Professor-rat's Blurty
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends View]
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008
| Time |
Event |
| 12:06a |
Carbon trade this Incendiary attacks in Paris (France) In the framework of the international week of solidarity with Isa and the others, many vehicles were burned simultaneously on the night of Friday the 13th to Saturday the 14th in Paris: a diplomatic car on rue Weiss (13th arrondissement) outside the economic ministry (and a BMW was smashed), a very new van of the Forclum business (which belongs to the Eiffage group that build prisons) on rue de Charenton (12th arrondissement), and a truck belonging to the city hall of Paris on rue de Coriolis (12th arrondissement) that strives like its predecessors to hunt the poor of the city. Fire to all the prisons! Freedom for all the prisoners, with or without papers, with or without chlorate! http://nantes.indymedia.org/article/14472 | | 12:53a |
All crap - no responsibility Todays democrat party '...Excuse the long quote. From Greenwald yesterday: Put another way, Congressional Democrats -- not the Federalist Society, but Congressional Democrats -- are embracing the proposition that the President has the power to instruct private citizens to break the law. As the ACLU puts it: This will set an incredibly dangerous precedent. Why have privacy laws if the president can write you a note to disobey them? When the government asks companies to break the law in the future, they will have precedent that Congress will cover their tracks. Democrats are about to institutionalize a proposition that has been rejected since the Nuremberg Trials -- namely, that individuals (or, more accurately, lobbyist-protected corporations) are free to break the law as long as they can claim afterwards that they were told by the Leader to do so. That's the principle which the Democratic Party -- following their standard pattern of having enough of their members join a virtually unanimous GOP while the Democratic leadership enables it all -- is about to write into our laws. Posted by Don Key @ http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/16/fisa/Obama's silence on the reports of a deal being near on the retroactive immunity issue is deafening. | | 1:22a |
Emu lays an egg
Everybody knows
Proponents of the Lisbon Treaty portray it as a necessary streamlining measure, which would create the post of European president and forge a common EU foreign policy.
Opponents regard it as a blueprint for a bureaucrat-driven federal European state.
One of those opponents in Ireland is the campaign group Coir, Irish for "justice."
"This is the third time that this treaty has been defeated, first in France, then in the Netherlands and now in Ireland. It is quite clear that the people of Europe do not want to be dragged into a federal EU superstate by their politicians," Coir spokesman Richard Greene told The Moonie Times.
"It is also quite clear that while the people of Europe are saying that economic integration is a good thing, they are also saying that total political integration is not the path that they want to go down."
Hugo Brady, research fellow at the Center for European Reform think tank in London, said it would be tough for other European nations to criticize the Irish over the no vote.
"Everyone knows that this treaty, put to a popular referendum elsewhere, would have very little chance of surviving," he said. | | 1:31a |
Hammer & Tickle Hammer & Tickle: A History of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes by Ben Lewis Poor Mr Gorbachev. Every time he met Ronald Reagan at a summit, he was subjected by the American President to a stream of Russian jokes. Or rather, to be precise, Soviet jokes - the point of which was always to satirise some aspect of life under communism. What made it worse was that some of them really were very funny. I like the one, for example, about the man who goes to buy a car in Moscow, pays for it, and is told by the salesman that he can collect it on a particular date in 10 years' time. The buyer thinks for a moment and then asks: 'Morning or afternoon?' The salesman, astonished by the question, asks: 'What difference does it make?' And the buyer answers: 'Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/arts/2008/06/15/bolew115.xmlIs it true that Marxism-Leninism is scientific?' 'No, surely not. If it were, they would have tested it on animals first.' Mugabe: "How Can A Ball Point Pen Fight With A Gun?" From poop to produce. How can salmonella get into a tomato? Screen my polyps Couric shows her mischievous side on a YouTube channel Los Angeles Times Katie Couric has been quietly uploading videos to her YouTube channel since February, reports Matea Gold. "The clips -- so far, 33 -- display the mischievous and often hammy personality that the newscaster doesn't get to show in her current post," she writes. A CBS News creative director says of Couric's channel: "You don't need to over-promote this. It should be organic -- work with it and let it grow." Posted at 8:47:04 AM - ROMENESKO | | 2:04a |
The correct -line...according to the Borg
The one and only correct-line according to ' anarchist-communists' or Platformists is identical to the Marxist.
It posits an enlightened self-conscious working class emancipating itself and its usually put in a
' My-way-or-the-highway' fashion. This is an unfortunate position to take. History demonstrates that with this approach, Plats will be waiting for ever. Organizational bureaucrats are always susceptible to doing deals which undercut what the members are fighting for, particularly when there is a “Labor” Government.
In recent years, full-time positions have become a part of the Plat career path, something which has only aggravated the situation. ( Sear. ' Give up activism' and ' The tyranny of structurelessness' )
Anarchists don’t need a “leadership” of this bourgeois Marxist description. Instead, we need a massive rank and file movement which can roll over any officials whenever necessary. The correct-line approach is opposed to the practical politics that embodies anarchism. Diversity-of-tactics. DoT embraces all who would not lay down the law for all. We advance in diversity and ( hopefully) strike in unison. Loosely networked through the internet we are becoming an increasingly formidable force. This is why we are attracting so many ' Anarchist-capitalists' on our right-wing and ' Anarchist-Communists' on our left. But we can't afford to let just one of any of these bastards get in here. | | 2:24a |
For two generations to agree... A moral aspiration for social equality, unaccompanied by a political and economic view of society, is at best wistful and, at worst, politically irresponsible. But an economic and political analysis, without an active, open moral pulse, dwindles to uninspired and uninspiring myopia. http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i41/41b00601.htm'Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality' | | 9:54a |
This pres gotta go
Wax him like a candle
A House committee has subpoenaed FBI transcripts of interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding their possible roles in the exposure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued the subpoena on Monday to Attorney General Michael Mukasey in the latest chapter of a standoff over what Bush and Cheney told a special prosecutor about the case in 2004.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department denied Waxman’s request for a voluntary release of the interview transcripts on grounds that it “raises serious separation of powers and heightened confidentiality concerns.”
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has turned over to Waxman’s committee “FBI 302 reports” of interviews with CIA and State Department officials and other individuals involved in the CIA leak, Waxman said in a letter to Mukasey last December.
But “the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee," including transcripts of Fitzgerald’s interviews with Bush and Cheney, Waxman said.
On Monday, Waxman set a June 23 deadline for Mukasey to comply with the committee subpoena.
Senior Bush administration officials disclosed Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity to several journalists in June and July of 2003 amid White House efforts to discredit her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for challenging Bush’s use of bogus intelligence to justify invading Iraq.
Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by right-wing columnist Robert Novak, effectively destroying her career. Two months later, a CIA complaint to the Justice Department sparked a criminal probe into the identity of the leakers.
Initially, Bush professed not to know anything about the matter, and several of his senior aides, including political adviser Karl Rove and the vice president’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, followed suit.
However, it later became clear that Rove and Libby had a hand in the Plame leak and that Bush and Cheney had helped organize a campaign to disparage Wilson by giving critical information to friendly journalists.
On June 24, 2004, Bush was interviewed by Fitzgerald for 70 minutes about the Plame leak. The only other member of the Bush team in the room during the meeting was Jim Sharp, the private lawyer that Bush hired, according to a press briefing by then-press secretary Scott McClellan.
”The President … was pleased to do his part to help the investigation move forward,” McClellan said. “No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States.”
A couple of weeks earlier, Cheney had been interviewed by Fitzgerald.
According to sources knowledgeable about the vice president’s testimony, Cheney was specifically asked about conversations he had with senior aides, including Libby, and queried about whether he was aware of a campaign led by White House officials to leak Plame’s identity.
It is unknown how Cheney responded to those questions. Cheney retained a private attorney, Terrence O’Donnell. Neither O’Donnell nor Sharp returned calls for comment on Monday.
Long-Sought Evidence
Three years ago, Waxman called for congressional hearings to determine if there was a White House conspiracy to unmask Plame's covert status in retaliation for the criticism Wilson leveled against the administration's use of a bogus claim that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger.
"I think that the Congress must hold hearings, bring Karl Rove in, put him under oath, and let him explain the situation from his point of view," Waxman said during an interview with “Democracy Now” in July 2005.
"Let him tell us what happened. It's ridiculous that Congress should stay out of all of this and not hold hearings."
At the time of Waxman's comments, Fitzgerald’s criminal investigation was still underway, leading to Libby’s indictment in October 2005 and his subsequent conviction in March 2007 on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.
During closing arguments at Libby’s trial, Cheney was implicated in the leak, as Fitzgerald acknowledged that Cheney was intimately involved in the scandal and may have told Libby to leak Plame's status to the media.
Fitzgerald told jurors that his investigation into the true nature of the vice president's involvement was impeded because Libby obstructed justice.
Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors during his closing arguments that Fitzgerald had been trying to build a case of conspiracy against the vice president and Libby and that the prosecution believed Libby may have lied to federal investigators and to a grand jury to protect Cheney.
“Now, I think the government, through its questions, really tried to put a cloud over Vice President Cheney," Wells said.
Rebutting Wells, Fitzgerald r told jurors: "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two-hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."
Moreover, copies of Cheney’s handwritten notes also appeared to implicate Bush in the leak case.
Cheney's notes, which were introduced as evidence during Libby's trial, called into question the truthfulness of Bush's vehement denials about having prior knowledge of the sub rosa campaign against Wilson.
In an October 2003 note to then-press secretary McClellan, Cheney demanded that the press office add Libby to a list of White House officials being cleared of any role in the Plame leak.
"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others," Cheney wrote. However, the note revealed that Cheney had originally written "this Pres" before crossing that out and using the passive tense, "that was."
In other words, the original version suggested that Bush had asked Libby “to stick his head in the meat grinder,” an apparent reference to dealing with the Washington press corps.
Over the past few weeks, interest in the CIA leak case was revived by former White House press secretary McClellan’s memoir which also suggests Bush and Cheney played a larger role than they have admitted publicly.
Two weeks ago, Waxman sent a letter to Mukasey stating that, according to FBI transcripts given to the committee, Libby told federal investigators that Cheney might have told him to leak Plame's CIA ties to reporters.
"In his interview with the FBI, Mr. Libby stated that it was ‘possible’ that Vice President Cheney instructed him to disseminate information about Ambassador Wilson's wife to the press. This is a significant revelation and, if true, a serious matter. It cannot be responsibly investigated without access to the Vice President's FBI interview," Waxman wrote.
McClellan is scheduled to testify about the Plame case before the House Judiciary Committee later this week.
Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org | | 9:56a |
The Anglicans annus horibilis
The DSP today reminds me a bit of the Anglican church. Founded by splitters over a non-issue, run by non-believers and rapidly heading for extinction. Just three quick reasons that lead me to these conclusions.
1) Members appear absolutely clueless about the fundamental Marxist concept known as the withering away of the state. ( Many also seem not to know Marx and Engels were actually for free trade and opposed to protectionism and fundamental facts about the Russian counter-revolution led by Lenin and Trotsky)
2) The placing of such a critical responsibility as Palestine in the hands of the American sex-worker, Ema Corro.
3) Then putative leader, Peter Boyle can't seem to make up his mind if he's a true believer in revolutionary Marxism or not. There is a definite line between democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism.
Boyle seems to think he can straddle that barbed wire fence in no-mans-land indefinitely.
That must be hell on his privates and anyone opposed to Mulesing wouldn't want to see that.
The honorable thing to do is clearly put him ( and them) out of their misery. Politics is not all a blood sport and sadistic cruelty and spectacle. Surely not.
Now does the fascist Chinese Communist party remind you of the fascist Catholic church?
Yes - the far enemy is the one to strike at and bring down. All politics may still be local, especially office politics...but all politics by other means is long-distance these days. Reach out and touch someone. | | 10:13a |
Interview with Freddie Krueger
Sorry - Dennis the menace
Editor’s Note: Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush. Not surprisingly, the major U.S. news media, which has never taken Bush’s abuses of power too seriously, largely ignored Kucinich’s act.
Given that vacuum – and the seriousness of Bush’s offenses – we are publishing excerpts from an interview between Kucinich and “Flashpoints” host Dennis Bernstein:
Bernstein: Let’s cut to the quick and tell us what you see as being at the core of your call to impeach the President and the Vice President.
Kucinich: An attempt to destroy constitutional governance by violating numerous constitutional provisions, U.S. code and international law, taking us into a war based on lies, making a false case for the war, saying falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that it had the intention of attacking the United States, that there was a readiness to imminently attack, pursuing policies of torture, illegal detention, wiretapping, spying, rendition. I mean, there’s…you know these articles…
Bernstein: When you say rendition, you are talking about kidnapping…
Kucinich: Right. Kidnapping someone against their will, moving them to another country, where they’re tortured. … If you read the articles, you will see that a pattern has been laid out that gives plenty of information to the Judiciary Committee and gives rise to not just hearings, but I think we have provided enough evidence to lay the basis for the impeachment. …
I think that this resolution is seen as an opportunity for a re-establishment of the imbalance of power which has happened over the last six years in this country since 9-11, where the President, through deception, has seized enormous amounts of power and has diminished the role of the legislative branch through deception. This gives Congress an opportunity to re-establish itself as a co-equal branch of government, providing an effective check and balance to executive abuse of power. This is what the founders anticipated in putting in the Constitution, in seven different places, the impeachment power and in making the House the sole guardian of that power. And so this is really an attempt to re-establish democratic governance, have the principle of accountability and the rule of law made central again to our public affairs and to take America, return America to a condition of true democracy.
Bernstein: What’s the talk of the town in there? … Are there reverberations you’re hearing about that we might not hear about?
Kucinich: Of course, people are saying, this is a distraction. Yeah, we were distracted in 2002 by a President who said, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It’s going to attack us.” That was a distraction. He took us into a war that killed over 4,000 of our brave young men and women who served this country, as well as caused the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqis. So, there’s really a question here as to whether or not sound moral principles are going to be governing our conduct of office. If we have information and sufficient reason to believe that this President has committed crimes, we have an obligation, whether there’s an election around the corner or not, to enter, you know, to move forward. Not only for the sake of history, but also for the sake of informing the next administration that such abuses of power will not be tolerated, and that we have a government of laws, not men.
Bernstein: And what do you say is the responsibility of those of your colleagues who know and turn a blind eye. Is there a special responsibility?
Kucinich: Well, we need to open their eyes, and open their hearts to what’s happened to our country over the last seven years. We’ve lost our country to deception, to fear. We need to regain our country. We need to regain America’s moral standing, not only before the eyes of our own people, but before the eyes of the world. We need a program which will lead us to truth and reconciliation. Impeachment was put in the Constitution for the sake of protecting the democracy. And so, you know. what I believe is that this, this is a time where we need to, if we’re going to make a new beginning in January, let it be a new beginning that showed that we were dedicated to the law. Let it be a new beginning that showed that no executive in the future will ever be tolerated telling lies that take us into a war that resulted in such destruction and an imperial world.
Bernstein: These are obviously articles of impeachment that add up in your position to high crimes and misdemeanors. What about war crimes?
Kucinich: Article VIII of the articles of impeachment establishes a very clear context for war crimes prosecution. The Geneva Conventions have, provide protections for civilian populations. Those protections have been suspended. The administration, on issues of torture and other things, has said that they don’t believe that they apply. They have essentially set aside the Geneva Conventions. There are various protocols that I cite in the, in Article VIII that relate to the responsibility, command responsibility of the President as a civil authority, as well as the Commander in Chief, for taking, for ordering the American armed forces to attack Iraq without just cause. If you read the Nuremburg principles, they seem to fit neatly with the condition that we’ve found ourselves. What I say is that under the Constitution, under Article 1, section 8, Congress has authority to cause the laws of nations in this country to be enforced. Article 1, section 8 also is the article that deals with the power of war. And so, what I’m saying is that the Congress of the United States should take action to bring this president into account. Because if we don’t, it’s very clear if you read article VIII that he’s put himself within the reach and scope of an international prosecution. We need to, we need to clean our own house here and do it in a way that shows the world that we are a citadel of democracy and that we prize respect for the law and that we put the highest accountability and responsibility onto the person who holds the highest office.
Bernstein: Back to your issue in terms of being accused of distraction. Now what they would also say is that we have a liberal who would say he’s going to end the war, Barack Obama. All energy needs to go to Barack Obama. What’s your response?
Kucinich: This has nothing to do with Barack Obama. I mean, you know, or the Democratic party, or the party’s hopes for an election. You know, you can not set that into, on the scale here. Because this is the scale of justice. The scale of justice cannot have partisan interest involved. It contaminates. And so what we have to do is proceed based on the law and the evidence, and, you know, we’re told that if we know the Truth, the Truth sets us free. What would it profit us to have a new president who felt that he was licensed to do the same thing that President Bush is doing? That’s why we can move now to establish a threshold of conduct for, a new threshold of conduct for a President, a President of the United States. And if we don’t do it now, then we cannot expect that the next president will be in a position of expecting to be held accountable for something that this president was not held accountable for.
Bernstein: Have you attempted to speak with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?
Kucinich: You know, I have a great deal of respect for the Speaker. I consider her a friend. I voted for her for Speaker. And I did it proudly. This is a matter which, as a member of Congress, I brought to the floor of the House, under the privileges of the House, to impeach the President. I would ask the Speaker as I would as every other member of Congress to look at the evidence and to make a decision based on the evidence, not on any preconceived notion as to whether it’s appropriate with respect to an election. Because if we fail to stand for the Constitution because we’re concerned about whether it’s the politically correct thing to do, then we have failed in our obligation and in our oath of office. …
Bernstein: What is your next job in this context and what do you think people who want to support you or learn more or be a part of this, what role do you think they can play or should play?
Kucinich: Simply contact your member of Congress and ask for the Judiciary Committee to have hearings. You know, I’m not trying to put my thumb on the scale of justice here. I put forward something that said that we ought to have hearings on this. And if they don’t have hearings, then we’ve got a problem. Have hearings. Make a decision. That’s what I’m trying to achieve.
Bernstein: They’ve got thirty days. They don’t do anything, what do you do?
Kucinich: I come back with another resolution, and vote for it again.
CONSORTIUM NEWS | | 10:36a |
Stalinism in (most of) one island The only revolutionary Marxist I've yet spotted at GLW is Nemo '...Rolando Jimenez Posada was sentenced to 12 years in jail for writing anti-Castro slogans!!! Walter Lippmann, how can open and real debate be possible under such repression? Read about Roland Jimenez Posada at an Amnesty site: http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022004?open&of=ENG-CUB Interesting to hear pro-Castro groups holding that established travel and trade between Cuba and USA to be a precondition for free political rights in Cuba when this means Cuba will be flooded with pro-US propaganda and massive propaganda of the so-called 'American wayn of life'? They are hard-core nationalists and blending naive as well. Is it possible for the working class population in Cuba to reach out to the people of US as long as these are fooled to believe 'socialism' is party-dictatorship? The defefenders of the state of Cuba seem to hold that the working class population in Cuba should face harsh restrictions (in Cuba are non-state unions forbidden and so are strikes) because the revolution is not spread. Sounds like hard-core stalinism to me. 'Socialism' in one country, is the ideology of state-capitalist counter-revolution masked as 'socialism' to control and split the class. No wonder why the regime in Cuba sentences people to years in jail for insulting its leadership and others for organizing alternative political organizations. You ask about me, etc. I am a former leninist-trotskyist who have come to the conclusion that even the best and most internationalist workers party will fail completely if it try to rule as a substitute to free elections in workers and popular soviets (councils). To read more, check out the link in my profile. Nemo Etomer...' Many on this pathetic list seem enraptured that Cuba is slowly, grindingly and excrutiatingly turning from a museum of the 1950's into a museum of the 1960's. Hasta la Victoria Woodstock siempre. | | 10:43a |
The Curveball beatup A reporter for the Los Angeles Times landed a rare interview with the Iraqi known as "Curveball," the now-discredited source on whom the Bush Administration rested much of its case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Living in Germany and speaking out for the first time, "Curveball" says everyone has been lying about him: "I never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, never in my whole life," he said. "I challenge anyone in the world to get a piece of paper from me, anything with my signature, that proves I said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How did the Bush administration get it so wrong? "I'm not the source of these problems," he said. FROM http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/curveball_speaks.phpEven if he's lying about this now, the way the corrupt corporate media are slanting the narrative, he still plays a major role as a red herring. Anything to stop the 21 words following the 16 words being redacted and the Bush/Cheney cabal impeached. Curveball and the Saddam-Osama link are both second order issues next to the big lie that the big media recoil from. They know they are neck deep in it with creeps like Gordon and Miller. They know they will hang with the Cheney cabal or hang seperately - this is one coalition of the willing that still works...but not for very much longer. | | 10:54a |
Once more into the breach! '...So, as promised, Glenn Greenwald put up a post today about the new broad-based coalition forming a campaign to stop Steny Hoyer and his pack of mangy Blue Dogs from selling the Constitution down the river by granting retroactive immunity for the telecoms on potential (and nearly certain) FISA violations. What happens? In the first hour alone, Greenwald's post has raised over $20,000...' http://firedoglake.com/Forsooth! Where's brave Sir Barry the Bold with his big-gun? | | 10:58a |
Sir Barry and the press club
The stinking CIA infiltrated Corpse press want to diss you by pimping Larry fucking Sinclair Barry.
Whachyougonnado Mr Chicago rules?
Here's the smart play - cut the fucking fuckers dead. Go over their heads. Just give access to bloggers acting in good faith and we'll do the rest. The Military - Entertainment complex jackels will have to come crawling to us for crumbs. This is a squeeze play Bazza that will be needed sooner of later. The sooner the better as far as yr leadership cred goes. No way on earth can you clean up the Vichy either without us. They bring a club - we bring long knives. | | 1:18p |
New RAT Institute trial
The Institute is presently running placebo controlled, double-blind mice field trials on the optimum size of any political groupsucle before terminal office politics ratfights set in. We have decided to promote some Marxists from the status of dusty door-mats of the working class to guinea-pigs in this experiment because we are humanitarians who don't like to see door-mats going to waste. By statistical analysis of the size of any particular Marxist death-cult we may average out a mean that could then be used by municipalists and platformists should they ever decide to get organized. Its a dirty job but someone has to do it. Bit like defending the black economy from union bureaucrats/cops. Please remember the Institute in yr will. It could be the last thing you do. | | 1:28p |
Jimmy Guckert needs killing
Jeff Gannon blogs at the National Press Club’s website.
Think Progress, DC - 7 hours ago
By Amanda at 3:51 pm Poblano at DailyKos notes that disgraced “reporter” Jeff Gannon is blogging at the National Press Club. What kind of red hot military male brothel are these creeps running down there! | | 1:46p |
Another shooting
As another polar bear swam to Iceland today , Mark Steyn was taken out and shot. Police said they had "no other choice" but to kill the Canuck moron after it charged a group of reporters "in a panic".
Police add that they now have no choice but to cull all known global warming holocaust deniers. | | 2:28p |
Anti-Semitic e-mail '...As to anti-Semitic e-mail — don’t get me started. The volume and depravity of it is beyond belief...' sez Yuval Levin. Maybe he could ask some of the Xtians hanging out there with him in the idiots Corner. The Church has long been intolerant of any deviation from the party line and millions have paid for dissent with their lives. That intolerance and ‘certainty’ is inculcated from childhood and the child is encouraged to utter obedience. The demand for unquestioning obedience leaves the young adult adrift without useful independence of mind. There is little ability to ‘think for oneself’, leaving a yearning for authority and a fear of freedom or responsibility. It becomes a small step to find willing hands to follow any pogrom or crusade. Jews are the historic scapegoats of the Catholic Church. Catholicism is a Jewish schism. As is widespread with schisms, bitterness is common. WW1 and WW2 were much about rivalries between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, another long-term religious schism. Both forms of christianism make scapegoats of Jews. FROM http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.htm#catholic-fascist | | 2:40p |
Andy McCarthy needs killing
'...Very simple: aliens outside the United States — and particularly, alien enemy combatants whose only connection to the United States is to levy war on her — are not members of our body politic...'
Andy McCarthy @ Necros Corner
Very simply this is fascism with the untermenschen seppos vs the rest of us untermenschen. And it gets worse. Habeus is also dead for US citizens under this ex-cop Andy's idea of totalitarian dictatorship/empire. Then there's his approval of STASI style spying...he hasn't come out for Malkinized concentration camps yet...not yet.
What a flaming fascist arsehole. We need to form a pool online to be paid out to the person or persons unknown that comes closest to predicting the exact time of his permanent retirement from politics. ( my $2) | | 3:02p |
Opus day
Kmiec Calls In... [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Regarding Ramesh Ponnuru’s comment about Barack Obama’s recent discussions with me and other religious leaders, his question about FOCA is a good one. Senator Obama did not address the topic in the meeting. As for me, I would oppose FOCA employing the same rationale I explained in House testimony when it was first introduced in the 1980s.
Mr. Ponnuru’s accompanying personal libel, however, is much to be regretted. He is apparently unable to contemplate someone as open and fair-minded as Senator Obama – that is, a presumptive presidential nominee having the courage to engage the ideas of his opposition, and in so doing, to bring the clashing sides of the sensitive abortion topic together for civil and constructive conversation. Whether or not Mr. Ponnuru views my essay in the Chicago Tribune summarizing this meeting as "spin" or not subtracts nothing from the considerable praise due Senator Obama for making the effort to open this dialogue. With the help of the Holy Spirit, the moment has the potential for giving respect to unborn life in ways that transcend overturning Roe on paltry federalism grounds, and of course, the Senator’s effort is light years more important than acrimonious blog entries.
As for the tag line referencing my denial of the sacrament, it was added by the Chicago Tribune editors who apparently felt it good journalistic practice to give the reader this factual background. I have kept the priest’s name and religious order confidential out of charity, but I am certain Cardinal Mahony would confirm – without breaking this charitable confidence – what he called the "shameful," partisan denial of communion based on improper pulpit criticism of my endorsement of Senator Obama.
I have no desire to have this "un-priestly" action contrary to Catholic teaching emblazed upon any "business card," as Mr. Ponnuru sneers. It is more than enough that the humiliating and hurtful experience is etched in my memory in a manner that is – unfortunately — inescapable whenever I now approach our Lord in the Eucharist.
As a natural law conservative anxious to preserve that which really matters, I had always associated the National Review with a higher and more responsible voice than the assertions Mr. Ponnuru tosses off so casually toward my name with actual malice, that is, in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.
It may be in the corporate thinking of the National Review to make sure Catholics don’t wander off the McCain reservation in the hope, however vain, that it represents more Reagan than Bush. But political rationalization or disagreement aside, it cannot be the role of a member of the writing staff of the electronic sibling of a provocatively important magazine to simply demean those who disagree with him. Is there no editor still ambling about Bill Buckley’s enterprise who possesses the decency of mind and a classically-formed character not to trivialize something which ought always be held sacred?
06/17 01:23 PM
Kmiec's Complaint [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I didn’t call Kmiec a liar; I asked whether we had any independent corroboration of Kmiec’s story about being denied communion for endorsing Obama. I didn’t even say that we had no independent corroboration. I just raised the question. (Incidentally, in my initial comment on Kmiec's story I took his side against the priest.) It is true that the implication is that Kmiec might not be telling the truth, or might have misunderstood the situation. If he feels that he is entitled to a presumption of complete accuracy and truthfulness from strangers, then, well, I’m afraid I have to disappoint him.
I can’t see how my post “libeled” him—this from a law-school dean—demeaned him, tried to keep Catholics on the McCain reservation, lacked decency, or trivialized the sacred. It seems to me that his various accusations against me are closer to libel than anything I said.
06/17 01:32 PM
Maybe Pope Rat should adjudicate this? In the name of all thats holy. | | 3:17p |
Tramp the dirt down
Bad as Russian revisionism
'...Enough already with the encomiums to Tim Russert, whose untimely death has sparked a veritable chorus of eulogies depicting him as the epitome of objectivity and the greatest of journalists. This is all coming, quite naturally, from his fellow journalists and intellectual gatekeepers, who share his prejudices, his politics, and – alas! – his shortcomings. It's time for a little Russert revisionism.
As Bill Moyers pointed out in Buying the War, his trenchant PBS documentary on how the War Party successfully sold us on the invasion of Iraq, Russert's show was a favored venue for the administration to publicize stories they had planted in the media. Administration officials would get booked on Meet the Press and point to their phony reports as "proof" of Saddam's WMDs.
Remember back when Vice President Dick Cheney was going around making speeches in which he asserted that "we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," that this was not in doubt, and he knew it for a fact? Few were skeptical, and the New York Times came out with yet another Judy Miller "scoop" that seemed to confirm Cheney's claim.
Citing anonymous U.S. government officials, the Times averred that the Iraqis were engaged in a global effort to gather the means to make nuclear weapons according to a design that specifically included aluminum tubes. "And there," says Moyers, "on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney" citing Scooter Libby's best buddy. Clearly trying to create the impression that Saddam Hussein already had nuclear weapons, or that he was well on his way to acquiring them, the vice president ticked off three elements essential to the construction of a nuclear device: technical expertise, a viable design, and fissile material. According to Cheney, the Iraqis had all three – and Russert just sat there, not challenging Cheney but actually cueing him:
Cheney: "The third thing you need is fissile material, weapons-grade material. Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs."
Russert: "Aluminum tubes."
Cheney: "Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning – this is – I don't – and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."
There were plenty of scientists in our very own Department of Energy who were warning the administration that this aluminum tube scenario was based on highly dubious "evidence," but Russert, the alleged reporter, was too busy kissing Cheney's butt to go out and find them. There were plenty of national security bureaucrats of one sort or another who strongly doubted the narrative Russert was allowing Cheney to present, unchallenged, on the most-watched political television show on the airwaves, but Russert didn't know about them, and doubtless didn't want to know about them at the time. In retrospect, however, Russert realized, at least to some extent, how badly he'd been used::
Moyers: "Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the New York Times. And then the vice president comes on your show and points to the New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak."
Russert: "I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the New York Times. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."
As Moyers pointed out in his scathing documentary, some journalists – not a lot, but a few of the really good ones – "didn't wait for the phone to ring."
Russert wanted to believe, as did the reporters and pundits who constitute the "mainstream" media, not only because this was the bipartisan consensus at the time, but also because of the incestuous relationship that often exists between journalists and the individuals whose doings they cover. The former are dependent on the latter for their bread and butter: if they don't toe the line and deliver the right cues at the right moment, then they might not get that "scoop," and – worse – they could soon find themselves frozen out of the information pipeline that runs through Washington like an underground sewer.
Okay, so Russert was an enabler of the neocons, who allowed his vastly influential program to function as the War Party's sounding board, but then again, so many were duped that it seems vindictive to emphasize this point so soon after his tragic death. Right?
Wrong. It wasn't just his sycophancy in the presence of power that motivates my little exercise in Russert revisionism – it's what was clearly his vehement hostility to anyone who challenged the status quo in any way and sought to provide an antidote to the Dick Cheneys of this world. Example number one: his disgraceful interview with GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who made opposition to the war and our foreign policy of "preemptive" imperialism the linchpin of his remarkable campaign.
In what has got to be one of the worst examples of high-handed hectoring and attempted intellectual intimidation I've seen in my lifetime, Russert tore into Paul the way he should have lit into Cheney, impugning his integrity, spending half the interview on the arcane subject of the Civil War – which Paul had never made a speech about, and obviously wasn't even a minor issue in the campaign.
When Paul raised the issue of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as fueling al-Qaeda's jihad and support for bin Laden, Russert fell back on that old neocon canard: "So you see a moral equivalency between the West and Islamic fascism."
When Paul pointed out that Bush was intent on invading Iraq just as soon as he got into office, and his war moves had little to do with 9/11, Russert's response was open hostility:
"You mentioned September 11th; a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero said this. 'When September 11th happened, he just completely changed,' talking about you. 'One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was, "Now we're going to get big government."' Was that your reaction?"
How pathetic: Russert couldn't be bothered to get on the phone and talk to even one of many CIA employees who were trying to counter the administration's line of BS about Saddam's alleged WMD, but he went and dug up the demented Dondero, a fool who has made a career out of gunning for the Good Doctor ever since he was fired from Paul's staff. Now that's American journalism at its best.
Oh yes, Russert did his research, all right, but he only utilized it to the War Party's advantage. He sucked up to power and was little more than a stenographer for high government officials whose confidence he coveted. He was, in short, a great journalist, at least by today's standards, and that's why the media blowhards are turning his death into a celebration of… themselves. Because they're virtually all the same – shameless, sycophantic suck-ups who will do anything to advance their careers ...' ANTIWAR
Justin Raimondo of many colors may be Blueshirt Buchannan's butt-boy, but he did track a rising anti-war trend in 2002. At least up till the WHIGS released their toxic product through Judith Miller in Sept 2002.
Sometime between the Pentagon Papers and the 1980's Clare Sterling incident the NYTimes went way over to the dark side. Theres a story there. From whistleblower to collaborator. A nasty story. | | 3:27p |
First they kill all the lawyers
Hating the Constitution
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Suppose the Chinese people were able to overthrow their communist regime and install a democratic republic. Suppose the new Chinese officials asked Americans to help them implement a new criminal-justice system for China.
Some Americans would recommend that China adopt such criminal-justice principles as right to counsel, right to confront witnesses, right to due process of law, right to bail, right to speedy trial, right to habeas corpus, and trial by jury. The reason they would do so is because they believe that these principles are correct, just, and moral — and that they are among the best defenses to tyranny, communist or otherwise.
Other Americans, however, would recommend that China reject the criminal-justice principles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They would recommend such things as tortured confessions, hearsay, secret evidence, secret trials, denial of effective assistance of counsel, and tribunals. In other words, some Americans would recommend the same type of criminal-justice system that the Chinese communists employed.
How do we know this?
Because we know what Pentagon officials did when they thought they were freed of any constitutional restraints and any federal-court interference with their operations at Guantanamo Bay. When free to construct what they considered would be a model judicial system, they rejected the principles found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and adopted criminal-justice principles that have been employed in such countries as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and Cuba.
Conservatives often jump to the conclusion that all the detainees the Pentagon has jailed at Guantanamo are guilty of terrorism. Let’s leave aside the fact that the Pentagon has voluntarily released many detainees over the course of 6 years, which would imply that mistakes have been made. Let’s focus on the prisoners who are still being held.
In setting up what it considers to be a model judicial system for prosecuting the detainees, the Pentagon makes an implicit assumption: that they might not, in fact, be guilty of terrorism. Assuming that the proceedings at Guantanamo are not simply show trials designed to cover up illegitimate executions, they are presumably intended to accomplish what federal-court prosecutions are intended to accomplish: to make a factual determination as to whether the accused actually did commit a criminal act of terrorism.
One searches in vain in the Guantanamo process for such rights as trial by jury, right to effective assistance of counsel, speedy trial, right to confront witnesses, right to compulsory process for witnesses, right to a public trial, right to habeas corpus, and right to due process of law.
Why is this? Why would the Pentagon, when it was free to establish a model judicial system for prosecuting terrorists, reject the criminal-justice principles set forth in our very own Constitution and Bill of Rights?
The answer is unavoidable: The Pentagon holds the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in disdain and exalts instead the criminal-justice principles found in such countries as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and Cuba, where officials embraced such things as tortured confessions and evidence, denial of speedy trial, indefinite incarcerations, secret evidence and secret trials, tribunals, and denial of trial by jury, the right to cross-examine witnesses, effective assistance of counsel, and due process of law.
Let’s not forget, after all, the very reason that the Pentagon set up its prison camp in Cuba — so that it would be free of all constraints in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and free of interference from the federal judiciary that the Constitution established. Why would Pentagon officials do that if they genuinely admired the principles found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? If they believed in such principles, wouldn’t they wish to see them applied universally?
Thanks to our American ancestors, the United States brought into existence the greatest criminal-justice system in history. It is far from perfect, but it has been the greatest protector of the innocent ever established. By rejecting the criminal-justice principles set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Pentagon reflects its deeply seated disdain for our heritage of law and liberty.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
' When all the world is military then not-killing when orders command will be a crime' - Albert Camus | | 3:33p |
Indonesians should take Xmas island
Australian defence support for United States military operations in the Middle East will be boosted by construction of a new top-secret US military communications base in Western Australia.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon revealed yesterday that work would begin in July or August this year on a satellite ground station for the United States Mobile Users Objective System, a new satellite communications system being deployed by the US Navy.
The new US defence facility will be located with the existing Australian satellite signals intelligence facility at Geraldton, Western Australia. The base will be linked to a network of communications satellites that will provide front-line US military units with instant access to high-grade intelligence and tactical information.
Once operational, the new facility will automatically provide communications support for US military operations in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
Indeed, it will also automatically provide communications support for US military operations in much of the Asia-Pacific region.
The Defence Department announced late last year that it had finalised an agreement with the US Navy for the new satellite communications centre.
Mr Fitzgibbon's confirmation that construction will proceed comes shortly after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's withdrawal of the bulk of Australian combat troops from Iraq.
The new Geraldton facility will be the first major US defence base to be established in Australia since the construction in the 1960s of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory and the now closed early-warning satellite ground station at Nurrungar in South Australia.
In answering a question on notice by Labor backbencher Daryl Melham, Mr Fitzgibbon also revealed the US Navy had contracted Boeing Australia to provide construction services for the new Geraldton base. Boeing Australia already provides operational support for the existing facility at Geraldton, another Australian signals intelligence facility at Shoal Bay near Darwin, the Australian Navy's communication station at North West Cape near Exmouth, and the Defence Communications Network facility at Deakin, ACT.
About 70 Australian contractors are working on the design of the new Geraldton building and up to 20 United States staff and 100 Australian contractors will be involved in the construction phase.
The ground station will comprise three buildings housing sophisticated electronic infrastructure, three 18m satellite dishes and two smaller antennas.
Once complete, the base will be fully automated and will require only call-out maintenance support. All costs will be carried by the US.
Informal discussions on the possible location of the facility in Australia began in 2003.
The Defence Department and the US Navy signed a classified memorandum of understanding setting out the governing arrangements for the station in November last year.
The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Mr Fitzgibbon has said the ground station will be operational by 2011. END
Poor Joel...he hasn't been the same since being bitten by that execrable Empusa, Sophie Miserablis. | | 5:44p |
The rape-dogs of war
TORTURE UPDATE....Here's the latest on the torture front from an ongoing Senate investigation:
Memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.
....The new evidence challenges previous statements by William J. "Jim" Haynes II, who served as Defense Department general counsel under Rumsfeld and is among the witnesses scheduled to testify at today's hearing. Haynes, who resigned in February, suggested to a Senate panel in 2006 that the request for tougher interrogation methods originated in October 2002, when Guantanamo Bay commanders began asking for help in ratcheting up the pressure on suspected terrorists who had stopped cooperating.
So it turns out that all this was the fault of a few bad apples after all. Unfortunately, they were the ones running the country.
—Kevin Drum 1:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
Looks like Rumsfeld had to be in-the-loop on WHIGS product if he started on this in July 2002. He needs to be subpoenaed stat. What did he let the president know and when did the president know it? | | 6:19p |
Nancy boys
'...Nancy Pelosi has admitted she was briefed on our torture techniques back in 2001 and she never said a word, until she had no choice because the media found out she'd known for years...
Knowing intimate details about our torture activities for fucking YEARS and not saying a goddamned word until it's public knowledge that you've known for years and didn't say anything is not to me the actions of someone that disapproves of torture... Especially not when you've got the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution protecting you, if you so desired to speak out in protest.
She knew and she never said a fucking word... and that's because she didn't CARE what was being done in our name. I'd even go so far as to bet she approved of what was being done.
"It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891
by MichiganGirl (@ Tammany Hall) | | 6:54p |
Lawyers in love Kathryn Jean Lopez] Apparently John McCain reads Andy McCarthy. 06/17 11:43 AM It isn't so much a desire for impeachment as recognizing the necessity. Let's try an make a list of things that make it necessary; (a) The constitution requires it. (b) It prevents further mischief particularly pardons. (c) It is a political and national repudiation of Bush. If you wait until after it is merely a legal one. It is not the same. To regain standing shed shame and guilt, and take a step towards international redemption requires a political act not merely a legal one. Or, rather it requires both. (d) It will make much of the repair work that needs to be done far easier. It will be seen as political repair not a politicisation, as neutral rather than partisan. There a whole lot more but each of those show it to be a necessity. Best Wishes, Demena by Demena You can't be held criminally liable for actions (1+ / 0-) Recommended by: DerAmi made as part of your duties as President. They hold a form of sovereign immunity until and unless impeached. So impanel as large a grand jury as you would like after the election (and I will point out that several members of the anti-impeachment camp have already poo pood that as not needed). But it will go nowhere as the lack of impeachment also provides an affirmative defense... If it was illegal, then congress who is duty bound to do so should have impeached. Since no impeachment was mounted then it must be seen as the congress did not find that his actions rose to the level of "high crimes or misdemeanors". Politics will not be factored into it. I am pretty clear on the process of and penalties from impeachment. And when most people talk of "prison" they are talking about a penalty from the subsequent criminal court rulings... they just bunch it all together to save their fingers from typing more. As to your point about a lack of votes to convict? This is not '04 and the GOP is in broad electoral trouble across the nation. There are approximately 12 GOP Senators up for reelection this year that are either in blue states or states that are leaning heavily toward the blue end of purple. As well as a few that are retiring rather then face reelection or out of disgust that have literally nothing to lose by voting for conviction... So the votes ARE available if we choose to pursue this course of action, all we have to do is work to get them. And the key to that? The charge detailing the holding of children. If it can be shown that any child was mistreated either through torture or rape.... You would have to convince me as well as everyone else that in that instance that the GOP would lock shields and prevent the conviction of a man that made it possible or flat out ordered that. And that argument would not clear the credulity hurdle. The values voters that they rely upon for election would organize lynching parties if they did. And I am not being more then the most mildly hyperbolic here. If there is evidence that a child was tortured or raped as a result of the orders given (and that would be a dead bang on that one since Bush would have had to order the detention of children in contravention of treaty), by this administration the GOP has no choice but TO convict if they wish to keep their party as something more viable then the constitution party. If they did not convict? Every history book written in the future would excoriate them for protecting a child molester from being brought to justice. They will be mentioned at the end of the same breath as Stalin et al. Now here is the down side if such evidence does exist, and we know that it does since a panel of congress people listened to a tape of just such a thing... And the Democratic congress does NOT attempt impeachment? They become the people that shielded, and not the GOP in the history books. And you just know that after the war is over people are going to start talking and things are going to start leaking.... and the party that is going to get a substantial amount of that corrosive poison on them is not going to be the one with the elephant! And everyone being honest with themselves for an instant knows that to be true. So you can either attempt impeachment and in the process given one of the charges look like a hero in the eyes of the bulk of parents in this nation... or you can sit back, do nothing and wait for the truth to come out after the war and watch those same parents tune out everything you say about defending children from poverty, uninsured illness... seeking social justice for them et al. Because when push came to shove and the going was tough? You did not seek justice for an 11-14 year old child that was raped or tortured. the bad part of claiming to be the "good" guy, the defender of the weak and the seeker of justice for all? Is sometimes you actually have to DO it or be seen as a fraud. The reason that the dems will fair worse in a scenario in which no impeachment is sought is the depth of the betrayal people will feel. I can understand the concerns put forth by the best of the anti-impeachment people vis a vis what if we can't convict.. But they are assuming much for their scenario to be true that is no longer completely operative, and they are not fully weighing the consequences politically for inaction in the face of such crimes. They are also advocating maintaining a course of engagement that is in no small part responsible for us being here in the first place: Not fighting the GOP when they are in the wrong. by skippythebox Pelosi, like Harman and Rockefeller could have revealed the information in debate in Congress and they would have been protected constitutionally. They probably would have lost their access to classified briefings, however. She knew (0+ / 0-) According to the Washington Post, she knew in 2002. Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge. With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." Wasn't she also one of the ones that saw the rape (1+ / 0-) Recommended by: mattman tape from AG? Evidence of children being raped and an impeachment count on the mass detention of children in our custody out there.... And she still keeps impeachment off the table. What a heart warming commitment to children our leadership is showing right now... /sarcasm by skippythebox I'll quote one particularly chilling part of Carl Levin's statement from Tuesday's hearing. It relates to one of several delegations of administration figures who were sent to Gitmo to encourage the military to adopt the torture techniques that were borrowed from the SERE program. On September 25, 2002, just days after GTMO staff returned from that training, a delegation of senior Administration lawyers, including Jim Haynes, General Counsel to the Department of Defense, John Rizzo, acting CIA General Counsel, David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, and Michael Chertoff head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice, visited GTMO. An after action report (TAB 6) produced by a military lawyer after the visit noted that one purpose of the trip was to receive briefings on "intel techniques."
On October 2, 2002, a week after John Rizzo, the acting CIA General Counsel visited GTMO, a second senior CIA lawyer, Jonathan Fredman, who was chief counsel to the CIA’s CounterTerrorism Center, went to GTMO, attended a meeting of GTMO staff and discussed a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques. That memo had been drafted by a psychologist and psychiatrist from GTMO who, a couple of weeks earlier, had attended the training given at Fort Bragg by instructors from the JPRA SERE school. While the memo remains classified, minutes from the meeting where it was discussed are not. Those minutes (TAB 7) clearly show that the focus of the discussion was aggressive techniques for use against detainees. When the GTMO Chief of Staff suggested at the meeting that GTMO "can’t do sleep deprivation," LTC Beaver, GTMO’s senior lawyer, responded "Yes we can – with approval." LTC Beaver added that GTMO "may need to curb the harsher operations while [International Committee of the Red Cross] is around." Mr. Fredman, the senior CIA lawyer, suggested it’s "very effective to identify [detainee] phobias and use them" and described for the group the so-called "wet towel" technique, which we know as waterboarding. Mr. Fredman said "it can feel like you’re drowning. The lymphatic system will react as if you’re suffocating, but your body will not cease to function." And Mr. Fredman presented the following disturbing perspective of our legal obligations under anti-torture laws, saying "It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you’re doing it wrong." If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong. How on earth did we get to the point where a senior United States Government lawyer would say that whether or not an interrogation technique is torture is "subject to perception" and that "if the detainee dies you’re doing it wrong." What was GTMO’s senior JAG officer, LTC Beaver’s response? "We will need documentation to protect us." Nine days after that October 2, 2002, meeting, General Dunlavey, the Commander of Joint Task Force 170 at GTMO, sent a memo to U.S. Southern Command (TAB 8) requesting authority to use interrogation techniques... a lot of sexual torture one former prisoner reported threat of rape used against him, reports of sexual abuse and violence, slashing of genitals, etc. If the megamedia only reported these cases, then i think more of the public would understand that sexual violence used by government and military during interrogations is torture. Sexual violence is something Americans can understand without the need for expert parsing or spinning that accompanied the bushie meme that water boarding was not torture. Also should note for anyone who does not care about torture, a former military official said recently that torture is the number one contributor to terrorist recruitment. by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse These vermin will never suffer one minute of punishment. They will live out their lives in ease and comfort and be fondly eulogized when they die. The Democrats, with very few exceptions, do not want us to know how complicit they were, will quietly bury this, as will the media. This episode will be purposely forgotten by most Americans but the rest of the world will remember. by jck General Taguba is a great American. Donald Rumsfeld is a great American asshole. by jpk - ( MORE @) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/18/0114/76374/375/537620 | | 7:19p |
Romancing the stone
Never leaving my poor arse alone
Just over 1,000 people bared all at dawn to pose for a photo installation by US artist Spencer Tunick at Blarney Castle near Cork, south-west Ireland, in what proved a liberating experience for most participants.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, who had waited since 2 am, Tunick said he was pleased that more than the expected 800 participants had arrived.
Tunick said: "I'm very happy that politicians and city counsellors accept it (the installation) as art and not a crime."
The "very rebellious" element of Corkonians had not gone unnoticed either, he added, as some participants had greeted his assistants' instructions with a mixture of delight and ridicule.
Describing the experience as "brilliant," Helena Walsh from Galway, western Ireland, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur DPA: "It's great that this was held in a country where it wouldn't have been allowed 10 years ago."
Another participant, who declined to be named, said the experience was "very different" and as "demystifying nudity."
Public nudity is normally a crime in Ireland and it had earlier been unclear whether an exception would be made for Tunick's art installations, held as part of Cork's annual Midsummer festival.
On arrival at the castle, participants were greeted by three young men, dressed as priests and holding placards aloft in mock protest.
Blarney Castle is the site of the iconic Blarney Stone, or Stone of Eloquence, which tourists kiss in the belief it will give them the "gift of the gab."
Tunick told reporters: "Maybe we'll dip 75 people backward kissing the Blarney Stone."
The sometimes controversial Tunick plans a second installation and landscape sculpture in Dublin's Docklands area on June 21.
One of his earlier installations focused on 18,000 people, who had bared all last year, in Mexico City.
Mary McCarthy, executive arts manager of Dublin Docklands Development Authority, has praised Tunick for his ability "to create extraordinary images of the collective body in the environment." END
Extraordinary yar bejasus - Like Michael Stone installation art begorah; to-be-sure, to-be-sure. |
|