Daring Depravity

New Leftward Shift in South America the Result of an Ugly and Overlooked Recent History of Right Wing Rule Part 2

nospam@example.com (Punk) — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:47:18 -0700

Jean Marc lived for the next few months as a fugitive, living in safe houses, using fake names, and traveling from city to city. His luck would soon run out after falling into a police trap upon entering a fellow student’s house under surveillance.
Continue reading "New Leftward Shift in South America the Result of an Ugly and Overlooked Recent History of Right Wing Rule Part 2"

New Leftward Shift in South America the Result of an Ugly and Overlooked Recent History of Right Wing Rule

nospam@example.com (Punk) — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:38:17 -0700

Israel Logic continued

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:20:52 -0700

Israeli politicians keep trying to blame the victims of the Qana Massacre, even going so far as to say that Hezbollah probably kept the civillians there so that they would be killed by Israeli bombs. But Israel has destroyed so many roads and bridges in southren Lebanon, how could they escape? Israel destroys all the escape routes, and then it is Hezbollah's fault that the civillians are killed becuase they can't escape? This is the logic of empire...

Israel and the Logic of Empire

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:12:59 -0700

We are now more than 2 weeks into the war that Israel is waging against Lebanon, and the logic of Israel in their attack continues to bewilder and baffle any observer who is paying attention. The players in this game are many, but the three that are front and center are Hezbollah, Israel, and Israel’s proxy, the United States.

Israel began the current round of hostilities with their “response” to Hezbollah, and they have responded with blinding amounts of force, using missiles, planes, bombs, and ground forces as well.

The main problem that Israel is facing, however, is the fact that Hezbollah is a non state actor, an armed militia that does not have a state. Their stated goal is to attack and destroy Hezbollah, but how can this be accomplished against a non state actor? Attacking a military is easy; you attack the military assets, bunkers, airfields, weapons caches, and other obvious targets. When you are fighting against a guerilla army that does not have many large installations, how can you use standard military force to respond?

The simple answer is that you cannot. Despite obvious strategic flaws, attacking civilian areas that are allegedly harboring a militia is a clear violation of International Law, as well as the laws of war. This is where Israel’s logic of empire comes in. Israel maintains that it has a right to respond to Hezbollah’s attacks against it. But, since Hezbollah is a guerilla army with its base amongst civilians, then any civilians who are hurt is not their fault; it is Hezbollah.

So, when an armed militia moves into your neighborhood, regardless of whether you support them or not, the sheer fact of their presence make all civilians in the area fair to attack, and if anything happens to them, it is the fault of the militia and not the one who is actually dropping the bombs. Take a moment and think about that logic; it is not Israel, the bomb dropper’s fault that civilians die; instead it is Hezbollah’s fault for hiding amongst civilians.

Inherent is this argument is the idea that Israel has the right to respond to any attack that is made against it, with any amount of force that they deem necessary, and all of the consequences of the attack fall on the target. Israel argues that they would not be attacking these areas if Hezbollah was not there, so in fact it is Hezbollah’s fault that civilians are killed.

Another method that Israel uses to dodge the blood on their hands is by stating that they have leafleted certain areas, letting all the civilians know that they are living in a targeted area. Then, if any civilians die in that area, it is again not their fault because they were all warned. While this assumption is again based on the idea that Israel has the right to use as much force as it deems necessary, clearly this is another shifting of the blame.

First of all, Israel has destroyed most of the roads and bridges in southern Lebanon, making escape from cities and small towns almost impossible. So, many people are stuck in the cities to wait out the war and hope for the best. Secondly, most of the people who Israel is attacking do not have enough money to afford to escape from an area where Israel is targeting, and instead are forced to wait there for their potential deaths while others who can afford it flee.

Third, and most important of all, since Israel has no right to attack civilian areas, then there is no reason that the residents of the area should have to flee their homes. Those people have a right to live in their homes and not be bombed; if they are killed by missiles while peacefully living in their homes and existing from day to day, then their blood is on the hands of the aggressor, Israel.

Let’s put this in simple terms that we can all understand; when a school yard bully attacks a weaker child, who do we blame the bully or the weaker child? If that same bully, in the process of beating up the other child hits a few onlookers who were not even involved in the fight, do we blame the onlookers for getting in the way, or would we blame the person whose fists were doing the pummeling?

Another piece of Israel’s logic is based on the fact that, as they claim, the Lebanese government will not use its army to try and control Hezbollah. Apparently, Israel believes that the purpose of the Lebanese state is to fight what would be a bloody civil war in order to protect Israel, the country who has attacked Lebanon numerous times and occupied the country for almost 20 years. What would the Lebanese government have to gain from attacking Hezbollah, other than to cause a civil war that would go on for years and years?

The Lebanese government, which now contains some members of Hezbollah who were elected, has stated that it was in negotiations with Hezbollah in order to try to bring disarmament. The Israeli government disregarded the negotiations and called on Lebanon to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon.

Unfortunately, Israel does not see the irony in asking Lebanon to implement the will of the UN, when Israel has been the target of over 60 UN resolutions, and has never implemented any one of them in full. This is just another part of Israel’s logic: the UN applies to others, and not to us. When the UN resolution calls on Hezbollah to disarm, then we must enforce it. When the UN calls for the right of all Palestinians to return to occupied land that was once theirs, well that is just a suggestion which will not be followed.

Israel continues every day in its propaganda to try and portray its war against Lebanon as legitimate, its use of force necessary, and it continues to express regret that innocents are dying. However, it also continues to invade and target civilian areas, to use force instead of negotiations, and to rely on its superior firepower and its proxy the United States for protections for some of its greatest crimes in recent memory.

Anyone with any beliefe in justice and international law, however, will not blame the victims for their own deaths, and instead will place the blame where it belongs, clearly on the aggressor Israel and their proxy and supplier, the United States.

Update: Israeli Airstrike kills over 56 Lebanese, many of them Children...

Senator's Kyl and Graham caught lying to the Supreme Court

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:47:49 -0700

Well, just when you think that the Republicans can't get any lower, they show that they can. In the Supreme Court case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld, there were many Amicus briefs filed on both sides. One of the briefs filed on the side of the govermnet was from Senator Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, who of couse, sided with the Bush administration.

They, along with Bush, took the stance that Hamdan did not deserve the rights that he is in fact guarenteed under the Geneva Convention common article 3, and instead should be tried in a kangaroo court aka a military commission.

However, when they filed this brief in support of the government, they did one thing that no one thought was actually possible: the lied to the Supreme Court. In the brief they cite a congressional discussion that supposedly took place around the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act. There is just one problem - they forgot to tell the other Senators about this discussion. In fact, the falsified to the congressional record to try to support their version of what they believed should have happened, when in fact just the oppposite happened.

John Dean has the play by play breakdown over at Findlaw; it is truly worth a read to get a vision into just how far the Republicans will go in order to keep Detainees out of any existing court system.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that they have no evidence that any of these people that they are holding are actually members of Al Qaeda? Or could it be that all of the evidence that they do have has been derived from torture and would be thrown out of a civillian or military court in 3 seconds? In a military commission, the defendant does not even have the right to see the evidence against them, or TO BE PRESENT at the hearing!

That's right, that is what they are fighting so hard for. They want to be able to try these detainees in secret courts, where they can't see the evidence against themselves, and they don't even have to be present! The only reason to resort to these sham Kangaroo courts is that they know what will happen in a regular court, and they need to try to save face with the rest of America.

The truth is, not only have the detainees rights been violated, but even the ones who most certainly are terrorists can never be tried in the American court system becuase all of the evidence against them comes from torture!

So, in a desperate attempt to keep the detainees out of any regular coutr process and expose the administration's total bungling of the situation, they seek to shroud themselves with secrecy. And, standing tall to bravely defend this corruption is the lies of Senator Jon Kyl and Senator Lindsey Graham, brave patriots, protecting people from the Geneva Convention.

Supreme Court Sets the Stage for War Crimes Trial of President Bush

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:54:49 -0700

Since the attack on Afghanistan late in 2001, the Bush administration had been advancing the legal theory that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the Al Qaeda “detainees” who were captured in Afghanistan. The Bush administration stated that since these were irregular fighters who did not fight for a state or wear uniforms, then they were not due to have Prisoner of War protections under the Geneva Convention Article 2.

In a stunning rebuke of this logic, the Supreme Court ruled this week, in the Hamdan v Rumsfeld case, that they need not consider whether Article 2 of the Geneva Convention applies to Hamdan because Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply. Whereas Article 2 of the Geneva Convention describes how signatories of the Convention will act in a conflict between each other, Common Article 3 describes how a signatory to the convention should act in a conflict of any kind, regardless of whether the adversary is a contracting party. This is true in wars such as civil wars, guerilla wars, or in this case a war between a state (the U.S.) and a terrorist organization, Al Qaeda.

The opening text of Common Article 3 is as follows:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

It all depends on what your definition of “International” is…

The Administration’s logic, which was confirmed by the appellate court, was that since Al Qaeda is not a contracting party to the Geneva Convention, then Article 2 cannot apply. Also, since this clearly is a conflict “international in scope” then article 3 could not apply either, and then they were free to treat Al Qaeda detainees in any manner which the executive branch saw fit.

To Quote George Bush from his memo dated February 7 2002:

I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

This piece of legal trickery, however, was blown out of the water by the Supreme Court. The court ruled, correctly, that in the opening paragraph of Common Article 3, the word international is being used not to describe the scope of the conflict, but in the literal sense between nations or between contacting parties. Read properly, Common Article 3 describes how signatories to the convention will treat prisoners and captured enemies of a force that is not national in character, such as the different types of forces described above.

John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, from the decision (my own emphasis added):

The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being “‘international in scope,’” does not qualify as a “‘conflict not of an international character.’” 415 F. 3d, at 41. That reasoning is erroneous. The term “conflict not of an international character” is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations. So much is demonstrated by the “fundamental logic [of] the Convention’s provisions on its application.” Id., at 44 (Williams, J., concurring). Common Article 2 provides that “the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties.” 6 U. S. T., at 3318 (Art. 2, 1). High Contracting Parties (signatories) also must abide by all terms of the Conventions vis-à-vis one another even if one party to the conflict is a nonsignatory “Power,” and must so abide vis-à-vis the nonsignatory if “the latter accepts and applies” those terms. Ibid. (Art. 2, 3). Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory “Power” who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict is distinguishable from the conflict described in Common Article 2 chiefly because it does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). In context, then, the phrase “not of an international character” bearsits literal meaning. See, e.g., J. Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation 6, 296 (J. Burns & H. Hart eds. 1970) (using the term “international law” as a “new though not inexpressive appellation” meaning “betwixt nation and nation”; defining “international” to include “mutual transactions between sovereigns as such”);Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, p. 1351 (1987) (“[A] non-international armed conflict is distinct from an international armed conflict because of the legal status of the entities opposing each other”).

The Rest of Article 3 and the War Crimes Act of 1996

So, how does this all add up to a War Crimes Trial for President Bush? Let’s keep this very simple. First and foremost, the Constitution states that all treaties approved by the Senate and signed by the president then become equal in force to the constitution in American Law. So, if we believe in the Constitution, then violations of the Geneva Convention are in fact violations of the Constitution.

Since that logic is too troubling for some people, there is a second legal requirement, under the War Crimes Act of 1996. This law created a new type of crime, a war crime, which is committed when someone violates the Geneva Convention. If any of these violations result in the death of a human, it can be punishable by the death penalty.

Well, now that it has been determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the Guantanamo detainees, it is important to read the full text of the article and determine whether any breeches have occurred. The full text is as follows:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

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

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

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

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

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

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

Well, clearly, the treatment of Detainees held by the United States in Guantanamo and all over the world has been in violation of this article. There have been mass abuse, use of stress positions, urinating and destruction of the Koran, prisoners smeared with fake period blood, and any other number of techniques that walk the line between torture and inhumane treatment, both of which are prohibited by the Convention. Human Rights Watch has a list of approved treatments at Guantanamo here.

Add to all of these well known techniques, the determination by the UN human rights commission that merely detaining the prisoners there for this long amounts to a form of torture and a denial of due process, which is also guaranteed by Common Article 3.

So, the violations of the Geneva Convention are well documented by international organizations such as the UN Human Rights Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the international and American media. President Bush and other members of his Administration do not deny that these crimes against humanity were occurring in Guantanamo and around the world, and in fact they argue that they are necessary to protect the safety of the United States.

The truth of the matter is, however, that when the Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to the detainees of the conflict with Al Qaeda aka “The War on Terror” they had also laid the ground work for war crimes trials for the entire Bush administration, as well as the President himself.

Thanks to the War Crimes act of 1996, passed by the Republican Congress and Signed by President Clinton, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence to try President Bush in a Federal Court for violation of a federal law. Although this may not happen under Bush himself with a Republican Congress, it is also important to remember that a war crime has no statute of limitations.

So, if the United States truly values the rule of law, then perhaps Mr. Hamdan will not be the only one facing a war crimes tribunal in the future

Sir no Sir - A must See

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:54:15 -0700

Last night I had the privilege to see the movie Sir no Sir, which is about the GI anti war movement against the Vietnam War. I just have to say, it was an amazing movie, and it should be a must see for anyone who is against this war, or was against the Vietnam War at the time.

The movie helps to break away the myth that all of the soldiers that are in the military support their leaders and the president. Instead, it paints a beautiful picture of internal resistance from the people who actually had to fight in the war.

Although many people seem to remember the mass mobilizations and the protests against the Vietnam War, this movie reminds everyone that one of the driving forces behind these protests was Vietnam Veterans against the war and many Veterans in general.

This applies very much to today, where some of the top organizations leading the protests against the Iraq war are veteran and military related groups such as:

Iraq Veterans Against the War
Veterans for Peace
Gold Star Families for Peace
Military Families Speak Out

In summary, the movie is an excellent film, and a must see for anyone who is against the war in Iraq. Also, it would be a great film to start a discussion with someone who is on the fence, or is totally in favor of today’s war (although opinion polls show that not too many of those people exist). Check out the show times in your area, and take a friend to go see it; you won’t be disappointed.

Alexander Cockburn hands it to the Liberals

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:43:59 -0700

In his latest column, Alexander Cockburn really sticks it to the liberals, definately worth a read.

Carl Schmitt, War Crimes, and Torture

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:28:29 -0700

Carl Schmitt is not a well known name in today’s society here in America, but it should be. As the general counsel for the Nazi’s at Nuremburg, it was Schmitt that made all of the original arguments that what the Nazis did in World War 2 was legal because the Geneva Convention did not apply. To sum up his position here is a quoted paragraph from the cfba:

There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos.” It comes not from Madison or Hamilton, but from Carl Schmitt, the leading German philosopher of law during the Nazi period. Schmitt contended that legal norms were only applicable in stable and peaceful situations – and not in times of war, when the state confronted “a mortal enemy, with the threat of violent death at the hands ofa hostile group.” It follows that conventional legal norms are no longer applicable in a state of emergency, when war and chaos pose a standing threat to public safety.

Now compare this to all of the statements that President Bush has made, both public and private, about why the Geneva Convention can not apply in the conflict against Al Qaeda, as well as in places like Guantanamo Bay Prison, as well as with all of his rhetoric about how the world has changed after 9-11, etc. and it becomes pretty clear where all of their influence is coming from.

In a very well written article at the blog Balkinization, Scott Horton lays out Schmitt’s argument for why the Geneva Convention did not apply to Nazi Germany:

(1)Particularly on the Eastern Front, the conflict was a nonconventional sort of warfare being waged against a “barbaric” enemy which engaged in “terrorist” practices, and which itself did not observe the law of armed conflict.

(2) Individual combatants who engaged in “terrorist” practices, or who fought in military formations engaged in such practices, were not entitled to protections under international humanitarian law, and the adjudicatory provisions of the Geneva Conventions could therefore be avoided together with the substantive protections.

(3) The Geneva and Hague Conventions were “obsolete” and ill-suited to the sort of ideologically driven warfare in which the Nazis were engaged on the Eastern Front, though they might have limited application with respect to the Western Allies.

(4) Application of the Geneva Conventions was not in the enlightened self-interest of Germany because its enemies would not reciprocate such conduct by treating German prisoners in a humane fashion.

(5) Construction of international law should be driven in the first instance by a clear understanding of the national interest as determined by the executive. To this end niggling, hypertechnical interpretations of the Conventions that disregarded the plain text, international practice and even Germany’s prior practice in order to justify their nonapplication were entirely appropriate.

(6) In any event, the rules of international law were subordinated to the military interests of the German state and to the law as determined and stated by the German Führer.

Many of these statements sound exactly like the rationale offered by Alberto Gonzales in the now infamous torture memo, where he called the Geneva convention Quaint, and made arguments why it was important for Bush to claim that the Geneva convention did not apply in certain areas because it would open him up to prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Basically what this all amounts to is the exact theories that Carl Schmitt argued in favor of. He believed that a strong sovereign had the right and responsibility to suspend freedoms in emergency situations, in order to preserve the state. He also argued that the sovereign himself had the power to determine what situation required these suspensions, just as Bush has argued that even congress cannot limit the power of the executive during times of war.

It is important to note that the constitution of Germany was never overturned or suspended, however, there were emergency powers granted which superseded the constitution because of the “state of emergency”. These powers were then renewed every 4 years. This is also very parallel to what the Bush administration has done with the Patriot act. It is a major assault on the constitution that supposedly only exists temporarily to deal with a situation, and then will go away.

In summation, it is important to note that the Ideology of Carl Schmitt, the defender of the supreme crimes of the Nazis at Nuremburg, is currently the same path that the administration believes that they can advance here in the US, and only by studying the legacy of Carl Schmitt can we understand what direction the administration may dream of taking us.

Gore 2008 – are you f-ing kidding me?

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:28:24 -0700

Well, it seems that some silly liberals all over the web are advancing the idea that Al Gore is the last hope for all of humanity in 2008. All I have to say to that is – are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, has everyone just forgotten what a piece of shit Al Gore is? Incase people have forgotten, I decided to list a few compelling reasons not to put your faith in the magical AL Gore:

1) NAFTA – Al Gore passed NAFTA. I don’t mean he advocated for it, and stumped for it, which he did, he passed it. It was a tie vote in the Senate, and Gore passed it. This friend of Labor and of the Environment bravely passed one of the laws which has lead to a huge amount of labor and environmental destruction. Where was this social consciousness back then?

2) His ties to the crazy religious right. That’s right, did everyone forget about Al Gore and his crazy Christian right support, as well as his wife’s founding and support of the PMRC censorship bastards from the 80’s? He has ties to all the same scumbags that Bush and his cohorts do, he just doesn’t flaunt it all over the place.

3) Where were his concerns for the Environment when he was in a position to do something about it – ie chief of environmental policy for 8 years! He was too busy jerking off big business and caving to their demands to help stop this global warming that he is so concerned about now. (not to mention his ties to big oil just like Bush)

4) HE IS THE REASON THAT BUSH IS PRESIDENT!! Did everyone forget that Al Gore is the man who couldn’t beat Bush before 9-11 happened and Bush suddenly turned into God Himself here on earth among us mortals?

Pre 9-11 Bush was a bumbling fumbling idiot, who routinely was laughed at during his own campaign events. (Not to say that he isn’t the same idiot he was on the 10th of September, but the media portrayal of him has shifted considerably.)

Gore could not beat Bush. He could not find issues to stand on, and he could not beat Bush in the debates! This should have been a time for a supposedly intelligent person like Gore to beat the pants off of Bush, but no he just kept saying I agree with you on that as well.

But, most of all, the most heinous of all, GORE CONCEDED AN ELECTION THAT HE ACTUALLY WON! That is how pathetic the Democratic Party has become, even when they win they don’t win.

In all of the recounts that Bush was asking for, Gore would have won. Under the recounts Gore was asking for, Bush would have won. However, a statewide recount, using the standards that the Bush legal team was asking for, found Gore as a winner.

So, if Gore actually cared so much about being president, he has his chance, and he blew it. If he has asked for a complete recount of the votes, then this never would have happened, and Gore would have been president over Bush in 2000.

After the obviously partisan ruling by the Supreme Court in 2000 that awarded Bush the Presidency, Gore should have called upon all supporters that were available to leave their jobs, and come to Washington DC and demand an actual recount of the votes.

Why? Because it would have been the right thing to do. Regardless of what the outcome would have been, the right thing to do would have been to DEMAND that all votes be counted. But, because he did not want to create a constitutional crisis, or be seen as a “Sore Loserman” he just gave the presidency to Bush.

And if Gore won’t even fight to be the president after he had already won the presidency, how could anyone possibly consider him as a good candidate for 2008? Is it simply because of the claims that he makes about his environmental beliefs and his sudden new love of the constitution? I think that it is foolish, because it is better to judge people by their actions rather than just by what they say they believe in.

By that standard, Gore has proved himself over and over again to be at best a hypocrite, and at worst, a total liar. Anyone who supports him now because of his new found values needs only to look back on the record that he has established since his time in the house to find that his “beliefs” have as many holes in them as Swiss Cheese.

Here are some other more detailed articles to check out about how much Gore sucks.

Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore

Why the "New" Al Gore can't get elected.

Al Gore the environmental titan?

Pentagon seeks to institutionalize torture in Army Field Guide

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:19:43 -0700

So, the LA Times is reporting that the Pentagon is planning to release a new Army Field Manual which will not include the prohibition of "humiliating and degrading treatment." which is explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convetion.

This is ironic, since the administration's argument about what happened in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo did not amount to torture, but it may have been "humiliating and degrading treatment." Now that the seek to institutionalize the behavior of Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, they are clearly seeking to further make torture part of the US policy.

What the Times, and many other media sources are failing to report, of course, is that since the Geneva convention is a treaty entered into by the President and the Senate of the United States, they simply cannot ignore parts of it. Just as they are bound by US law, they are also bound by international treaties which are ratified into US law.

If that was not enough, Congress passed a law, the War Crimes act of 1996 which makes it illegal under US law to violate the Geneva convention, and it is even punishable by death.

Now, in flagarant violation of US law and treaties that the US is a signer to, the Pentagon seeks to intitutionalize torture, and to make themselves guilty of War Crimes.

Abstinence only works "really well"

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:09:20 -0700

I haven't posted in a while - had a death in the family this week. Anyway, I saw this funny article on yahoo today, and it is totally worth a read. To sum it up, people who take virginity pledges lie about them based on what their current belief structure is. So, if they are now in favor of abstinence, they act as if they have always felt that way and vice versa.

Obviously all of the Abstinence only sex ed is really working well. Thanks right wing crazies.

What was the Jefferson Raid really about...

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sun, 28 May 2006 17:50:01 -0700

Bill Frist weighed in on the debate about the raid of William Jefferson's office, saying that everything was ok about it. Now here is a guy who knows how to tow the party line. Could someone be shaping themselves up for a run for President? Well, anyway, Frist seems to have no problem with the administration trying to use the FBI for political purposes and take the heat off of the huge number of Republicans currently under investigation. (for example, Bill Frist)

Nonetheless, if you accept Frist's logic, you have to ask yourself, why wasn't Tom Delay's Office raided, or even the Dukester who we know is guilty becuase he admitted it?

Both of these congressmen have been accused of running criminal operations out of their offices, and neither one of them had their doors kicked in.

Then there is an angle that I hadn't even considered until I read it in Digby, via FDL:

The reason to be against this is political and constitutional, not legal. It's entirely possible that the warrant they got was proper and that their cause is just. And I have no doubt that Hastert had a hissy fit and got Bush to seal the documents to cover his own ample ass. But the bigger issue is something that someone wrote in an email a couple of days ago: This Republican Justice Department, led by a lifetime Bush loyalist and good friend to Karl Rove now has every Democratic strategy memo that ever came across Congressman Jefferson's desk. Trust 'em?

There you go. They picked an easy target; someone who clearly appears to be guilty and would not curry much sympathy from most of mainstream America, as well as from most of his own party. Then they raided his office, where he almost certainly was running a criminal operation out of. However, mixed in with all of this was certainly some important strategy memos, which we all know Karl Rove would love to get his hands on.

And, while President Bush has ordered the files to be sealed, it seems more and more clear that whatever was in those files of political intelligence value will certainly find its way into Rove's hands. Not that they will be of much value, since the Democrats don't actually have a platform, other than our party does not have the name "Republican Party".

The point is, this all seems to make better sense. Hastert acts solely out of self preservation, becuase he is a selfish bastard who is onboard with whatever the administration wants to do, as well as whatever will demoralize and destroy any Democrat. So, the only reason for him to take his tough stand against the Administration is becuase he needs to Cover his ass.

Then, Bush seeks to punish him by leaking a story that will discredit his defense of Jefferson for the Selfish CYA reason that it truly is. Next, Hastert starts his clamoring about the use of political leaks, you know, from the administration that leaked Valerie Plame's name in order to punish her Husband for daring to tell the truth about faulty Iraq intelligence.

Finally we get today when Frist defends the administration becuase 1) he is not involved with Abramoff and has nothing to lose like Hastert and 2) he supports using the FBI to make political intelligence gains against the Democrats.

Any more feedback on this tangled we would be greatly appriciated.

Hastert takes a leak...

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:26:56 -0700

Dennis Hastert has some balls on him, you know that? He actually had the balls to say the following about the allegation that he is currently under investigation by the Justice Department:

On WGN Radio in Chicago, Hastert said the story was a leak planted by the FBI to intimidate him.

"It's just not true, you know, the Justice Department said there is no investigation, and this is one of the leaks that come out to try to, you know, intimidate people, and we're just not gonna be intimidated on it," he said.

Wait a minute, is he admitting that the administration uses leaks to punish political opponents? Or maybe that the administration would use a leak to try to silence a critic?

Here is the Washington Post:

Asked later if he was charging the Justice Department with retaliating for his stance in the congressional office raid, he answered: "Here are the dots. People can connect any dots they want to." If that wasn't clear enough, he added: "I thought it was an interesting sequence of events.

Well, I can't think of any other time that a leak has been used by the administration to try to silence an administration critic? Oh wait, I just remembered, Valerie Plame? Does anyone remember her at all, and how here career was ended by a leak? Its not like it was a leak orchestrated for political revenge, right? Oh, that's right, it was!

Well, Denny Hastert, if you are telling the truth about this intimidation through a leak, they it is tiem to initiate a congressional investigation into who ordered the leak and why it was ordered. I wonder how many indictments for lying that would bring?

Patrick Fitzgerald, are you out there?

Hastert Pelosi and the New Bipartisanship...

nospam@example.com (The Captain) — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:22:52 -0700

So, Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi have finally stood up to the out of control Executive branch. To spark this unprecedented inter-party unity, the issue at hand must have been something really dire; something really important.

Was it a rebuke of the administration's use of signing statements to undermine the intentions of congress when passing legislation?

Was it a challenge to the President's use of executive order to violate international treaties and domestic law?

Maybe it was finally the rebuke of the administration's use of illegal wiretapping to spy on American citizens without a warrant? Finally the congress stood up to make sure that their inaction is not interpreted as acquiescence, right?

Wrong.

What they managed to stand up together and announce was that it was wrong for the FBI to raid a congressman’s office for suspicion of running a criminal enterprise out of his office. The congressional leaders feel incensed that they could be treated as regular criminals when they commit crimes, and they became incensed by this.

Now, I admit that this is clearly part of a partisan witch hunt. I don’t seem to remember the offices of Tom Delay, Bob Ney, or even the Dukester getting raided by the FBI. In fact the only person that they have done this to is Willam Jefferson, the National Guard diverting Democrat.

Clearly Jefferson is a scumbag, and even though everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, people have already confessed to bribing him. They caught him on tape accepting a bribe; they found the bribe money in his freezer. It is pretty obvious he is a shady character.

Shady characters need to be investigated, regardless of party. And usually you can count on the Republican leadership to want to go after the Democrats in any situation, so why the sudden change of heart? Why is the Republican leader suddenly sticking up for the rights of opposition members of congress, when they never have before?

Well, here is one possible explanation: Hastert himself may be under investigation for ties to Jack Abramoff, according to ABC news. So, under these circumstances, Hastert would not want to establish a precedent that allows the FBI to just raid the offices of congressman under investigation. (Not that he would have to worry too much, considering that his party is the one current in power)

After this was reported, Hastert immediately began denying the validity of the allegation, but then backed away from his denials slightly. It will take some time to see if he is actually tied in with Abramoff.

Nonetheless, the point is that all that these two party leaders could bring themselves to get together on was this pitiful defense of an obviously corrupt congressman, and they wrapped it in the guise of “defending the constitution”.

However, if they truly wanted to protect the constitution, why not stand up to the President on any number of other issues where he is seeking to reduce the Congress to the roll of an advisory body?

I guess the answer shows us what truly stretched across party lines: CYA (Cover Your Ass). They all realize that, god forbid, if the justice department starting doing its job better that they might all be out of their jobs just like the Dukester.

This is the bipartisan unity that everyone has been clamoring for; united in protecting corruption and their own asses, and on all other issues just give Bush a free pass.

Update from the Washington Post:

"I note your public outrage over this search of a Member of Congress because it is in stark contrast to the conspicuous lack of such concern regarding similar questions about this administration's actions regarding millions of average citizens," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) teased in a letter to Hastert. "[Y]ou and your Republican colleagues have ranged from largely silent to vehemently supportive of every action this Administration has taken to expand executive powers."