government ripped apart in a time of war.

I'll say again what I said before.

"Create a Scandal?" Democrats don't have to "make up a scandal" - they have a all you can eat buffet of scandals laid out right in front of them.

However -- I will with heavy heart and a lump in my throat admit one. true. fact. We shouldn't try to eat the entire buffet all in one sitting!

That's just plain gluttony.

All of these issues should be looked at, the Congress should absolutely perform oversight. The Senate still hasn't finished Phase II of the original WMD investigation. We have multiple sets of Downing Street Memos that still haven't been addressed. We got Torture. We got Illegal Surveillance. We got Katrina and it's aftermath. We're still missing that pesky Habeas Corpus thingy ("I knew I saw it on the countertop just last week...") The people who vowed to "Restore Honor and Integrity the the White House" have instead repeatedly had shoplifters, hookers, pedophiles and not-so-closeted gay drug-addict homophobe preachers in the White House, not to mention the Watergate Hotel and the Congress.

There's serious work here that needs a-doin.

But still - O'Reilly. Actually. Said. Something. True.

(Cue the Shock and Awe Musical montage - with the obligatory FEAR Font!)

IMO if we go hog-wild like a bunch of teenages girls on spring break with way too many video cameras around we'll most likely find we just lined up in a circular firing squad.

I believe strongly that this is why Speaker Pelosi has taken Impeachment "Off the Table". What Democrats do now that they've regained power in Congress can not be seen as payback or a witchhunt. We could spend the next decade investigating all the things that BushCo have totally fracked up, and in all likelyhood we probably will.

Congressional Dems have to do their jobs, they have to do it well - and they have to do them smart - or we'll be crying in our latte's about yet another Stealth Wing-Nut President (like McCain - shiver) in '08.

We have to be in this for the long-haul, not just the quick win.

Or is it just me that feels that way?

Vyan

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

Abu Gonzales : Upholding the Constitution is "Grave Threat" to U.S.

Amazing how far through the looking glass we've actually come...

Expecting the executive branch to obey the law and respect civil rights is "shortsighted,"

Those Who Want to Uphold the Constitution present a "grave threat" to U.S. security.

Gonzales Blasts Surveillance Critics
Nov 18, 3:47 PM (ET)
By CHASE SQUIRES

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales contended Saturday that some critics of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program were defining freedom in a way that poses a "grave threat" to U.S. security.

Gonzales was the second administration official in two days to attack a federal judge's ruling last August that the program was unconstitutional. Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday called the ruling "an indefensible act of judicial overreaching."

Gonzales told about 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy's political science and law classes that some see the program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country.

"But this view is shortsighted," he said. "Its definition of freedom - one utterly divorced from civic responsibility - is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people."

On August 17 a Federal Court judge in Detroit ruled that the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" which had been revealed by the New York Times in December was Unconstitution a ruled that it should be immediately terminated.

The ACLU who had filed the original suit had this statement:

Today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor agreed with the ACLU that the NSA program violates Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, and runs counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed by Congress. Judge Taylor also rejected the government’s argument that the case could not proceed because of state secrets, saying that facts about NSA wiretapping have already been conceded by the government.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty under our Constitution to serve as a check on executive power," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who argued the case before Judge Taylor. "Throwing out the Constitution will not make Americans any safer."

In her ruling, Judge Taylor dismisses the government’s argument that the president "has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself."

Obviously Gonzales wasn't paying attention based on his statement today.

At a news conference, Gonzales would not speculate how the administration would react if Congress did not authorize warrantless surveillance.

"We're optimistic because of the importance of this program, the success of the program, the stated commitment of the Democratic leadership to work with us in protection of America, and that we're going to have a good discussion and dialogue about the program," he said.

"We believe the president has the authority under the authorization of military force and inherent authority of the constitution to engage in this sort of program, but we want to supplement that authority," he said.

Part of what Gonzales is claiming here involving "inherent powers" is based on an argument that failed in the Hamdi case. In that situation the DOJ argue that Hamdi, who is a U.S. Citizen could be held and detained as an "Enemy Combatant" without judicial review under the Authorization to use Military Force in Afghanistan. The Supreme's found otherwise.

JUSTICE O ’CONNOR,joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE,JUSTICE KENNEDY,and JUSTICE BREYER,concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.Pp.14 –15.

JUSTICE SOUTER,joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG,concluded that Hamdi ’ s detention is unauthorized,but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.

In short, Hamdi should have the right to a judicial hearing - a process which is quite similar to that required by FISA - a warrant. How exactly Alberto ("Tortue Memos") Gonzales - the so-called Top Law Enforcement Official in the Country - and Vice President Dick ("Shooter") Cheney get from losing the Hamdi case to claiming that their Warrantless eavesdropping on tens of millions of phone calls and email information is somehow "Constitution" is a shocking and frankly sickening situation.

Both of these men took an solemn oath to "Uphold the Constitution", yet both seem hell-bent on violating it's very tenets.

Abu presents a false hobsons choice between the possible loss of "liberty" due to a devestating terrorist attack - which even in the worst case scenario is less likely to be as deadly and damaging as Hurricane Katrina - against the very real fact of lost liberty happening right now as a result of the Bush administrations Imperialist actions.

They claim this type of surveillance has been "highly succesful", yet the FBI considers the thousands of false leads and dead-ends they've generated so far to be "a waste" of time and resources. Resources which could and should be better spent on credible leads gained through legal means.

There is also the problem that evidence gathered against real terrorists who are actually captured using extra-legal means - is inadmissable under the fruits of the poison tree doctrine. (Of course this may be exactly why Bush has pushed so hard for the use of Military Commisions, which may use coerced and classifed evidence -"to protect sources and methods" - while simultaneously abandoning Habeas Corpus)

Newly empowered Congressional Democrats have already found that the Bush Administration has been regularly violating at least 26 Federal Laws - including FISA.

But it has to be said that this type of nonsensical counter-factual politicing by appointed Civil Servants is dangerous to the foundations of our Democracy itself. It is a far greater danger in the estimatation of many legal and constitutional scholars - than anything Al Qaeda has done, or will ever do.

The deepest cuts to liberty are those which are often self-inflicted.

Vyan

Gitmo's Combatant Kangaroo Court

Under both the Geneva Conventions and the newly passed Military Commissions Act, hearings are required for each detainee to determine if they are in fact an "Enemy Combatant" or not. With the virtual revokation of Habaes Corpus under the MCA these Status Tribunals are currently the only measure of justice that these detainee's are likely to see. But a university review of 390 of such hearings has found that they are little more than a "Sham".

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The U.S. military called no witnesses, withheld evidence from detainees and usually reached a decision within a day as it determined that hundreds of men detained at Guantanamo Bay were "enemy combatants," according to a new report.

Their report, based on an analysis of records of military hearings of 393 detainees, comes as the U.S. government seeks to severely restrict detainee access to civilian courts, arguing that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals should be their main legal recourse.

We've already found that the U.S. Government is far from infallable when it comes to identifying who may be an "Enemy" and who may not especially in regards not just those held in Gitmo, but to the estimated 14,000 detainees currently being held in Bush's Secret Prisons (or rendered) all around the globe.

We have the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian national who was detained at Kennedy Airport when his name was mistaken on a watchlist, before the mistake was corrected he had been transported to Syria and tortured.

There is Abu Omar, an innocent man who was mistakenly kidnapped by CIA agents in Italy, transported to Egypt and also tortured.

Even being a member of the media is no protection, as Pulitzer Prize winning AP Photographer Bilal Hussein has discovered during the seven months that he's been held by the U.S. Military on suspicion of aiding insurgents in Iraq - and has not yet been granted his Status Review hearing. (Disturbingly the original AP Story on Hussein has also disappeared, not that the story can't still be found as various Newspaper editorial boards have begun to speak out).

The ban on Habeas is quite far reaching and includes even immigrants living legally in the U.S.

WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.

Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.

Now the only method for persons such as Al-Marri to question his detainment is before the Combat Status Review - and that process is basically rigged.

The one peice of good news is that although Habeas for Non-U.S. Citizens is now none existent under the MCA and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 the findings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal can be appealed to the DC Circuit. However one must temper this encouraging news for the wrongly accused by considering the reality that before he was even allowed access to his attorney Hamdan had to frist plead guilty, and that even after winning his case before the Supreme Court Lt. Cmd. Swift was passed up for promition and effectively drummed out of the military. So Hamdan's isn't exactly a course we can expect to be readily followed by other defendants or attorney's which is troubling since there may indeed be fertile grounds for the reversal of many of the findings of this court.

The military held Combatant Status Review Tribunals for 558 detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in southeast Cuba between July 2004 and January 2005 and found all but 38 were enemy combatants. Handcuffed detainees appeared before a panel of three officers with no defense attorney, only a military "personal representative."

According to the report, the representatives said nothing in the hearings 14 percent of the time and made no "substantive" comments in 30 percent. In some cases, the representative even appeared to advocate the government's position, the report said.

The report is based on transcripts of tribunals that the government first released earlier this year in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press as well additional records provided by lawyers for 102 Guantanamo detainees.

Among their findings:

* The government did not produce any witnesses in any hearing.
* The military denied all detainee requests to inspect the classified evidence against them.
* The military refused all requests for defense witnesses who were not detained at Guantanamo.
* In 74 percent of the cases, the government denied requests to call witnesses who were detained at the prison.
* In 91 percent of the hearings, the detainees did not present any evidence.
* In three cases, the panel found that the detainee was "no longer an enemy combatant," but the military convened new tribunals that later found them to be enemy combatants.

"No American would ever consider this to be hearing," Denbeaux said. "This is a show trial."

Showing that the light at the end of this long dark tunnel really isn't an oncoming train. Yesterday Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced legislation "that would amend the existing law governing military tribunals of detainees. Among other things, the bill "seeks to give habeas corpus protections to military detainees" and narrow the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States."

Dodd's bill, which currently has no co-sponsors, seeks to give habeas corpus protections to military detainees; bar information that was gained through coercion from being used in trials and empower military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable.

Dodd's bill also narrows the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants. The legislation would also authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for the armed forces to review decisions made by the military commissions.

Moreover, Dodd seeks to have an expedited judicial review of the new law to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.

Make no mistake, this move by Dodd is a risky one. He will be swiftboated, accused of "coddling our enemies" and being "Soft on terrorism" for simply requiring that Justice be Served.

We seem to have forgotten that this nation is built on a foundation that the innocent be protected, that those who are accused of crimes by the government be given the benefit of the doubt and considered innocent until proven guilty. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a travesty that has violated our core principles, but regaining what was lost will most certainly be an uphill battle. Dodd is simply attempted to correct our mistake.

Yes or course, we all want to fight terrorism - we just want to make sure it's against the right terrorists. We wouldn't want to go off half-cocked and invade the wrong country based on false confessions we gained through use of torture now would we?

Ooops. Never mind.

Vyan

Fox News: Look for some insurgents who are Thrilled by the Dem Takover

As reported by Huffington Post, an internal Fox News Memo provides the marching orders for Fox Correspondants to "find insurgents who are thrilled at the prospect of a Dem Controlled Congress".

(Click to view full size)

But wait it gets worse...

Besides insulting the Patriotism and competence of Democrats with the suggestion that the insurgents "must be thrilled" - the memo also includes other cheap shots.

In the House, the newly empowered Dems will shed some blood before settling in. Murtha will challenge Hoyer for the leadership. A former hawk v. a political hack. Garret will observe.

But from watching last night Hannity and colmes they've already gone far beyond name calling in their new attempts to Swiftboat Murtha. They've dredged up allegations dating back 26 years that Murtha was involved in Abscam.

Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) was not indicted or prosecuted [for involvement in Abscam]. The FBI videotaped Murtha as saying, "I'm not interested...at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't." to $50,000 cash right after Murtha had offered to provide names of businesses and banks in his district where money could be legally invested. See the Video (Warning:NSFW)

Lets just get this straight, they were discussing where money could be LEGALLY invested - not a bribe - and Murtha said "No". This is their big scandal?

No wonder their expecting to see insurgent jumping up and down in joy now that the Republicans have had their ass handed to them. Nearly all of their so-called "Democrat [sic] scandals" are fever-dream fantasies.

Where are their news reports about Right-Wing Blogger/Freeper who has been the source of the Anthrax Hoaxes used against Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer? Not to mention Sumner Redstone, John Stewart and Keith Olberman?

They don't have to go to Bahgdad or Sadr City to find an insurgent committing acts of terrorism against American citizens -- all they have to do is go to the San Fernando Valley (Or check some of the posts on Free Republic).

Call me silly if you will, but that's some fairly unbalanced coverage I'd say.

No wonder these guys have been losing the War on Terror and in Iraq - they're much to busy waging the War on Democrats (and losing that too).

The revelation of these types of top-down marching orders is not new, it was first revealed by Director Robert Greenwald in his movie Outfoxed, which he readily discussed with Keith Olbermann.

Keith Olbermann - Faux News Revealed

Vyan