The Gun Debate, You Really Want To Persuade?

In the gun issue, as in almost any sensitive one, there are two essentially radicalized positions with most people not having anything to do with either.  On one side you've got the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and assorted loons and then on the other you've got Michael Bloomberg, Jesse Jackson, and the Bradys and taken all together about as much stupidity and over-heated rhetoric as I've seen since... well the last time anything touchy came up.

Now look here, if you think that the idea of putting armed guards in every school, church, or other gathering area makes any sense - you've gotten yourself seriously derailed.  If you think you're going to persuade anybody that isn't already all the way over in your corner of the loony bin you've missed your calling as a seller of bridges.  If you think you're going to gain any ground with somebody that knows just even a little bit about firearms by telling them that AR15s are going to shoot down airplanes and stop trains or that Mayor of a place where you can own a firearm if you're rich and/or well-connected but otherwise suck it, well you can have the other corner from Wayne.  That is straight up political calculus.

Most people in the US do not get their knickers in a twist about firearms, one way or the other.  They may look at an incident and think, "wow, that just cannot keep happening," but they don't want Bloomberg's version of reality or LaPierre's.  People who own guns don't want to be shouted at that they're evil any more than non-owners want to be shouted at and called weak-kneed pussies and the ones trying to make up their minds don't want to be called stupid.  That is straight up political calculus.

Wayne LaPierre and his loons and Michael Bloomberg and his loons are not persuadable.  I don't give a damn how many facts and statistics you provide to either group - they are not going to go along with anything other than their pet hobby horse.  You can forget them and for the sake of your sanity you should turn the sound off when either bunch starts up.  You are not going to get reality based anything from them and your thinking is not going to be improved and your decision making will only be impaired.

This is an actually serious issue.  This is not a "you didn't build that" kind of dust-up.  It isn't about semantics and it isn't about what something looks like - it is about fucking carnage and it is about something important enough to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights and stupidity is not a guarantee of anything other than just that - stupid results.  The only reason to have this discussion at all is to do something constructive in regard to a problem and that involves addressing goddam realities.  There are realities regarding who can get guns and how they can get them, there are realities involved in what a particular type of gun is and what it does and why it does that, and I could go on and on and on about just how many things bear on this issue and none of this stupidity has any bearing at all.  I'm sick of it and I'm sick of feeling as though any time I spend on this would be as well spent sitting in the corner sucking on my thumb.

You have a legislative process that is currently being driven by people who are ignorant of the function of a particular firearm proposing to deal with that particular firearm and people whose view of the Second Amendment makes it a suicide pact.  This has got to stop, it has got to be stopped in its tracks.  I agree that this needs to be addressed expeditiously or the populous will move on the the next hare-brained thing our pols get up to and it'll just hang fire and that isn't good enough, but - and this counts - rushing to do any old thing won't do the job, anyhow.

Ammunition capacity is a real thing, access to firearms purchase is a real thing, our war-like culture is a real deal, our mental health disaster is a real thing, the complete unreality around firearms offered up by media is an issue, the ignorance we inculcate in our children is an issue.  We have very real things to deal with and we can do some things short-term and mostly long-term to address these real things.  We do not need to be wasting time playing at people's fantasies.

(Yeah, I know - I'll just go piss into the wind and accomplish just as much)

Whither The Paulistas ?

You would think that the Ron Paul supporters would have known they would get mugged at the GOP Convention.  I don't know what they thought the reaction would be to how well they worked the rules in the Caucuses and Delegate Selections but it certainly seems wishful thinking that the GOP would ignore it.  Well, the GOP didn't ignore it and has gone to lengths to keep things on track (non-Paul track) and following the script of Romney.  The Paul crowd doesn't seem to quite understand the authoritarianism inherent in both the GOP and particularly Romney.

They're going to have a few days to watch the GOP Convention follow its script and maybe actually think about it.  I'll be damned if I'm going to spend a page debunking bullshit that they think Paul stands for, I'll just go ahead and pretty much accept that they believe the things they say.  They are going to get absolutely not spit out of the GOP Platform, the speakers, or R-money.  It gets worse than that, the R/R campaign's foreign policy outfit is stuffed full of neo-cons; remember Iraq?  There is a stated desire to go to war with Iran... and others.  Whatever version of Anti-abortion you pick from the mess that is the GOP/R-money it is in direct opposition to the Paulista's position. (I already said I'm not debunking...)  As for the Drug War, any comparison between their positions is ludicrously divergent.  You can go on and on, and find about the only thing close is the Platform in regard to the Fed - and you can bet your first born that R-money isn't on board with that.  (maybe the 2nd Amendment, also; too)

The Paulistas get truly pissed-off if you bring up the racism of Paul - denying and stomping their feet, but since the R/R campaign is blatantly whistling up the race card there is that congruence; unless, of course, they actually mean their denials.  This brings about the crux of "Whither The Paulistas ?" because almost everything they say they believe is in direct opposition to R/R beyond the amorphous assertions about smaller government and that fails their included phrase "less intrusive."

No, Obama is not directly in line with the Paulista's themes, in fact he is pretty awful in regard to a lot of their stuff.  The question they have to ask themselves is which of the two actual candidates, c'mon nobody else is a factor, is less bad.  Yep, I said it - less bad, you know the "lesser of two evils."  What are they going to do with that?  There are options:
Vote the least bad real candidate - Obama (he is black)
Vote the most offensive candidate - r-Money (he isn't black)
Vote the protest candidate - whatever...
Stay the hell home

Really, I'd bet on splintering badly, the "not black", the protest candidate, staying home.  You may note that the lesser evil gets no consideration in my guess-work.  I'll even tell you why two thing drive that consideration - I'm pretty sure the denials of racism are horseshit and less intrusive government counts for nothing against SMALL government - FYIGM ( F*** You I Got Mine).  Like almost every small government bullshit booster; the second their break gets the axe they go ballistic.

I'm sorry Paulistas, you're as full of shit as your candidate is and as ignorant of history and consequences as most rocks.  The second you come on this blog and swarm me with promises to vote Obama I'll take it back.  Don't bother me with the protest candidate vote - it is outcome meaningless other than possibly tilting a very few places Obama.  And before you get all over me about being an Obama-ite, I see him as a lesser evil and have stated that repeatedly and kicked the Democrats for their corporatist outcomes.

What Does It Mean To Have Rights?

***Feb 27,2007*** Someone from England Googled into this and it has been a regular archive hit since it was written. I don't think it will seem dated today.

I will start with a disclaimer, an entire library could be written on this subject and I'm not going to.

The US government recognizes some rights, the basic documents of our form of government set some out. These documents begin officially with the Declaration of Independence, there are preceding documents, but this one is officially American. The Declaration sets out two ideas that form this nation's soul, that certain rights precede all forms of government and that when a government no longer serves its people they have the right to change it, violently if needed.

The Revolutionaries fought a long, bitter war against a government they previously had every reason to believe was their own. This experience taught them that their belief in inherent rights could come into conflict with a government's interests and that a government might not represent its citizenry. They had no interest in repeating the experience and tried to pre-empt such a thing's recurrence. They argued long and hard about the Constitution, having failed with the Articles of Confederation to create stability, in order to make a system which was strong enough to withstand the competing interests of its citizenry and flexible enough to meet those interests. Some things like Habeas Corpus they considered basic enough in Law to survive mention in the basic document, the Constitution, others were not so well codified and yet considered of great import. These others composed the Bill of Rights, a formal recognition of rights that were not derived from government, or created by government, but actually superior to government. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were given codification or enumeration.

The things that they had declared in embarking on war with the most powerful nation in the world was now set out in definite wording. These men never intended that these rights superseded responsibility in action nor that a right allowed the destruction of our fellows, they assumed that simple humanity required an end point to the exercise of a right. They also were more inclined to err on the side of the individual's sense than the government's interests. It is important to remember that these individuals were primarily of English descent or of English Law culture and had watched and finally fought the disintegration of their relationship with their government over a clash of interests. They knew these issues first hand.

When you accept the idea of rights that are superior to and precede governance you have set a high ideal. You put your government out of business in areas where it has almost always interfered. These are areas that the citizenry has strong feelings and beliefs about, areas that governments have always used or suppressed in service to their interests. No one can deny that religion, as an example, is an issue that is of tremendous import to members of society and that its co-option by government is a powerful tool. It is extraordinarily dangerous to government to let it loose for free expression, government takes a large blow to its interests. Each of the rights that were enumerated is similarly debilitating to government and dangerous in the hands of individuals. The Framers were engaging in a risky course of action.

That brings us to us. We are engaged in a risky enterprise, the exercise of rights that all previous governments restricted in one way or another. The government cannot tell us to only praise it with our words, it also cannot tell us not to say mean hurtful things. It cannot tell us that to say one group is unfit to be within society is wrong and forbidden, it must allow us to go our own way. We can say that our elected officials are liars and cheats in the service of unelected elite interests. This creates a possible source of chaos that the government is forbidden to interfere with. The very few limitations the government is allowed to attempt to enforce are those that involve direct deliberate harm to other's rights. Virtually the only protection offered the government is in the transmittal of government secrets. Even in this arena the government treads on very thin ice, it has of late asserted privileges that it may find are specious. Just in the narrow limits of free speech and free press the situation is fraught with risk to order and civility and particularly to government.

It is easy in our modern world to become comfortable and believe we have safe and secure lives and it is a mistake. We live in a system that encourages and supports dissidence, and finally places the tools of rebellion firmly in the citizenry's hands. This systemic deprivation of power of governance is so deep and broad that its beneficiaries often are not aware of it. The tools of sedition range from speaking and gathering together, to having the arms to fight, and protections from governmental investigations. Every direction the government turns it is constrained. This is not the recipe for quiet sedate life if the people do not wish it and frequently despite their wishes it is not.

Because government, the enforcer of societal order, is so constrained it falls on the citizenry to exercise its rights in manners that do not create harm to their fellows. It falls to the citizenry to make informed and reasoned votes for those who represent them. It falls to the citizenry to be responsible for a government that allows and encourages cooperative society. The onus for failure of the system and violent reaction falls on those who have the very things that so constrain their government. There are those who would place restrictions on rights in the name of order and security, they would attempt to undo the system because its own members are failing it. This is misplaced responsibility, if a situation requires redressing it is not because rights are too broad, it is a failure of those responsible for the structuring of our relationships, which is finally the citizens.

We have the most glorious of opportunities, a government restrained and citizenry empowered and that is where we start. Almost a quarter millennia ago we put into operation the most daring and audacious experiment in history and we stand or fall on our own. We cannot blame the hamstrung and hobbled government, we are the power. Let us take ahold with both hands and move this forward, not fall back into the decay and decadence that is all previous governments.

Regarding Telecom Immunity

I've been thinking about the issue of telecom immunity and I'm less sold on the idea that it is a really big deal. There is this piece, the President of the United States told managers that what he wanted was legal and important (or that he would cover them). The important piece of this reasoning is that it was not their independent decision arrived at for their interests, it was solicited or instigated by a law enforcement arm of the US government.

The upshot of civil lawsuits would be losses to the telecoms and depending on the damages and punitive judgements the losses could be significant. Those losses are not suffered by some single individual or some in isolation, the damage spreads through the company, stockholders, employees and finally customers. One thing that must be understood about businesses is that they do not suffer alone, increased costs result in added charges or less service or combinations of this. A business has two choices, survive or not, and because there are few places to go for recovery of costs, those few places will pay.

What I do not like about this is the message it sends that responsibility is abrogated to government for legality of behavior by companies. Companies are expected to follow the law, they are expected to know the applicable laws concerning their business. There is almost no chance that a competent lawyer in telecommunications would have assumed that wiretaps without warrants were legal. Something in the ordinary expectation of behavior went south and the government was involved. This exception to behavior is dangerous. It is absolutely the business of the individual to resist abrogation of rights and power by government but whether it is or should be a legal responsibility may be quite questionable.

There is little impetus for these companies to engage in this behavior on their own. I am not particularly worried about them. I don't like what they've done and it is dangerous and I am ashamed of our country for this, but I also don't know that it merits their serious harm.

What I find really troubling are the actions taken by BushCo. The trampling of civil liberties by this crew in the name of security are horrific and must carry a cost. There is little chance that orange jumpsuits and manacles are in their future, but they must be made to pay in a coin that discourages such behavior in the future. In all probability the only payment available is political. If that is the case the behavior must be exposed and denigrated and made politically impossible. The conditions of the world will not become suddenly paradisaical in the future, it will continue to be a dangerous and confusing place. There will continue to be threats and uncertainties that encourage the loss of civil liberty for perceived security, this tendency must be resisted.

I suppose that I am somewhat disappointed that Obama changed his stance on telecom immunity, more by the fact of the change without clear rationals than the effect. What I do want to hear is a clear denunciation of the behaviors of BushCo and its exposure. I want this crap stopped in its tracks and rolled back. I want this dangerous.

Scalia Activist Judge

The dissent filed by Antonin Scalia in Boumediene v. Bush was scathing concerning the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees.

"At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield."

It is flatly untrue. Seton Hall University School of Law calls Scalia's contention an "urban legend," based on misinformation provided by DoD to the Senate Minority Report of a year ago.

On December 10, 2007 The Seton Hall Center for Policy and Research issued a Report,
THE MEANING OF "BATTLEFIELD": An Analysis of the Government’s Representations of
‘Battlefield Capture’ and ‘Recidivism’ of the Guantánamo Detainees, which demonstrated that
statements asserting 30 detainees had returned to the battlefield were incorrect. Further
developments since then, including recent hearings before Congress at which more information
was provided by the Department of Defense, confirm that the 30 recidivist claim is simply
wrong and has no place in a reasoned public debate about Guantánamo.

This report is Senate Report No. 110-90, pt. 7, p. 13 (June 26, 2007), Minority Views of Sens. Kyl,
Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn; easily the usual suspects when fear mongering is about. It wouldn't be quite so disgraceful if it had not been refuted by the same entity that made the claim initially:

First, a Department of Defense Press Release in July 2007 belied
both Mr. Dell’Orto’s testimony and the Minority Views relying on it. Second, and even more definitively, a Department of Defense document produced at a House Foreign Relations Subcommittee Hearing on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim of 30.

The actual number may be 12 although there exist acknowledged mistakes by DoD in identification. Of these released detainees not a single one was released by a federal judge or as a result of Habeas Corpus. These releases were the responsibility of and actions by DoD.

A recent suicide bombing by a former detainee, ISN220 has something to say to us, this detainee was captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan from Tora Bora, the military identified him as having trained with Al Qaida after going AWOL from Kuwait and being issued an AK47 and ammunition by them. He acknowledged participating in Taliban fighting and that he wished to harm Americans and was committed to jihadism. The military did not wish him released and yet he was. The relevant documents are redacted concerning why and what action was taken concerning ISN220 or Al Ajmi.

What ever Scalia was on about:

“[the Court’s decision] will almost certainly cause more
Americans to be killed.”

certainly has nothing to do with Federal Court review of Habeas Corpus and may have everything to do with essentially capricious decisions by Guantanamo Bay and politicians. If making a dissent based on untrue information regarding unrelated activities by unrelated entities is a basis for corrupting one of the oldest English law traditions enshrined in our Constitution in incontrovertible language isn't Judicial Activism I'm real unsure what that term is supposed to mean. It would appear to be, in this case, whatever a Republican fear-monger wants it to mean.

Let me be clear about something, I understand that sometimes concepts become clearly radically wrong with the passage of time, such as a provision that a slave is 3/5 of a human, but addressing that wrong in the spirit of increasing liberty and rights maintains the spirit of limited government power envisioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For the Supreme Court or a member to assert that any Constitutional provision should be abrogated to narrow personal liberty by the expansion of governmental power is plainly ludicrous.

As a document the Constitution as a whole spends little time verbiage on giving the government power, it primarily breaks that power up and severely limits it. There was a very clear understanding by the Framers that governments tend to attempt to accrue power at the expense of the citizenry and their liberty and that the tendency should be stopped at certain lines. Antonin Scalia has proven himself unworthy of the robes he wears with this dissent alone. He proposes on the basis of factually inaccurate statements to be in favor of an unlimited power of the Federal Government to hold incommunicado and rightless anyone that Government states it would. It would not matter if the statements were actually true, the establishment of tyranny should be met with determined resistance. Antonin Scalia should at the very least be denied the company of all thinking individuals and shunned by the public at large. Frankly a ride on a pole clothed in tar and feathers would be more appropriate than the dignity of robes.

The Gitmo Farce

Republicans are going crazy in response to the Supreme Court's ruling that military detainees have a right to challenge their confinement in federal court. You would think that life as we know it has ended, that the reinforcement of an ancient right of people to challenge their incarceration's validity is something new under the sun. You will die in your bed because a right a common rapist has is afforded to people swept up by the law enforcement professionals in the ranks of soldiers in foreign lands. You are to believe that because they are held that they constitute the worst of the worst. Maybe some are, but that isn't all inclusive.

McClatchy has conducted an unprecedented compilation of interviews of released detainees, foreign officials, and US officials regarding the value and risk posed by detainees. The results are stomach churning. People have been held for years and subjected to mistreatment for little more than tribal grudges or as low ranking Taliban grunts. It is a horror show of self-reinforcing attitudes and perceptions fostered by the Bush Administration and its lackeys in Congress. It is an offense against the concept of marginally civilized behavior enshrined in the Magna Carta, AD 1215. The fates of over 770 individuals became political footballs for the Republican fear machine, it is the oldest game in politics, these people are bad and a threat because it pleases us to say so and scare you into supporting us.

It is instructive to look at the case of Mohammed Akhtiar, per McClatchy whom I quote at length to make this clear:

The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

This man spent three years in brutal conditions at the hands of the United States with no ability to do anything about it. He was not a POW taken in conflict, he was BushCo's shadow criminal, one with no rights afforded to criminals or those accused of being criminal. He was bad, simply because BushCo said so. What reaction would you expect from people held in such a manner by our government? Uncritical love? Why should the world at large or even ourselves regard us as better than common thugs?

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

Lindsey Graham wants to amend the Constitution to protect us from this? We are protected by our government's adherence to laws and the limitations set upon it and its laws, not by kidnapping and abusing people.

One former administration official said the White House's initial policy and legal decisions "probably made instances of abuse more likely. ... My sense is that decisions taken at the top probably sent a signal that the old rules don't apply ... certainly some people read what was coming out of Washington: The gloves are off, this isn't a Geneva world anymore."

Try to wrap your head around this, no rules, just the word of a man, the President is now supposed to be the law. Even the Soviets in the Cold War made a pretense of acting under the color of law and yet George II isn't to be held to even that weak standard. The people who ratified the Constitution would have hung him from a tree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to be a brake on the impulse of government to accrue power to itself at the expense of the people.

I am an ardent opponent of capital punishment but the actions of BushCo lead me to question that stance. The behavior of an individual acting in defiance of our laws to perpetrate horrid crimes arouses many to to blood lust, but I cannot see how that is more despicable than the behavior of these people acting under cover of governmental force to deny basic human rights to people taken at gun point in a foreign land. The fact that the people of the US have tolerated this is a blot on our national character that will be a long time stain. The fact that our legislators aided and abetted this calls into question the oaths they swore. The fact that this was a 5-4 decision says quite a bit about activist judges. Those who are not shamed by this should be shunned by all conscious individuals - fact is they'll get re-elected. We're a damn mess. A bunch of knee quaking pussies. Pah. I spit on them and George II better never get within that range of me or he'll get wet.

GOP Constitutional Dishonor

Yesterday I threw rocks at John McCain over Habeas Corpus, evidently I didn't spread my net widely enough, there's plenty of discredit to go around the ranks of Republicans. Lindsey Graham and others had plenty to say on the issue. Lindsy first up:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that, “if necessary,” he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.

A former military prosecutor, Graham blasted the decision as “irresponsible and outrageous,” echoing the sentiments of many congressional Republicans and President Bush.
******
“The American people are going to wake up tomorrow and be shocked to hear that a member of Al Qaeda has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen,” said Graham.

“[Even] the Nazis never had that right.”

George II finds the situation a bit disturbing:

“We'll abide by the Court's decision,” said Bush. “That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”
Bush said he would study the opinion and “determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate” in order to protect the American people.

Sen. John Coryn says the Court is

"moving the goal posts on what the constitution requires" by changing the existing law regarding the rights of detainees.

"It is up to us now to try and come back and address the court's concerns," said Cornyn, who said the decision should prompt Congress to review the Military Commission Act and possibly the Detainee Treatment Act.

For real lunacy about the effects leave it to Rep Duncan Hunter,

“This decision will come at a cost.

“The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.”

At some point following 9/11 some people lost their minds, the fact that simple tools like box cutters and airplanes could destroy buildings created a wave of fear in the populace which was fanned and put to use by pols. The simplicity of the terrorists' tools incited these fear mongers to make an assault on our legal system. Along with the legal system our mental facilities also were assaulted. One only need read the outraged comments to see that.

Graham's outrage pushes him to talk of amending the Constitution to take care of the problem. Evidently it never occurred to Graham previously that the Constitution wasn't an optional document over ruled by a Republican Congress. The shift in tactics was brought about by battle field conditions with irregular combatants, people fighting without a government and therefore outside the Geneva Conventions in the eyes of BushCo. Faced with the alternative of treating captured individuals as soldiers or criminals, they decided on a sort of middle course, taking them as criminals but staying out of criminal court by classifying them as enemy combatants.

Somehow Bush and his lackey Congress had the idea they could create an entirely new class of criminal without running afoul of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear about when Habeas Corpus can be suspended and none of the conditions existed. Prisoners of war do not have criminal protections as they are lawful combatants and as such can be held until the cessation of hostilities or otherwise paroled. The middle ground enabled BushCo to mistreat (read torture) detainees without violating the Geneva Conventions and yet hold the detainees as though they were criminals without going to trial. The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled narrowly against the Administration on two occasions but they evidently didn't take the hints. Finally the Supremes ruled broadly in regard to Habeas Corpus making it clear that regardless of citizenship and assertions of danger Constitutional law pertained to all held by the US.

Despite the hysteria by Republican types this scarcely portends disaster, the government now must show in a court of law that people are being held for valid reasons and bring charges against them. The only disaster is that the government is no longer under the illusion that it can disappear people or hold kangaroo courts. The Supreme Court has decided that despite the ideas of George II, the United States of America belongs to the civilized community of law. Too bad for him, I guess.

I suppose I could bring up the the issue that the whiners quoted above are disgraces to the offices they hold and bring dishonor on their constituents. Those people have recourse to the ballot to address this embarrassment, or perhaps they're not embarrassed - that would say something, wouldn't it. Years ago a psychological study showed that any mid-sized city could supply sufficient manpower to run a concentration camp from deference to authority. Sadly, there doesn't appear to have been a large improvement in the quality of people. What is truly sad is how many have migrated into positions of authority. I can remember, in the distant past, when the Republican Party actually stood for some kind of principles...well, it was a long time ago.

NYT Argues For Ban On Free Press, Sort Of...

The NYT Editorial Board once again shows its authoritarian leanings. Be under no illusion, they will not only step on your rights, but they will engage in blatant misrepresentation to do it. Ah, here's the reasoning:

The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right
***
The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law.

Now what misrepresentation, you ask? The most blatant one:

The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.

Starting with that misrepresentation part, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that a weapon's applicability in military service was not shown to be represented by a sawed off shotgun. Military service was not in any way tied to the possession of weapons, only that they must possess military applicability. This argument is completely false in regard to who has the right to keep and bear arms. So, charitably speaking, the NYT lied. They also know they lied, Miller has been around since 1939. They have the Freedom of the Press to lie about the BOR and the Supreme Court, they're still liars.

Now with regard to the reasoning and the banning of the free press, the first part of the argument is naturally applicable to kiddie porn, there is indisputable inevitable universal harm to children involved, it is a reasonable restriction on a right and naturally the NYT is exempt provided their advertisements don't get anymore grotesque. Moving right along, kiddie porn is published online and on paper, so the NYT is arguing that bytes and newsprint be banned - so long guys. Oh, I know the editorial is about handguns not newsprint, at least it is supposed to be. It isn't. It is about 'the powers that be' deciding that the perception of security trumps the Constitution. I seem to remember them screaming that CIA considerations weren't sufficient to prevent the reporting of secret prisons...um their sacred cow.

Nobody is conceding one iota to the NYT about "reasonable" restrictions. Does somebody remember the wiggle word in the Fourth Amendment? "Unreasonable" search and seizure... means something different to tyrants than it does to the Framers. RICO would involve hot tar, feathers, and a rail, but that law is still on the books. BushCo would have been hung, despite Adams' Alien and Sedition Law, for which he is still reviled. You see, it is hugely in the corporate interest to protect newsprint and, to a degree, bytes; but not at all to protect firearm owners or the citizenry's rights. If they'd like to sue me for calling them liars, they're free to; a hamster could represent himself in that case, and not on the First Amendment, simply by introducing Miller as evidence. Here you go, corporate lawyers:

NYT LIES ABOUT MILLER

Try me out, please, I could use the income from the counter-suit.

The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.

Boy did they walk out on a limb here, what they do not have is one iota of evidence that this is the case, nor did they at the time. In point of fact, DC and NYC both defied the national trends in decreasing firearm crime after their bans. They, in fact, became more dangerous despite public perception, the FBI's numbers are clear. The premise is based on the ultimate stupidity, that people who would obey their laws regarding possession of firearms would otherwise violate the law by shooting each other. The legal penalty for violating the bans is considerably lighter than the penalty for shooting someone illegally. You'd think that might enter their minds.

I therefore propose that because the NYT has proven that it will misuse the First Amendment right to Free Press through lies and misrepresentations to suppress the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people that they be banned for inevitable universal irreparable harm to the citizenry. Makes as much sense to me.

Actual Monster - Radio Fear America

My regular readers know I'm perfectly willing to kick the NYT on occasion and do it where it hurts. I also find things there I'd like spread to those who don't read it regularly. Radio Fear America is one of those things and for more reason than they might have intended. They put the money right in the opening paragraph:

Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia read the funnies over the radio to cheer up New Yorkers during a newspaper strike. President Franklin Roosevelt gave “fireside chats” to bolster Americans during the depression. President Bush used his radio address on Saturday to try to scare Americans into believing they have to sacrifice their rights and their values to combat terrorism.

You certainly have read here enough times that fear mongering needs to be resisted. Yes, I've implied if not outright stated that there are too many scaredy cats in this country. A little truth telling doesn't hurt:

Mr. Bush announced that he had vetoed the 2008 intelligence budget because it contains a clause barring the C.I.A. from torturing prisoners. Mr. Bush told the nation that it “would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror — the C.I.A. program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives.” That is simply not true. Nothing in the bill shuts down the C.I.A. interrogation program. It just requires the C.I.A.’s interrogators to follow the rules already contained in the Army field manual on prisoners.

So in the first two paragraphs the situation is made pretty clear. It is in this particular context and they back it up with some more facts I encourage you to peruse. If I have a problem with the Editorial Board in this one is that it stops short. It stops right at BushCo terrorism. What the NYT stops short of is addressing this in its larger context, the Bills passed or vetoed on the basis on nothing but fear mongering and not facts nor civil liberties.

Back in the bad old days of Mafia pre-eminence in crime and control of legitimate business they were backers of the RICO Act. You see, the mafia were nasty people and were misbehaving in a major way, so special tools were necessary. The problem is that such laws not only apply to Mafiosos, they apply to us all. There is real conflict with the 4th Amendment here, not only in theory, but in practice. A fear driven piece of legislation the NYT did nothing to help block.

NYC has some of the most restrictive firearms regulations in the US, what they don't have is a fall in crime or firearm violence matching their introduction. The NYT lately bemoaned the possibility that the Supreme Court might restore the 2nd Amendment in such localities. What they don't have are any facts to back up their fear mongering. New Yorkers will die in untold numbers because...well, because it's a scary prospect.

What we have is very selective outrage. These are only a few instances of the disconnect between their stands depending on whether it is their pet issue or simply one of principle. I understand the difference in immediate impact on the NYT of freedom of press and right to keep and bear, but what the NYT seems unable to do is make the connection to people of the retention of their individual rights.

Being Alive Is Risky

Being alive is risky and it is ultimately fatal. Get used to the idea. There may be no point in rushing the ultimate consequence of living, but it is equally ridiculous to pretend that we are at any time safe. We aren't. We fall down stairs, we slip in the tub, we have all sorts of misfortunes befall us. You over reach on the step stool and go over with your head making contact with the countertop corner and it's all over. ooops. You might be a victim of a stranger crime or a personal crime or you might get it in the armed forces. A foreign or domestic terrorist might get you or just plain old age body failure. Something at some point is going to take you out of it and pretending to yourself it won't is nonsense and wishful thinking.

We aren't running the country that way any more. We've allowed the government to take unprecedented steps in the search for security. We've allowed the militarization of our police forces. We've funded a pharma empire in search of...a little more. We hook loved ones to machines and persecute anyone whose lifestyle isn't "healthy." We are virtually pharonic with our dead but hunting an animal is disgusting, our dead animals aren't food, that comes in plastic and styrofoam container. Somehow we have become that strangest of all possible creatures, fascinated by faux violence and scared spitless of our own risks.

We claim to love our American form of government and cherish our rights, then we spit on them in search of security. We elect those who spit on us as a people because they say they'll keep us safe. We allow elected people to offices defined by the Constitution to pervert that document. We allow the media to manipulate us and and ignore it at any time it tells hard truths, in fact when the media bothers to tell the truth we penalize it. Roads designed to be used at speeds well in excess of 70mph in cars designed to function well at higher speeds have reduced speed limits to keep us safe, as though 15mph wouldn't be much safer. We watch shoot em up movies full of fakery but fear the actual firearm. We willingly swallow almost any kind of nonsense if it is called a threat and feel reassured when the government deals with it. This includes the most pathetic individuals who are led into stupidity by government informers.

In the midst of all this fear we forget how to actually live. That's right, that wonderful tasting marbled steak may not be as good for you as tofu, but exactly how long do you propose to eat tofu? An extra year or two? Speaking your mind openly and enthusiastically may draw attention to you, do you propose to cower somewhere instead? How many hours of extra life do you waste in airline security checks that are primarily designed for feelings rather than effect? When you check my 81 year old 4-10, overweight mother as a security risk I know you aren't serious, you're doing it to look like you're doing something. My Crest is not going to explode and anything you could mix up that would will stink to high heaven. You buy it. You stand sheep like in an endless line to prevent the most unlikely event. You condone the torture of fellow humans because there is an off chance that you might get some kind of information, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than have that work out...shouldn't have mentioned lightning, now you are scared. The bloodshed and economic toll on our highways in a couple years exceed the total death and economic wreckage of 9/11, minus the fear induced losses. You let the President walk us into a war in Iraq because somebody said "smoking gun...mushroom cloud." Hillary Clinton can run a Republican ad and gain votes, from Democrats for god's sake.

Now I'm not trying to persuade you into my lifestyle, I use heavy power tools, walk on walls and climb trusses; I hunt and fish in bad terrain; I drag race (on a track); I live a decidedly edgy life. That doesn't mean I'm full of it or reckless, I measure risk; but I'm not paralysed or driven to nonsense by risk. Freedom of speech is a risky proposition, things you may not like are liable to reach your ears, things you don't like are liable to reach your eyes and finally people are liable to say dangerous things. Somebody might tell you to quit cringing. Somebody might call one of your Congressmen a cowardly traitor...

Ah, get back in bed and pull the covers over your head, it still isn't safe here.

Senate Leads the Way, Wiretapping

When the Framers wrote the Constitution and laid out the terms of office for the Congressional bodies they had some ideas of the consequences. They invisioned a House with short tems that was responsive to the immediate concerns of the voters and innovative in outlook. The Senate, on the other hand, with its six year terms was to be the deliberative and reflective body, the conservators of Constitutional law and source of stability. This was stood on its head this week.

The President, George II, was on the air this morning stating that the "Senate leads the way" on wiretapping and immunity and that it is critical pass this bill before it expires. There are two pieces of nonsense involved in this statement and the reporter's deferential treatment of his statements. The first is that the expiration involves no change in the underlying FISA law which allows up to 72 hours of emergency wiretapping preceding a warrant granted by a Secret Court whose level of resistance to such activities is suspect at the least. The second piece is his stated willingness to veto any bill lacking immunity for the telecoms, an extremely odd view to hold in the face of his fear mongering. The supposed financial well being of some telecoms who cooperated with the government, note that Qwest and a couple others did not, and broke long established law and privacy policies trumps the fear he's peddling. Money is more important than your "security." The President even offered to delay his African visit, he might not go on a vacation, might not if the House gets moving.

The head of BushCo claims the experts in his security apparatus all agree this is critical, a claim that was met with silent assent from reporters. There is serious evidence that what the White House and telecoms got up to was not anything like a targeted terrorist list being listened in on, rather a blanket listening program, simply sweeping up everything. This bunch that is supposed to be taken seriously on an extaordinarily sensitive issue concerning the Bill of Rights is the same group of people who authorized torture and secret prisons by the US. There are a few other balls they managed to drop while "protecting" us, Iraq WMDs, 9/11, Iran bomb research, in fact virtually every piece of fear they've touted. I'm disinclined to trust my liberties to torturers and data manipulators (um, that would be liars).

The Republicans just walked out of the House in protest of the Democrats not scrambling on the Senate version of the wiretap bill. The House had already passed a version lacking immunity. John Beohner (R-OH) is claiming a Democratic stunt, "their hands slapped away" from taking "resonsible" action. We're "at risk" and the House Republicans "will be here" until this bill is passed. Anybody know of a more partisan pol than John Boehner? Mr "Obstruct All Costs" Boehner, whose publicly leaked agenda is to block all Democratic actions, is accusing Democrats of playing politics? Less than 1/4 of our Senators give a rat's patoot about your civil liberties and commercial complicity in their violation, a whole 21 of them aren't craven traitors to their oaths to the Constitution. For some obscure reason Republicans, the supposed upholders of small limited government, have become the tools of authoritarian usurpation. In case you've missed it, their version of conservatism involves leaving the putocrats open season on the wealth of the nation and one that stomps on any behavior they find "immoral." If the NRA hadn't traded its political influence for right wing crap they'd be after our 2nd Amendment rights as hard as they're after the rest. (Republicans just walked back into the House - got their 15 minutes of camera time) Since the House has already passed a bill lacking immunity will they have the nerve to stick to their guns? With the Senate rolling over it doesn't look good, a storm of protest might...

Let's look at a couple realities regarding immunity, the BushCo claims future cooperation would be endangered by current lawsuits. What is for sure endangered is obvious violation of the law by private enities acting on the government's behest. If certain arms of the government made false representations to the telecoms there are plenty of fiscally beholden legislators to allow them suits against the goverment. If no such representations were made, if no one told the telecoms what they were getting up to was legal, they deserve to be handed their heads. This immunity process is not about protecting the telecoms, it is about protecting BushCo. Telecoms will fight tooth and nail to protect their wealth in court and if there is responsibility to be shifted on George II's regime they'll toss it overboard in a hearbeat. There may be some folks looking at actual prison time for federal felonies, that could conceiveably include the kinglet.

At some point Americans are going to have to either get along with the idea that liberty is a risky business or just give it up. BushCo is not the first to make grabs on our Rights, but they may be the most egregious offenders. I am pretty certain Americans only take this kind of thing seriously when it involves their pet Rights and by the time it does, they'll just roll over. Some won't, but they'll just be labeled loons and be ignored by lemming majority. The saving grace in this assesment is that the American Revolution was started by a cadre of loons.

Ashcroft Defends Bush, and the Indefensible

"The president of the United States has been among the most respectful of all leaders ever engaged in the responsibility of fighting for freedom,'' Ashcroft said, and has been "most respectful in terms of respecting the civil liberties and rights of individuals while engaged in the important task of fighting for freedom."

This is John Ashcroft's version of George II facing the evil dragon with his gleaming silver sword egraved with crosses and the logo "For God and GOP," told to the Missouri Republicans attending the party's statewide Lincoln Days festivities this weekend. You surely don' think he tried to palm this hooha off on reasonable people. If he comes off sounding like a complete ninny in this little report don't blame The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, honestly they played it straight. There is just so much there, well, not there with John Ashcroft, that goofiness is almost guaranteed.

John makes the point that W Wilson and FDR during WWI and WWII engaged in wiretapping and George II has been soooooo restrained. Well, he does fail to mention little nitpicking details like Declarations of War, stuff like that. He does fail to mention that he's been humping for immunity for corporations that violated the law, a law so lax that the government is allowed to violate Constitutional restrictions for 72 hours before asking for a warrant from a Secret Court. Try to wrap your head around this, there is a Secret Court available only to the Government, not for us citizen yokels, only the very special class of government citizens. George II isn't to blame for the existance of this abomination, he's to blame for not being able to stay within those ludicrous bounds.

Bush "respects liberty so profoundly that he has protected it and has safeguarded civil liberties more than any other president in wartime that I know of,'' Ashcroft said.

I am surprised that John Ashcroft keeps managing to live up to he reputation for stupidity, you would think that bar was set a little high for anyone with even a modicum of success in politics. I realize that he couldn't beat a dead man in an election and that he's the guy who publicly hung a drape over Justice, but you'd think...

If you were to try really hard to shut your eyes and scream, "Nyah, nyah, nyah," with your fingers in your ears, you still might catch on to a couple things. Habeas Corpus is entirely dependent on the "kinglets" whim, he says laws regarding the sanctity of your communications are subject to his whim, he says restrictions on torture are subject to his whim, he says the Secret Police (FBI) can break into your home and snoop to find evidence to support a warrant, he says a lot of things that would have gotten him hung not too long after the Constituion was signed. If you think the signers' heads wouldn't have exploded if this crap were explained to them, you've been reading toilet paper instead of history. Confounded George III was run out of the Colonies for considerably less at a hugely larger cost in treasure and life.

Mukasey and the Law

When Sen. Ted Kennedy asked Michael Mukasey about torture and got one evasion after another, he asked the question, "Let me ask you this, would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?" Mukasey's response says something, "I would feel that it was." Yes, sir; that is exactly the point of the exercise, it is because we all would feel it if done to us.

Just so Michael is real clear on the implications of that statement, I will speak for myself. If you do it to me, yes I will consider it torture. Given that through that action you will have removed yourself from my definition of humanity, it would be a very bad idea to ever let me exercise any freedom of action, afterwards. I promise that to the absolute extent of my ability I would make everyone responsible pay for it. Understand the implications of removing yourself from the ranks of humanity in service of power, you become a bug, to be dealt with in that regard.

You might think that a law abiding citizen would be constrained by legal considerations, you abrogated those, you and those you enable. There is an element of absolute horror involved in abusing a helpless human being, someone so absolutely in your power that you can do exactly whatever you decide to do. Law is an artificial construct designed to let us live with each other, it is artificial in the sense that it holds no moral force and constrains through penalties, penalties you will have made moot through torture. What can you do, kill? You will, through waterboarding already have made that a previous reality.

For a more reasoned look at Michael Mukasey's legal views you might check out David Bromwich over at HuffPo. I certainly don't disagree with him, I just thought somebody ought to point out the natural outcomes of such behavior, really sucks.

Stark Co, Ohio Strip Search and Assault

If you think I have polite words to describe my reaction to this, you've got an exaggerated view of my vocabulary. This came to my attention through Crooks and Liars and it is...well you decide what it is.



I am pretty well acquainted with most of our local law enforcement, it's a small town, and I'll bet you odds their reaction would be real close to mine. I hope to God it would be.

***Addendum

If you have blog space, make this stink across the nation, credit C&L.

Oregon Domestic Partnership - A Go

US District Judge Michael Mosman stunned Oregon's gay community when he put the State's Domestic Partnership law on hold prior to its effective date. He has now tossed the plaintiffs' arguments and allowed it to go forward, effective Friday afternoon. The quickness of the ruling came as a surprise to many. While Mosman stated that there were issues in the suit that the SoS should find troubling and address, he noted that there is no Constitutional right to have a signature verified.

This won't lay the issue to rest. Sadly. Proponents of the ban on gay marriage stated repeatedly the they were only against marriage, not civil unions. That may have been true of some spokespersons, but evidently not exactly everybody. How about a reality check of the nonsense.

Marriage in State terms, is a civil contract. It is not in the least religious. The State magnanimously allows religious people to conduct services and finalize the agreement, but the State holds absolutely no interest in the Godly sanctimony of marriage. Their only interest is in the civil contract that subjects the parties to certain responsibilities and grants certain privileges in binding form - civil form. This is entirely an issue between the State and the involved parties, God doesn't get any play whatever, is totally ignored, is flatly pointless and irrelevant. All of the Godly part is entirely the responsibility of the parties involved in joining in contract.

There is, of course, the unfortunate similarity in the names of the institution in both civil and religious ceremonies. Marriage. Churches and religious adherents mean one thing and the State means something quite different by the same term. I've had friends suggest that all State marriages should be called civil unions to get the State out of the God business and end confusion. I object, there are plenty of words in the English language with two meanings and the State has never been in the God end of this. We don't need new words, we need a citizenry that knows its head from a hole in the ground, how about it? I am so tired of treating symptoms instead of the ailment.

Now this blog has continuously taken the same stand in this regard, as a commentary and as a political campaign site :
The same privileges and responsibilities are due to all law abiding Oregonians, and in fact all US citizens of the same description. Any failure of the government to do so, or to in fact deny such is unconscionable. It is institutionalized discrimination of the worst sort. I do not propose to interfere with anyone's religious freedom, or their ability to speak rudely or think stupidly, but I cannot support taking any of that into the arena of civil contracts. It is, flatly, none of your damn business.

I select my friendships and relationships on the basis of character, I have good friends who are gay and I have good friends who are homophobic and most who don't give a damn. I happen to be among the latter, I don't give a damn. My good friends who are gay, happen to be gay in my mind, they are not defined by that. That may disappoint them, because it is fairly central to their being, but I just don't care. I am entirely heterosexual, I don't have questions or doubts about it, so it just isn't an issue with me. It is, in fact, so basic as to be of no meaning whatever. It does not define me, I simply am that. My eyes are hazel, if yours are not, I simply don't care, mine are still hazel and I'm also not impressed that yours are also.

I do what I can to oppose stupidity and meanness, it seems to be a never ending battle. I'm glad for gays that they've gotten their civil unions, but it is thin gruel in the battle. Make no mistake, the battle isn't about gays, it is about our government acting in a proper manner. If you want to be ignorant and mean, that is your business, but I can't abide it in government.

Wiretapping, BushCo, Now What?

If you haven't been living in a cave, you know that there's been a dust up over wiretapping. In August the Congress extended the FISA reform extension allowing the Administration to wiretap without warrants foreign communications suspected of being terrorism related. The mess the Republicans and BushCo want passed is called Protect America Act, another nice sounding name that doesn't reflect reality. The idea is to permanently allow unregulated wiretapping of calls with an international endpoint and to grant immunity to telecoms that cooperated with the Administration's unlawful wiretapping, including domestic connections. Understand that while the BushCo was engaging in this prohibited behavior they had access to a secret federal court, FISA, that would grant temporary emergency permission without review and that authority still exists. The cooperating telecoms, Qwest did not, were not presented with warrants and you'd be hard pressed to find someone in telecommunications that doesn't know about wiretapping and warrants. BushCo seems to believe it can do whatever it wishes whenever it wishes and its Quislings bear no responsibility.



Dick Cheney got up in front of The Heritage Foundation today and called on Congress to pass the Act before its February 1 expiration, to pass it with no sunset provision and with immunity for their telecom buddies. The problem is that the House passed HR3773 last year without immunity and a December 2009 expiration. "There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it," Cheney said. "The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won't expire any time soon, and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise."
With the law due to expire in nine days, Cheney said, "we're reminding Congress they must act now to modernize" the 1978 FISA Act.



Harry Reid asked the White House to back a 30 day extension since there is little time to reconcile a Senate version and the House. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader objects, he says there's plenty of time to get a bill "out of the Senate and to the House in a form the president will sign," he said. "Nothing is more important to protecting the homeland than getting this done and getting it done properly." The next time I hear "the homeland" out of one of this authoritarian nits I want to see someone toss up a Nazi salute. Homeland is not a magic word allowing just any kind of behavior.



Now Reid is also under some criticism, he says he is opposed to granting immunity to telecoms, but there are two competing Senate bills, one from JD Rockefeller IV (D-WV)'s Intelligence Committee with immunity and one from P Leahy (D-VT)'s Judiciary Committee that leaves it out. His decision to allow an initial vote on the Intelligence Bill has angered opponents of immunity, “If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,” Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.” “Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill,” Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman said.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-MO), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday, “To stall legislation needed to help our intelligence community prevent attacks and protect American lives is not only irresponsible, it’s also dangerous.” Seems they're in a big rush, but Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, said in an interview that if the August bill was allowed to expire in 10 days, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law. They might however have to revert to the more restrictive rules of pre-August for new suspects. I don't believe anything more permissive than the '78 FISA rules are needed or good for this nation. I cannot understand how wriggling toward authoritarianism is good for the nation or leads to preservation of American values. It is another step in the direction of our foe's ideology. Tyranny is just that, whether the ideology is theocratic Islam or BushCo-ism.

Just a little update to think on, this wire tapping bill that is so important to BushCo will get vetoed if it doesn't contain immunity. If immunity trumps national security issues then what is the real deal? What might come out in a suit besides telecom money? These are rat bastards of the first order.

509,000 Terrorists In The US

The FBI's budget request refers to the entire Terror Watch List as containing 509,000 names. Only 509,000; I'm rather disappointed. Since the list has already been shown to contain the names of Quakers, war protesters, and just plain folks as well as some maybe bad guys and some known bad ones it seems it should be considerably larger. Apparently those who dislike BushCo's war and George II's assault on the Constitution are not doing their part. Since I flew on an airplane last month I evidently have fallen down on the job.

This is entirely unacceptable behavior on our part, I fully expect Americans to step up to the plate and get this list up to at least 3 million by fall. What is particularly troubling is the assertion that the list has duplicate names like Ossame and Ussama and even ones like Saddam Hussein, that would lower the individuals to 345,00o according to The National Counterterrorism Center.

ABC, of all people, says there may be privacy and usefulness issues with the size of the list. Law makers and their wives have been detained, which is only as it should be. I'd be hard put to find a more terrorist group than last year's Republican dominated Congress and their President - who apparently gets around that list by flying in his own 747.

I own guns, I don't like BushCo policies, and I try rather hard to get political change - what more do I have to do? This is patently unfair, Cat Stevens is blocked and my singing is truly a thing of horror. Oh well, I'll just have to muddle along unlisted.

4th US Circuit Says No to BushCo

Remember a time when a Republican complaint about criminals was that they just get to appeal and appeal and appeal? They certainly seem to think Scooter ought to appeal unless the President pardons first. Now it would be remiss to forget that BushCo went to the Supreme Court to get their military trials program thrown out - and replaced by the Republican abortion Military Commissions Act. A few days before the Supreme Court deadline for handing in their briefs George II tacked Jose Padilla's case onto an existing one. Apparently they do like to appeal.

Not to be left holding a bag of kaakaa the Administration now wants the entire panel of the US 4th Circuit to hear their appeal of the dismissal of their detention of Ali al-Marri, a legal US resident, held in solitary confinement at the Charleston SC Navy brig since June 2003. That would be four years in solitary without charges or hearings.

As AP reports, the 4th's decision was split 2-1 with the dissent of Bush appointee Judge Henry Hudson:



"Although al-Marri was not personally engaged in armed conflict with U.S. forces, he is the type of stealth warrior used by al-Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States," since BushCo said so and everybody knows they always know what they're doing and certainly wouldn't lie...



The majority opinion:

'Such detention "would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution _ and the country," Judge Diana G. Motz wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Roger Gregory.'



"Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and then detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants.'"



So what are we to make of this string of defeats? Maybe it's not a problem when bad guys appeal...

War On Terror

We've heard this for years now, "war on terror" demands this, that, or the other thing. This phrase is truly a piece of nonsense, look at the words themselves:
"War" is a military engagement with an organized foe with a definitive goal and end,
"Terror" is a tactic engaged in by individuals, organizations, or governments.

So what we have is some kind of war being waged on a tactic. It's a bumper sticker. There is no war against terror, there has been a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Iraq we started a war with Saddam Hussein and quickly overwhelmed his army. Since that point we have been engaged in conflict with an assortment of "bad guys." This is no longer a War, it is a series of deadly encounters with people of wildly varied agendas having only in common an opposition to American troops and each other. "Terror" is not even a definition of their combat tactics, it is applicable to a car bomb in a crowded market, but certainly not to sniping, IEDs, and firefights. Sniping is a common military tactic, IEDs are no more than mines without the title, and a firefight is what engaged units do.

Words count, they are supposed to be a method of communication, in this instance words have been used to lie about what is being done and further to dissemble aims. An action against a tactic can be accomplished with treaties, diplomacy, and law enforcement but it is not a War. The tactic is being misrepresented to the public, much of what is called terror are straightforward military tactics we ourselves use and while some of our weaponry carries a different name, they are the same thing. Finally there is what the phrase covers, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is not a war it is terrorism practiced on the citizenry, torture is not a war, it is terror, disappearances are not a war, they are terror. The tools the BushCo tries to use are not a part of warfare, they are assaults on civil liberties and humane behavior, these are the agendas of the War on Terror.

***UPDATE***

If you think I exaggerate see AP on the Alabama Homeland Security including gay rights, anti-war, and other single issue social issue organizations on a list of organizations which may habor terrorists. This one got publicized because blogs took it up, think there are other "lists" elsewhere?

They Gave Assurances

Sen John Sununu (R-NH) said,
“They gave us assurances that when we raised concerns about civil liberties that they have strong procedures and checks in place for issuing national security letters, and all of those assurances have proven to be unfounded,” about bills he strongly supported, Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Does anybody other than me see a problem with this statement?

Who the hell are "They"? The Constitution is clear you dimwitted Republican thug, it's not your damn business to get assurances from anybody about our civil liberties. You DO NOT give them to us, we have them despite your ilk. You jump around and squeal about how the terrorists are going to kill us while you strangle our democracy, you cowardly lying BushCo shill and then have the nerve to say, "well they said they wouldn't." You are more dangerous than all the Bin Ladins in the world.

Maybe in your fear induced state of coma you can't realize just how close to the dictatorial rule of personality you've pushed this country. Yes John Sununu, YOU. In your comatose state you neglected one of the basics of power politics, all power seeks power and the grant of power assures it will be used. Every school yard bully knows this one and a US Senator doesn't?

Harsh language? I'll tell you what's harsh, torture, disappearances, renditions, no day in court, secret testimony, governmental burglary and eavesdropping, domestic spying, letters of marque for federal police. Let me be plain and clear, once you've removed the barriers and people can no longer trust having their day in a fair court, why should they allow you to take them alive? What possible reason is there to not have it out, then and there, before the manacles go on? The law enforcement officer who comes has the misfortune to represent a criminal lawless enterprise stripped of all pretence to any more than physical force, he is therefore, a criminal. You and your pals are stupid thugs if you can't realize that outcome and think you get away with it.

I think my head's going to explode. I cannot fathom the depths of that kind of stupidity, "they gave assurances," for pete's sake, 'oooh, I was concerned about civil liberties...' If you're concerned then the answer is no, don't do that. How simple is that? No. But oh boy, you had control of Congress, the Executive, and a big chunk of the Judicial branches so you just thought, what?? That your kind of people were soooo good nothing could go wrong? That's what that "assurances" bull hockey is about, you do understand that my fine readers, denizens of the great unwashed, the good people in the Republican eternal majority will look out for your best interests because they're sooo special and sooo nice. Much too nice to take bribes, sell influence, try to bugger kids, or stomp on your freedom. Oh no, they wouldn't hide you from lawyers, deny you a hearing, torture you (unless your name happened to be Padilla), they certainly wouldn't burgle a Portland Oregon lawyer's home and hold him with NO evidence, no, nothing can go wrong.

Every Congressman that voted for those pieces of garbage needs to go in 08, Republicans and Democrats. The operative word is treason. Every member of this Congress that does not take a hand in cleaning this mess up needs to go. No ifs, no buts, do it or get the heck out. Any District that returns them deserves the iron boot on their neck that these weasels perpetrated on this country. Barring that, it falls on the responsible citizenry to demand redress of these grievances and a document signed in 1776 states clearly to what lengths that demand can be taken.

F*** you John Sununu and your assurances. Oh, same to you DOJ, FBI, NSA, and BushCo.