Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Judges behaving badly
This is really nothing new. It goes on in District courts all over the land; Judges acing like they are are auditioning to be the next Judge Judy, often say horrible things to and about the people before them, insulting lawyers and treating defendants like subhumans.
Then they somehow expect that those very same people will pay a fine a continue to respect the law. Yeah right.
Judiciary | Judges behaving badly | Economist.com:
A $54m lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, DC, cleaners was thrown out by a judge this week. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. The fact that the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with America's litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them.
A whole series of judicial misdemeanours, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida state judge, John Sloop, who was ousted after complaints about his “rude and abusive” behaviour. This included an order to strip-search and jail 11 defendants for arriving late in traffic court after being misdirected. Or the Californian judge, José Velasquez, sacked in April for a plethora of misconduct, including extending the sentences of defendants who dared question his rulings.
Bush Abuses
opinion:
If you want to know what's going on behind the scenes in George W. Bush's reign as U.S. president, you ought to be subscribing to Texas gadfly Jim Hightower's 'Hightower Lowdown.'
The monthly four-page report regularly takes a look at the latest federal government outrage that typically flies below the radar screen of the mainstream media. This month, for example, Hightower focuses on the Bush administration's practice of outsourcing key government functions to corporate America, especially corporate America that has been friendly to the Bush regime.
In fact, Hightower asserts, there may be as many rent-a-troops in Iraq today as there are members of the U.S. military. The largest private contractor, which isn't news, is Halliburton, of course, which has seen its government contracts rise by a stunning 600 percent since Bush became president.
If you want to know what's going on behind the scenes in George W. Bush's reign as U.S. president, you ought to be subscribing to Texas gadfly Jim Hightower's 'Hightower Lowdown.'
The monthly four-page report regularly takes a look at the latest federal government outrage that typically flies below the radar screen of the mainstream media. This month, for example, Hightower focuses on the Bush administration's practice of outsourcing key government functions to corporate America, especially corporate America that has been friendly to the Bush regime.
In fact, Hightower asserts, there may be as many rent-a-troops in Iraq today as there are members of the U.S. military. The largest private contractor, which isn't news, is Halliburton, of course, which has seen its government contracts rise by a stunning 600 percent since Bush became president.
Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence
Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence:
"It's appropriate.
The president who led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq by peddling false statements and misrepresentations has come to the rescue of a White House aide convicted of lying by commuting his sentence. Before the ink was dry on today's court order denying Scooter Libby's latest appeal--a motion to allow him to stay out of jail while he was challenging his conviction--George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will no longer have to serve the 30-month prison sentence ordered by federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. He will, though, have to pay the $250,000 fine that was part of the sentence.
"It's appropriate.
The president who led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq by peddling false statements and misrepresentations has come to the rescue of a White House aide convicted of lying by commuting his sentence. Before the ink was dry on today's court order denying Scooter Libby's latest appeal--a motion to allow him to stay out of jail while he was challenging his conviction--George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will no longer have to serve the 30-month prison sentence ordered by federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. He will, though, have to pay the $250,000 fine that was part of the sentence.
"There Is A Revolution Coming"
It's the only thing that will save us, if anything will.
The Progressive Daily Beacon: "There Is A Revolution Coming":
The woman wore her hair short, professionally styled and highlighted; the nails on her hands were expertly manicured; and the frames of her designer glasses perfectly complimented both the tint of her hair and the tone of her skin. Still, the color coordinated medical scrubs she wore and her new Toyota SUV aside, the woman was obviously some kind of left-wing radical.
Actually, she was the furthest thing from any wing at all. The woman was the smack-dab center of Middle America, but that isn't how she would have been presented by big business interests, America's corporate-owned media, the Republican Party and its associated radio propagandists. I know how she would have been labeled because when she overheard me mention Michael Moore's new movie, 'SiCKO,' she said, 'Oh, is it playing here? Where? I want to go see it.' And, there was more.
The Progressive Daily Beacon: "There Is A Revolution Coming":
The woman wore her hair short, professionally styled and highlighted; the nails on her hands were expertly manicured; and the frames of her designer glasses perfectly complimented both the tint of her hair and the tone of her skin. Still, the color coordinated medical scrubs she wore and her new Toyota SUV aside, the woman was obviously some kind of left-wing radical.
Actually, she was the furthest thing from any wing at all. The woman was the smack-dab center of Middle America, but that isn't how she would have been presented by big business interests, America's corporate-owned media, the Republican Party and its associated radio propagandists. I know how she would have been labeled because when she overheard me mention Michael Moore's new movie, 'SiCKO,' she said, 'Oh, is it playing here? Where? I want to go see it.' And, there was more.
Impeachment: We’ve Got a Job to Do - CommonDreams.org
Impeachment: We’ve Got a Job to Do - CommonDreams.org:
The following remarks were offered by John Kaminski, Chair of the Maine Lawyers for Democracy, at the Citizens Summit for Impeachment Rally that took place in Kennebunkport, Maine on Sunday, July 1st, 2007:
Thank you to the Maine Campaign to Impeach and thank you to the Kennebunk Peace Department for organizing this rally and march — they have done a great job. Their countless hours of effort are the reason we are able to be here today.And thank you all for standing with me on this beautiful Sunday afternoon, instead of being at the beach, a picnic or a softball game or fishing with President Putin in the ocean off Walker’s Point. Thank you for recognizing that we’ve got a job to do together.
I am the Chair of Maine Lawyers for Democracy, an organization of around 80 Maine lawyers who have called for impeachment. We firmly believe that impeachment is ultimately about accountability. And there is much to hold the Bush - Cheney Administration to account for.
The following remarks were offered by John Kaminski, Chair of the Maine Lawyers for Democracy, at the Citizens Summit for Impeachment Rally that took place in Kennebunkport, Maine on Sunday, July 1st, 2007:
Thank you to the Maine Campaign to Impeach and thank you to the Kennebunk Peace Department for organizing this rally and march — they have done a great job. Their countless hours of effort are the reason we are able to be here today.And thank you all for standing with me on this beautiful Sunday afternoon, instead of being at the beach, a picnic or a softball game or fishing with President Putin in the ocean off Walker’s Point. Thank you for recognizing that we’ve got a job to do together.
I am the Chair of Maine Lawyers for Democracy, an organization of around 80 Maine lawyers who have called for impeachment. We firmly believe that impeachment is ultimately about accountability. And there is much to hold the Bush - Cheney Administration to account for.
Editorials Hit Libby’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card - CommonDreams.org
The reaction is really over-whelming, especially for a holiday weekend.
Now, let's see if we can keep it in the headlines until after the holiday.
Editorials Hit Libby’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card - CommonDreams.org:
NEW YORK - The bloggers, politicians, and TV pundits weighed in quickly Monday after President Bush took the surprisingly sudden step of commuting Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. Now newspaper editorials are appearing, and nearly all of them have condemned the Bush act.
0703 05First up, The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had viewed the case quite differently, each ripped the Bush move.
From the Times’ Tuesday editorial: “Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk …
Libby: One More Twist in the Yellowcake Road
This could be Bush's biggest mistake; this reminds me all too much of the Saturday Night Massacre.
That was the night my Dear Old Dad, a Republican (and one of the good ones), said he knew Nixon was toast.
Loyalty when, taken to its extremes, is nothing more than a twisted character trait and this is where it always leads, wrack and ruin.
Libby: One More Twist in the Yellowcake Road - CommonDreams.org:
So much for, “No man is above the law.”
The chief prosecutor, jury, trial judge — a Republican he himself appointed to the bench. The federal appeals panel. The majority of public opinion. All ignored.
I know, I know. The president was within his constitutional rights commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. Article Two, Section 2 and all that. He claimed Libby’s two-and-a-half-year prison sentence was “excessive.”
That was the night my Dear Old Dad, a Republican (and one of the good ones), said he knew Nixon was toast.
Loyalty when, taken to its extremes, is nothing more than a twisted character trait and this is where it always leads, wrack and ruin.
Libby: One More Twist in the Yellowcake Road - CommonDreams.org:
So much for, “No man is above the law.”
The chief prosecutor, jury, trial judge — a Republican he himself appointed to the bench. The federal appeals panel. The majority of public opinion. All ignored.
I know, I know. The president was within his constitutional rights commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. Article Two, Section 2 and all that. He claimed Libby’s two-and-a-half-year prison sentence was “excessive.”
Call Out The Instigator - CommonDreams.org
Let's not put Cindy back in the role of leader.
If this is to be the revolution we need in this country it must be as leaderless as possible.
One light is too easily extinguished, even three flames is no real problem, as we should all be well aware.
But several million flames threaten a bonfire of light, not so easily extinguished and seen for miles.
Call Out The Instigator - CommonDreams.org:
Call out the Instigator
Because there’s something in the air
We got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here
You know it’s right!
-Thunderclap Newman
Bush presidency enters terminal phase
Those poor people over there, where this piece was written, just don't get it.
They don't have any idea what we are still up against over here.
We don't make the assumption that Bush has any plan to leave office. Surely they don't see Bush and Cheney as powerless, at this point.
As time draws night for the next election and/or the end of Bush's term, the more dangerous it gets for all of us.
It is far from time to celebrate.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - Bush presidency enters terminal phase:
WASHINGTON - There may be moments during their summit at his family's compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, when President George W Bush may look with envy on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, whose popularity at home guarantees him vast influence even as he prepares to leave office just nine months from now.
Not so for Bush, whose public approval ratings, according to polls released in just the past week, have reached all-time lows and
whose influence - even over his own party - appears to be declining at warp speed.
The latter phenomenon was demonstrated to devastating effect last week when 37 of the Senate's 49 Republicans deserted the president on a critical procedural vote that appears to have doomed Bush's hopes for comprehensive immigration reform through the remaining 18 months of his term in office.
They don't have any idea what we are still up against over here.
We don't make the assumption that Bush has any plan to leave office. Surely they don't see Bush and Cheney as powerless, at this point.
As time draws night for the next election and/or the end of Bush's term, the more dangerous it gets for all of us.
It is far from time to celebrate.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - Bush presidency enters terminal phase:
WASHINGTON - There may be moments during their summit at his family's compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, when President George W Bush may look with envy on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, whose popularity at home guarantees him vast influence even as he prepares to leave office just nine months from now.
Not so for Bush, whose public approval ratings, according to polls released in just the past week, have reached all-time lows and
whose influence - even over his own party - appears to be declining at warp speed.
The latter phenomenon was demonstrated to devastating effect last week when 37 of the Senate's 49 Republicans deserted the president on a critical procedural vote that appears to have doomed Bush's hopes for comprehensive immigration reform through the remaining 18 months of his term in office.
Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?
Not unless it can be proven to be part of an on-going conspiracy to obstruct justice.
I'm convinced that it is, beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. But, it must be proven in a court of law, or it isn't worth warm spit..
The court of public opinion is already speaking out loud and clear, but no one listens to it anymore, apparently.
William Rivers Pitt | Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?:
Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?
A wise man once said that the life of the law is procedure. There are processes to be undertaken, papers to be filed and forms to be obeyed. In this commutation, no procedures whatsoever appear to have been followed. The haste in which this action was undertaken smacks of fear, desperation, and of a cover-up in process.
Consider the factors.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Eugene Robinson - Why Not Here?
We salute your gumption, Mr. Robinson, for writing this.
We've been thinking the same thing, "why not here?"
We came to a slightly different conlusion, but that's another whole post
Eugene Robinson - Why Not Here? - washingtonpost.com:
I should knock wood before writing this, but why is it that the United States hasn't seen attempted terrorist bombings similar to the ones that fizzled Friday and Saturday in Britain?
The investigation of the botched attacks in London and Glasgow is far from complete, and authorities can't even be certain that this spasm of intended mayhem has ended. With suspects still being rounded up, it's hard to tell where these plotters fit on the scale that runs from 'trained al-Qaeda operative' all the way down to 'deluded, suicidal wannabe.'
Libby Pardon
Welcome to WorkingForChange:
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
3 Myths About Libby's Pardon
After I read a particular conservative columnist this morning, describing why the Libby pardon (and yes, I insist on calling it a 'pardon') was the only sane act in what he saw as the farce of Plamegate, I wanted to write a post screaming, 'SO AND SO IS A F***ING IDIOT.'
But I realized that wouldn't be useful. We all would agree he is an idiot. His brand would just be raised by mentioning him (which is why I won't right now...won't even link to him). And while venting is important, it's not everything.
Instead, something more constructive: 3 myths you'll hear Libby/Bush defenders repeat...and a quick way to respond...hopefully in today's water cooler conversations, these responses allow you a more useful talking point than calling your co-worker a f***ing idiot:
Myth #1: The crime wasn't important. The crimes at the heart of all of this -- the manipulations to drive us into an unnecessary war and the acts of personal vengeance to punish anyone who spoke out about the deceptions -- were important enough for Libby to lie about under oath. If you don't start punishing people somewhere -- even for the lesser crime of perjury -- you allow our rule of law to dissolve.
Read On ^
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
3 Myths About Libby's Pardon
After I read a particular conservative columnist this morning, describing why the Libby pardon (and yes, I insist on calling it a 'pardon') was the only sane act in what he saw as the farce of Plamegate, I wanted to write a post screaming, 'SO AND SO IS A F***ING IDIOT.'
But I realized that wouldn't be useful. We all would agree he is an idiot. His brand would just be raised by mentioning him (which is why I won't right now...won't even link to him). And while venting is important, it's not everything.
Instead, something more constructive: 3 myths you'll hear Libby/Bush defenders repeat...and a quick way to respond...hopefully in today's water cooler conversations, these responses allow you a more useful talking point than calling your co-worker a f***ing idiot:
Myth #1: The crime wasn't important. The crimes at the heart of all of this -- the manipulations to drive us into an unnecessary war and the acts of personal vengeance to punish anyone who spoke out about the deceptions -- were important enough for Libby to lie about under oath. If you don't start punishing people somewhere -- even for the lesser crime of perjury -- you allow our rule of law to dissolve.
Read On ^
Freedom's Just Another Word....
This is scary, Folks
Nevertheless, it's just a forerunner to what we have expected to happen for over two years.
There's gonna be another terrorist event. A big one.
Big enough to change the topic and attack Iran, all in one fell swoop.
Welcome to WorkingForChange:
Monday, July 2, 2007
Freedom's Just Another Word...
As I read of Bush's pardon (why are they saying that he is 'commuting the sentence' rather than 'pardoning'...let's let the lawyers argue that out) of Libby, I can only think of Janis Joplin's 'Me and Bobby McGee':
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Anyone who thought Bush would be humbled by a mid-term defeat, tanking approval ratings and the desertion of his own party, think again -- the man now has nothing left to lose...he's liable to do anything.
Can someone please make sure his finger is nowhere near the launch button?
Nevertheless, it's just a forerunner to what we have expected to happen for over two years.
There's gonna be another terrorist event. A big one.
Big enough to change the topic and attack Iran, all in one fell swoop.
Welcome to WorkingForChange:
Monday, July 2, 2007
Freedom's Just Another Word...
As I read of Bush's pardon (why are they saying that he is 'commuting the sentence' rather than 'pardoning'...let's let the lawyers argue that out) of Libby, I can only think of Janis Joplin's 'Me and Bobby McGee':
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Anyone who thought Bush would be humbled by a mid-term defeat, tanking approval ratings and the desertion of his own party, think again -- the man now has nothing left to lose...he's liable to do anything.
Can someone please make sure his finger is nowhere near the launch button?
Maybe we will get a glimpse of ...
of what Barak is really made of here.
Let him stand up and ask, "why is George Soros the devil to you people? "
Just give me a provable reason not to accept his support and I won't, but it had better be provable, not just right-wing talking points, because if accusations are made against Mr. Soros and they are frivolous and slanderous, I myself will call for a private fund to pay for a lawsuit against each and every person who makes the false claims.
It is time to put this whole George Soros is the Devil thing behind us once and for all.
How else do we beat the disinformation campaign that is never off the air waves?
The new personalities never confront any of them on their misinformation/disininformation BS.
It's time someone did.
So far, John Edwards is the only candidate who has.
I hope he keeps it up.
Crooks and Liars:
Jane Says
None of the 08 candidates, save John Edwards, has had the stones to speak out against Lieberman and his insane calls to attack Iran. Joe has now placed Obama in an extremely precarious position where, in order to defend a loyal supporter, he has to also feed into all the right wing narratives that attend Soros. He ought to have the guts to do it anyway.
Let him stand up and ask, "why is George Soros the devil to you people? "
Just give me a provable reason not to accept his support and I won't, but it had better be provable, not just right-wing talking points, because if accusations are made against Mr. Soros and they are frivolous and slanderous, I myself will call for a private fund to pay for a lawsuit against each and every person who makes the false claims.
It is time to put this whole George Soros is the Devil thing behind us once and for all.
How else do we beat the disinformation campaign that is never off the air waves?
The new personalities never confront any of them on their misinformation/disininformation BS.
It's time someone did.
So far, John Edwards is the only candidate who has.
I hope he keeps it up.
Crooks and Liars:
Jane Says
None of the 08 candidates, save John Edwards, has had the stones to speak out against Lieberman and his insane calls to attack Iran. Joe has now placed Obama in an extremely precarious position where, in order to defend a loyal supporter, he has to also feed into all the right wing narratives that attend Soros. He ought to have the guts to do it anyway.
Holy Joe Has Got To Go!
or something like that.
Sometimes one has to wonder if the NeoCons are on drugs, and that number clearly includes Lieberman.
How can else can one account for a person who has always seemed relatively sane to us all, suddenly becoming a frothing-at-the-mouth, Cheney-mean, growling hound of hell?
Crooks and Liars:
Holy Joe (when will he be given a job at the AEI?) gives Bill O’Reilly a wet kiss with this interview in NewsMax.
But Lieberman’s most pointed critique was aimed squarely at George Soros.Lieberman says of Soros, “His view of America is so negative. The places he’s put his money are, in my opinion, so destructive that it unsettles me.”
Soros, who gave $18 million to Democratic advocacy groups seeking to defeat President Bush in 2004, has said he supports Barack Obama for 2008. That troubles Lieberman, who says he doesn’t respect Soros’ values.
“This is the danger — somebody who has real potential like Obama gets co-opted by people whose hostile view of America and how to protect it and advance it is so different from mine and the views of most Americans,” Lieberman says.
More on the Libby Debacle, including Rover
Oddly, me thinks, the only thing even close to a call to action came from Senator Biden of all people.
I was expecting to find an inbox full of calls for action. Not one.
Hummm....
Wonder what's going on?
Crooks and Liars:
Just how close did Karl Rove come to being indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald? Surprisingly close.
The AP reported that several interesting documents related to the Plame leak investigation were unsealed late on Friday, and among the revelations are insights on Fitzgerald targeting Rove. As one judge wrote, “Regarding [Time reporter Matthew] Cooper, the special counsel has demonstrated that his testimony is essential to charging decisions regarding White House adviser Karl Rove.” (Jeralyn Merritt notes that the unredacted materials highlight just how close Rove was to a criminal charge.)
And yet, while we were learning about Rove just barely skating by on an indictment, we were also learning that Rove’s security clearance at the White House has been renewed.
Remember when Bush vowed to fire anyone in his White House involved with leaking classified information? In Rove’s case, the president not only broke his word and kept Rove in his powerful role, but the White House didn’t even revoke Rove’s security clearance.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
I was expecting to find an inbox full of calls for action. Not one.
Hummm....
Wonder what's going on?
Crooks and Liars:
Just how close did Karl Rove come to being indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald? Surprisingly close.
The AP reported that several interesting documents related to the Plame leak investigation were unsealed late on Friday, and among the revelations are insights on Fitzgerald targeting Rove. As one judge wrote, “Regarding [Time reporter Matthew] Cooper, the special counsel has demonstrated that his testimony is essential to charging decisions regarding White House adviser Karl Rove.” (Jeralyn Merritt notes that the unredacted materials highlight just how close Rove was to a criminal charge.)
And yet, while we were learning about Rove just barely skating by on an indictment, we were also learning that Rove’s security clearance at the White House has been renewed.
Remember when Bush vowed to fire anyone in his White House involved with leaking classified information? In Rove’s case, the president not only broke his word and kept Rove in his powerful role, but the White House didn’t even revoke Rove’s security clearance.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
What Crap?
This, now, definitely has the stench of Watergate all over it.
This isn't Ford pardoning Nixon, this is the Saturday Night Massacre
Crooks and Liars:
What crap. Marcy Wheeler:
Well, George did it. Made sure that Scooter wouldn’t flip rather than do jail time. He commuted Libby’s sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn’t talk, but retaining Libby’s right to invoke the Fifth.This amounts to nothing less than obstruction of justice.
Thank You Dubya
Thank You Dubya:
Thank You Dubya
We've known for a long time what a crooked creep ya' are
We've you've no respect for the law
We know you don't give a damn 'bout the constitution
Your election was totally flawed
But now you've tipped your hat
Enough
To push the switch to GO
It's impeachment time
You're number two
Cheney's First, you know.
Thank You Dubya
We've known for a long time what a crooked creep ya' are
We've you've no respect for the law
We know you don't give a damn 'bout the constitution
Your election was totally flawed
But now you've tipped your hat
Enough
To push the switch to GO
It's impeachment time
You're number two
Cheney's First, you know.
Political Corruption On Steroids
Born in corruption, the Bush administration and an unrepentant GOP, who have cover-up for them and made it easy for their crimes to continue year after year, will be buried in the cesspool of corruption they have become.
Political Corruption On Steroids:
Corruption and dirty politics is nothing new in America. However, the level and scope of dirty politics within the Republican Party at this point in American history seems to be unprecedented! It increasingly looks like the Republican leadership has become a kind of mafia-style criminal gang pretending to be a political party.
Both elections that put the Bush-Cheney ticket in the White House in 2000 and 2004 were questionable at best. Millions of votes were not counted. Millions of Americans were denied their voting rights. The Bush vs. Gore ruling by partisan Republican judges on the Supreme Court was blatantly unjust and stopped a legal statewide recount in Florida ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
Political Corruption On Steroids:
Corruption and dirty politics is nothing new in America. However, the level and scope of dirty politics within the Republican Party at this point in American history seems to be unprecedented! It increasingly looks like the Republican leadership has become a kind of mafia-style criminal gang pretending to be a political party.
Both elections that put the Bush-Cheney ticket in the White House in 2000 and 2004 were questionable at best. Millions of votes were not counted. Millions of Americans were denied their voting rights. The Bush vs. Gore ruling by partisan Republican judges on the Supreme Court was blatantly unjust and stopped a legal statewide recount in Florida ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
Henery Waxman: Bush and Cheney Deserve Contempt they Are Receiving
...and that contempt is just starting to boil over, Mr. Waxman.
Pity the poor soul that gets caught in the way of the fury to come.
Chairman Waxman on President Bush’s Decision to Commute
July 2nd, 2007 by Karina
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman released the following statement on President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence today:
Former President Bush once said: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”
That’s exactly what happened to Valerie Wilson. Her identity was revealed, putting her, her family, and our country at risk.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the widespread contempt they are receiving for this indefensible decision. The Libby commutation makes a mockery of our judicial system and our most fundamental values.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Madam Speaker: Bush Betrays Trust
Madam Speaker, he betrayed our trust when he and Vice, among others, lied us into an illegal, unjust war.
Now he is involved in a continuing cconspiracy to obstruct justice.
Is impeachment still off the table?
A Betrayal of Trust of the American People
July 2nd, 2007 by Speaker Pelosi
The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.
The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Now he is involved in a continuing cconspiracy to obstruct justice.
Is impeachment still off the table?
A Betrayal of Trust of the American People
July 2nd, 2007 by Speaker Pelosi
The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.
The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Joe Wilson Says Congress Should Investigate Bush
Wilson: Congress Should Investigate Bush's Participation in Obstruction of Justice
By Spencer Ackerman - July 2, 2007, 7:00 PM
Just got off the phone with Joe Wilson, whose exposure of the hollowness of the Niger-Iraq uranium claim set in motion the chain of events that led to Scooter Libby's perjury and, today, his sentence's commutation by President Bush. Wilson -- who is pursuing a civil suit against Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney -- called on Bush and Cheney to release the transcripts of their interviews with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "to let the American people know what they knew and when they knew it." If not, Wilson says, "Congress should hold hearings on the president's role in the obstruction of justice."
Wilson:
"From my viewpoint, the president has stepped in to short circuit the rule of law and the system of justice in our country. In so doing, he has acknowledged Mr. Libby's guilt for, among other things, obstruction of justice, which by definition is covering up for somebody in a crime. By commuting his sentence, he has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."
Asked if he expected Bush to pardon or commute Libby's sentence, Wilson replied, "I have never known what to expect. The administration is now trying call this compromise. At end of day, it's allowing a neoconservative cult to engage in special pleading. … This from the president who refused to listen to the Pope's clemency appeals over the execution of first female prisoner in Texas since the Civil War," referring to the 1998 execution of Karla Faye Tucker while Bush was governor.
Wilson noted the commutation will have no impact on his lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney. Today's presidential decision, he said, "should demonstrate to the American people beyond a reasonable doubt how unbelievably corrupt this administration is from top to bottom."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
By Spencer Ackerman - July 2, 2007, 7:00 PM
Just got off the phone with Joe Wilson, whose exposure of the hollowness of the Niger-Iraq uranium claim set in motion the chain of events that led to Scooter Libby's perjury and, today, his sentence's commutation by President Bush. Wilson -- who is pursuing a civil suit against Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney -- called on Bush and Cheney to release the transcripts of their interviews with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "to let the American people know what they knew and when they knew it." If not, Wilson says, "Congress should hold hearings on the president's role in the obstruction of justice."
Wilson:
"From my viewpoint, the president has stepped in to short circuit the rule of law and the system of justice in our country. In so doing, he has acknowledged Mr. Libby's guilt for, among other things, obstruction of justice, which by definition is covering up for somebody in a crime. By commuting his sentence, he has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."
Asked if he expected Bush to pardon or commute Libby's sentence, Wilson replied, "I have never known what to expect. The administration is now trying call this compromise. At end of day, it's allowing a neoconservative cult to engage in special pleading. … This from the president who refused to listen to the Pope's clemency appeals over the execution of first female prisoner in Texas since the Civil War," referring to the 1998 execution of Karla Faye Tucker while Bush was governor.
Wilson noted the commutation will have no impact on his lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney. Today's presidential decision, he said, "should demonstrate to the American people beyond a reasonable doubt how unbelievably corrupt this administration is from top to bottom."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, July 02, 2007
Scooter Does Know Where The Bodies Are Buried
Scooter, apparently, still capable of singing like a bird.
He doesn't want prison.
Anthing else but prison.
So, Scooter isn't goigng to prison afterall, because of the "compassion" of George W. Bush. The same Goerge W Bush who has never commutted a sentence before nor ever pardoned anyone on Texas' death row.
He even mocked Karla Faye Tucker, a woman who did show remorse and seemed, to everyone around her, to be a changed woman. Even the prison guards went to bat for Karla. But the man who commuted Scoooter's sentence of 30 months mocked Tucker. in a cruel childish way, while putting her to death.
Big mistake Junior. Anyone with half a brain knows this is nothing but obstruction of justice continuing....
Bush commutes Libby prison sentence
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago
President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.
Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."
Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."
Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
Reaction was harsh from Democrats.
"As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said through a spokesman.
Libby's supporters celebrated.
"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."
A message seeking comment from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office was not immediately returned.
Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.
"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."
A spokeswoman for Cheney said simply, "The vice president supports the president's decision."
The president's announcement came just as prison seemed likely for Libby. He recently lost an appeals court fight that was his best chance to put the sentence on hold, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons had already designated him inmate No. 28301-016.
Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.
The president noted Libby supporters' argument that the punishment did not fit the crime for a "first-time offender with years of exceptional public service."
Yet, he added, "Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."
Bush then stripped away the prison time.
The leak case has hung over the White House for years. After CIA operative Valerie Plame's name appeared in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles.
Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article.
Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told.
Plame believes Libby and other White House officials conspired to leak her identity to reporters in 2003 as retribution against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who criticized what he said was the administration's misleading use of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. ... The prison sentence was imminent but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter."
___
Associated Press Writer Matt Appuzo contributed to this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Court won't delay Libby prison sentence
Looks like Libby may well serve time, at least until Christmas 2008, when he will be pardoned, unless he threatens to sing like a songbird in the meantime.
Print Story: Court won't delay Libby prison sentence on Yahoo! News:
Former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals panel unanimously ruled Monday.
The decision is a major setback for Libby, who is running out of legal options and who probably will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
Libby believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. In a two-sentence ruling, the court refused.
The White House had no immediate reaction to the decision.
Print Story: Court won't delay Libby prison sentence on Yahoo! News:
Former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals panel unanimously ruled Monday.
The decision is a major setback for Libby, who is running out of legal options and who probably will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
Libby believed he had a good chance of overturning the conviction on appeal and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the sentence on hold. In a two-sentence ruling, the court refused.
The White House had no immediate reaction to the decision.
A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease
Junior is ill.
He must be, or he has allowed himself to stay in the bubble for so log, he has to call in big time experts to tell him what my granddaughter could easily explain to him, were he willing to admit to even a small mistake.
I hope he finds his answers. I honestly do. I hope we all find our answers in life.
I just don't want this nation to continue to be wrecked, possibly beyond repair, and any more nations to be subjected to the Bush- Cheney slaughter machine, while this 60 year old man asks questions he should have asked years ago; like before he ran for president in the first place.
A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease - washingtonpost.com:
At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
These are the questions of a president who has endured the most drastic political collapse in a generation. Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Bush is seeking out those who are, engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration. For all the setbacks, he remains unflinching, rarely expressing doubt in his direction, yet trying to understand how he got off course.
Cheney Has Lost It? Gone Into Hiding?
Sounds like Cheney is more unstable than Nixon.
Hope he didn't take the nuclear codes with him.
And this could be total BS.
Reports-Cheney in Hiding, Concerned for Own Safety AfterDowningStreet.org:
Reports-Cheney in Hiding, Concerned for Own Safety
Submitted by joemartin on Mon, 2007-07-02 04:09. Discussion
The following link is a report which states Dick Cheney was in hiding to avoid service of process, especially from Ambassador Leo Wanta's writ of mandamus over the trillions of alleged misappropriated U.S. funds of which up to two trillion dollars may be operated offshore by Cheney. Also states Cheney is concerned for his own safety.
YOU'D BETTER READ THIS ONE.!!!!! http://www.worldreports.org/news/66_cheney_hides_out_as
Seems some of this a bit tin-foil hat for us.
But, Jeebus, who can tell anymore?
New NSA Whistleblower Speaks
If this doesn't get Bush's and Cheney's asses impeached, jailed or whatever, nothing will.
This program was nothing short of a criminal act to begin with.
We are about to get an earful of how it was criminally misused, if this is any example of what this woman has to say.
OMG!
New NSA Whistleblower Speaks | AfterDowningStreet.org:
By David Swanson
A former member of U.S. military intelligence has decided to reveal what she knows about warrantless spying on Americans and about the fixing of intelligence in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq.
Adrienne Kinne describes an incident just prior to the invasion of Iraq in which a fax came into her office at Fort Gordon in Georgia that purported to provide information on the location of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The fax came from the Iraqi National Congress, a group opposed to Saddam Hussein and favoring an invasion. The fax contained types of information that required that it be translated and transmitted to President Bush within 15 minutes. But Kinne had been eavesdropping on two nongovernmental aid workers driving in Iraq who were panicked and trying to find safety before the bombs dropped. She focused on trying to protect them, and was reprimanded for the delay in translating the fax. She then challenged her officer in charge, Warrant Officer John Berry, on the credibility of the fax, and he told her that it was not her place or his to challenge such things. None of the other 20 or so people in the unit questioned anything, Kinne said.
This program was nothing short of a criminal act to begin with.
We are about to get an earful of how it was criminally misused, if this is any example of what this woman has to say.
OMG!
New NSA Whistleblower Speaks | AfterDowningStreet.org:
By David Swanson
A former member of U.S. military intelligence has decided to reveal what she knows about warrantless spying on Americans and about the fixing of intelligence in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq.
Adrienne Kinne describes an incident just prior to the invasion of Iraq in which a fax came into her office at Fort Gordon in Georgia that purported to provide information on the location of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The fax came from the Iraqi National Congress, a group opposed to Saddam Hussein and favoring an invasion. The fax contained types of information that required that it be translated and transmitted to President Bush within 15 minutes. But Kinne had been eavesdropping on two nongovernmental aid workers driving in Iraq who were panicked and trying to find safety before the bombs dropped. She focused on trying to protect them, and was reprimanded for the delay in translating the fax. She then challenged her officer in charge, Warrant Officer John Berry, on the credibility of the fax, and he told her that it was not her place or his to challenge such things. None of the other 20 or so people in the unit questioned anything, Kinne said.
George W. Bush: Heaven's Crackpot
That's the whole point of their shtick, P.M.
The vast majority of them are scared witless. That's why they want to scare the hell out of all of us and will do just about anything to increase the numbers of their own "tribe," as they see it. They are modern-day tribalists of a very dangerous variety
Can you imagine how hard it is in the 21st century, to continue to believe in the "absolute truth" of myth and morality plays, when read and understood literally?
The whole secular world threatens these people.
Not only that, but people who find truth in myth, but who do not read myth as literal truth, scare them even worse, because they can't deal with them as easily, by accusing them of hedonism and a whole lot of other crap they can hurl at secularists, not because it's true, but they have examples they can point to for everyone to see.
P.M. they mean to scare the hell out of you, because they are frightened witless by the hell in them.
p m carpenter's commentary: George W. Bush: Heaven's Crackpot:
The supremely pious, the religiously devout, the theologically assured -- the whole lot scares the bejesus out of me. They have cosmic sponsorship, or so they believe, meaning they comprehend universal Truth and therefore possess universal Answers; meaning, in short, they can do no wrong -- meaning even their most naked buffooneries have celestial sanction.
He of supreme piety is reported to be searching for early hints into the judgment of history on his Earthly reign, and the above -- that of supremely self-confident buffoonery -- will, I believe, be the nut of it.
What Tenet Knew: Unanswered Questions - CommonDreams.org
Horse feathers!
What Tenet Knew: Unanswered Questions - CommonDreams.org:
"This essay, which considers At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by George Tenet with Bill Harlow (HarperCollins, 549 pp., $30.00) appears in the July 19th, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books and is posted here with the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.
How we got into Iraq is the great open question of the decade but George Tenet in his memoir of his seven years running the Central Intelligence Agency takes his sweet time working his way around to it. He hesitates because he has much to explain: the claims made by Tenet’s CIA with “high confidence” that Iraq was dangerously armed all proved false. But mistakes are one thing, excusable even when serious; inexcusable would be charges of collusion in deceiving Congress and the public to make war possible. Tenet’s overriding goal in his carefully written book is to deny “that we somehow cooked the books” about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. If he says it once he says it a dozen times. “We told the president what we did on Iraq WMD because we believed it.”
What Tenet Knew: Unanswered Questions - CommonDreams.org:
"This essay, which considers At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA by George Tenet with Bill Harlow (HarperCollins, 549 pp., $30.00) appears in the July 19th, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books and is posted here with the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.
How we got into Iraq is the great open question of the decade but George Tenet in his memoir of his seven years running the Central Intelligence Agency takes his sweet time working his way around to it. He hesitates because he has much to explain: the claims made by Tenet’s CIA with “high confidence” that Iraq was dangerously armed all proved false. But mistakes are one thing, excusable even when serious; inexcusable would be charges of collusion in deceiving Congress and the public to make war possible. Tenet’s overriding goal in his carefully written book is to deny “that we somehow cooked the books” about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. If he says it once he says it a dozen times. “We told the president what we did on Iraq WMD because we believed it.”
When Is Enough Enough?
That's the truth.
Enough is enough.
By this time it is more than enough. We are all gagging on it.
When Is Enough Enough? - CommonDreams.org: "Chances are you didn’t hear it, but on Thursday night Senator Hillary Clinton said, “If H.I.V./AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”
Her comment came on the same day that a malevolent majority on the U.S. Supreme Court threw a brick through the window of voluntary school integration efforts.
There comes a time when people are supposed to get angry. The rights and interests of black people in the U.S. have been under assault for the longest time, and in the absence of an effective counterforce, that assault has only grown more brutal.
Enough is enough.
By this time it is more than enough. We are all gagging on it.
When Is Enough Enough? - CommonDreams.org: "Chances are you didn’t hear it, but on Thursday night Senator Hillary Clinton said, “If H.I.V./AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”
Her comment came on the same day that a malevolent majority on the U.S. Supreme Court threw a brick through the window of voluntary school integration efforts.
There comes a time when people are supposed to get angry. The rights and interests of black people in the U.S. have been under assault for the longest time, and in the absence of an effective counterforce, that assault has only grown more brutal.
Undercover, Under Fire
If cops can lie to people they suspect of having committed a crime, why can't journalists?
Undercover, Under Fire - CommonDreams.org:
Earlier this year, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city’s most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country’s image.
I didn’t mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn’t care. As I explained in this month’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly “independent” media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little....
Undercover, Under Fire - CommonDreams.org:
Earlier this year, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city’s most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country’s image.
I didn’t mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn’t care. As I explained in this month’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly “independent” media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little....
Another World Is Possible; Another USA is Necessary
Damn good article......
Another World Is Possible; Another USA is Necessary - CommonDreams.org:
ATLANTA — The political discussion in the United States is, for the most part, disappointing — not merely because it is too ideologically and intellectually narrow but also because it is too backward in focus.
Instead of imagining what might be, contemporary politicians spend most of their time talking, at best, about treating existing wounds to the body politic and, at worst, about “threats” that no longer exist. In the former category, place all the Democratic and Republican politicians who promise a “new direction” with regard to the Iraq quagmire but never get around to rejecting the neo-conservative — or more precisely, neo-colonial — policies that got us into the mess in the first place. In the latter category, place all the partisans who suggest that the problem with our health-care system is too much government involvement — which is a little like claiming that the problem with a headache is too much aspirin.
At a certain point, you just want to say: “Get over it! At a point when only one in five Americans think the country is headed in the right direction, isn’t it time we changed course?”
Bush and Cheney Go Down the Nixon Slide - CommonDreams.org
I hate to be such a downer this morning, but I hope that Mr. Conyers and others realize that the chance are good, we ain't seen nothing yet.
This is going to get worse. I feel it in my bones.
Bush and Cheney Go Down the Nixon Slide - CommonDreams.org:
Bush has decided not to comply with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees’ subpoenas for documents dealing with the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
And he’s likely to do the same over subpoenas on Cheney’s and Gonzales’s role in the NSA spying scandal.
Bush invoked “executive privilege.”
That’s got a vague ring to it, doesn’t it?
Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary, called it “Nixonian stonewalling,” and said, “Increasingly, the President and the Vice President feel they are above the law.”
John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, added: “This is reckless. It’s a form of governmental lawlessness that is really astounding.”
This is going to get worse. I feel it in my bones.
Bush and Cheney Go Down the Nixon Slide - CommonDreams.org:
Bush has decided not to comply with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees’ subpoenas for documents dealing with the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
And he’s likely to do the same over subpoenas on Cheney’s and Gonzales’s role in the NSA spying scandal.
Bush invoked “executive privilege.”
That’s got a vague ring to it, doesn’t it?
Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary, called it “Nixonian stonewalling,” and said, “Increasingly, the President and the Vice President feel they are above the law.”
John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, added: “This is reckless. It’s a form of governmental lawlessness that is really astounding.”
Secret Cheney Can’t Hide
A year or so ago, I was talking to a friend about impeachment of the president. I had just said, "Damn, I can come up with 4 articles of impeachment right now, and I'm sure as hell no Constitutional lawyer!"
She said, "how does "President Cheney" sound to you?
I just roared with laughter. Best laugh I had had in a week.
"You can't be serious, I said, "Dick Cheney cannot function in the light, let alone the harsh glare of the TV lights, anymore than Count Dracula could."
Hell, he's already the president in any way that truly matters, I went on, "it's time to drag Dracula out into the light of day. "
Well, leave to the Dick, himself, to make life even easier for us. He just couldn't stop pushing that old envelope until even the MSM had to report that the guy must really must be delusional because what he is asserting is just out-there, whack, goof-ball land.
Hey, it's time to call the guys in the white coats, as the old saying went. Dick Cheney believes he is, at least, a new branch of government, over which no one has any oversight whatsoever, or he has just declared himself a new planet in the solar system.
Either way, it's time for him to go.
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful every day...
Just as soon as the shrinks finds the right drug cocktail.
Secret Cheney Can’t Hide - CommonDreams.org:
Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t part of the executive branch? Next, Prince William will claim that he isn’t a member of the royal family.
Yes, Mr. Cheney’s antics can be good for a laugh. Before his office dropped the ridiculous claim, Democrats, pretending to take him at his word, winked and said they’d remove financing for the veep’s office from the executive-branch budget.
In that case, the vice president’s self-evident contradiction was silly. But as revealed last week in a Washington Post series, the vice president’s inability to recognize contradictions can be tragic and disastrous. The basic contradiction is this: With pathological secrecy, Mr. Cheney pursues his law-bending (at best) activities in the name of making America and the world safer. The effect has been the opposite.
She said, "how does "President Cheney" sound to you?
I just roared with laughter. Best laugh I had had in a week.
"You can't be serious, I said, "Dick Cheney cannot function in the light, let alone the harsh glare of the TV lights, anymore than Count Dracula could."
Hell, he's already the president in any way that truly matters, I went on, "it's time to drag Dracula out into the light of day. "
Well, leave to the Dick, himself, to make life even easier for us. He just couldn't stop pushing that old envelope until even the MSM had to report that the guy must really must be delusional because what he is asserting is just out-there, whack, goof-ball land.
Hey, it's time to call the guys in the white coats, as the old saying went. Dick Cheney believes he is, at least, a new branch of government, over which no one has any oversight whatsoever, or he has just declared himself a new planet in the solar system.
Either way, it's time for him to go.
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful every day...
Just as soon as the shrinks finds the right drug cocktail.
Secret Cheney Can’t Hide - CommonDreams.org:
Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t part of the executive branch? Next, Prince William will claim that he isn’t a member of the royal family.
Yes, Mr. Cheney’s antics can be good for a laugh. Before his office dropped the ridiculous claim, Democrats, pretending to take him at his word, winked and said they’d remove financing for the veep’s office from the executive-branch budget.
In that case, the vice president’s self-evident contradiction was silly. But as revealed last week in a Washington Post series, the vice president’s inability to recognize contradictions can be tragic and disastrous. The basic contradiction is this: With pathological secrecy, Mr. Cheney pursues his law-bending (at best) activities in the name of making America and the world safer. The effect has been the opposite.
‘It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government ‘ - CommonDreams.org
It is indeed!
So, when do we start?
‘It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government ‘ - CommonDreams.org:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
So, when do we start?
‘It is Their Right, It is Their Duty, To Throw Off Such Government ‘ - CommonDreams.org:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Put Away the Flags
Agreed!
But if there is someone out there who just simply has to fly our flag somewhere, fly it upside down; the international symbol for a ship in distress.
Our ship of state is certainly that, if not in out-right peril!
Put Away the Flags - CommonDreams.org:
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking — cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on — have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours — huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction — what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization.
But if there is someone out there who just simply has to fly our flag somewhere, fly it upside down; the international symbol for a ship in distress.
Our ship of state is certainly that, if not in out-right peril!
Put Away the Flags - CommonDreams.org:
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking — cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on — have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours — huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction — what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization.
Eyes for Eyes, Teeth for Teeth and Life for Life...No Wonder Everyone is Blind, Angry and Can't Communicate
AMEN!
Eyes for Eyes, Teeth for Teeth and Life for Life...No Wonder Everyone is Blind, Angry and Can't Communicate:
One of the less great 'thus sayeth the Lord' moments in the Bible was the imposition of the very well know principle of 'an eye for an eye and and a tooth for a tooth.' I understand that an apologist can say it just means that people should be paid restitution for losses, but in practice, Governments and many chosen people, practice the literal translation.
I assume that also went on to mean to those who know the deeper meanings of such things that it could also mean, 'a leg for a leg', 'a spine for a spine,' and 'a skull for a skull.' While God claimed the exclusive right to vengeance in the Old Testament (Psalms 94:1 O Lord, the God who avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth.' and in the New Testament, (Romans 12:19 'Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord,)
The Israelites pretty much did the work for Him, and many Christians who evolved to make up the Church of history did a darn nice job of inflicting God's wrath upon both the believer who believed the wrong thing and unbeliever who needed to be pursuaded.
How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush
Here's a thought!
How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush:
The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.
It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is 'plenty' to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.
But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are 'the people' to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries
Reading the Tea Leaves
Economic tea leaves, that is....and it ain't pretty, Folks.
Reading the Tea Leaves:
Hi, Chicken Little here again. But relax. The sky isn't falling -- but it appears to be fixin' to. What makes me think so? Well that commie rag, The Wall Street Journal told me so. How so?
Take Thursdays edition. I cut out headlines from stories in just that one edition. Here they are."
Reading the Tea Leaves:
Hi, Chicken Little here again. But relax. The sky isn't falling -- but it appears to be fixin' to. What makes me think so? Well that commie rag, The Wall Street Journal told me so. How so?
Take Thursdays edition. I cut out headlines from stories in just that one edition. Here they are."
26-year Vet and JAG Speaks Out of Guantanamo
GUANTANAMO
A military insider speaks out
BY JAMES ROSS
www.hrw.org
It's not every day that a 26-year veteran in U.S. military intelligence puts his career on the line by publicly criticizing a high-profile operation. But Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, an Army reservist and lawyer, did just that last week in a Supreme Court affidavit that challenges the court's refusal to hear the claims of Guantánamo Bay detainees.
Abraham spent six months in 2004-2005 as a panelist on the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs, at Guantánamo, which were created to determine whether individual detainees were ''enemy combatants.'' His statement, claiming that determinations were based on outdated, generic intelligence that was rarely case specific, captures the extent to which the Bush administration has been willing to ignore if not manipulate the facts in pursuing the ''global war on terror'' -- even if it undermines those very efforts.
The CSRTs are not a requirement of the Geneva Conventions or a long-standing U.S. military practice. They were concocted by the Defense Department nine days after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that Guantánamo detainees had the right to challenge the grounds for their detention in court through habeas corpus, the time-hallowed Great Writ that protects against unlawful and indefinite detention.
To date three-member military tribunals at Guantánamo have processed the cases of 572 detainees. Only 38 were found not to be enemy combatants. Unlike habeas proceeding, where the burden is on the government to show that the detention is lawful, the CSRTs required the detainee prove he was not an enemy combatant. And the CSRT rules prohibited the detainee from having the assistance of a lawyer or seeing most of the evidence against him.
But it turns out that the military panelists had not much more access to the evidence than did the detainees. Abraham says his repeated requests for information that would shed light on specific cases were routinely rejected. ''What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence,'' he stated.
Criticism of the CSRT process is not new. In January 2005, a federal judge found that CRST rules were so unfair as to deny detainees any real opportunity to challenge their detention. And declassified transcripts of CRST proceedings released to the media are frequently unpersuasive in showing the detainee's combatant status. But Abraham's remarks are especially damning because they come from an experienced CSRT insider. The administration has repeatedly claimed that it had the goods on the Guantánamo detainees but that it needed the information to stay classified -- we now know that the secret evidence may have been secret simply because it didn't exist.
It's now clearer than ever that the Pentagon used the CSRTs to paint a veneer of legality over a largely predetermined decision. If this isn't troubling to the Bush administration, it should be to the American public. Not only are people being held for years unjustly, but the military's efforts and resources are being misdirected from those who really have the intention and means of doing the country harm. Adding these dubious panels to the Guantánamo mix of indefinite detention, abusive interrogations and unfair military commissions, and it's not hard to understand why the U.S. has received less than full support from its allies in the fight against terrorism.
Instead of trying to fix a CSRT process that is fundamentally flawed, the federal courts should be hearing the detainees' habeas petitions. But a ''court stripping'' statute blocks the way. Under the Military Commissions Act rushed through Congress last fall, the courts are prevented from reviewing habeas petitions brought by Guantánamo detainees or other nonnationals held abroad. By tampering with a fundamental right that dates back to the Magna Carta, the act threatens the protections against unlawful detention to which we are all entitled.
Several bipartisan measures are now before Congress that in one form or another would restore habeas to the Guantánamo detainees. That is important and necessary. But the Bush administration need not wait for a new law to be enacted. Abraham showed forthrightness and courage by publicly raising his concerns about the CSRT process at Guantánamo -- perhaps at the expense of his distinguished army career. The administration could show similar fortitude and take steps now, rather than later, to restore an independent check on detentions and ensure that the United States is no longer holding anyone outside the pale of law.
James Ross is legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
A military insider speaks out
BY JAMES ROSS
www.hrw.org
It's not every day that a 26-year veteran in U.S. military intelligence puts his career on the line by publicly criticizing a high-profile operation. But Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, an Army reservist and lawyer, did just that last week in a Supreme Court affidavit that challenges the court's refusal to hear the claims of Guantánamo Bay detainees.
Abraham spent six months in 2004-2005 as a panelist on the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs, at Guantánamo, which were created to determine whether individual detainees were ''enemy combatants.'' His statement, claiming that determinations were based on outdated, generic intelligence that was rarely case specific, captures the extent to which the Bush administration has been willing to ignore if not manipulate the facts in pursuing the ''global war on terror'' -- even if it undermines those very efforts.
The CSRTs are not a requirement of the Geneva Conventions or a long-standing U.S. military practice. They were concocted by the Defense Department nine days after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that Guantánamo detainees had the right to challenge the grounds for their detention in court through habeas corpus, the time-hallowed Great Writ that protects against unlawful and indefinite detention.
To date three-member military tribunals at Guantánamo have processed the cases of 572 detainees. Only 38 were found not to be enemy combatants. Unlike habeas proceeding, where the burden is on the government to show that the detention is lawful, the CSRTs required the detainee prove he was not an enemy combatant. And the CSRT rules prohibited the detainee from having the assistance of a lawyer or seeing most of the evidence against him.
But it turns out that the military panelists had not much more access to the evidence than did the detainees. Abraham says his repeated requests for information that would shed light on specific cases were routinely rejected. ''What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence,'' he stated.
Criticism of the CSRT process is not new. In January 2005, a federal judge found that CRST rules were so unfair as to deny detainees any real opportunity to challenge their detention. And declassified transcripts of CRST proceedings released to the media are frequently unpersuasive in showing the detainee's combatant status. But Abraham's remarks are especially damning because they come from an experienced CSRT insider. The administration has repeatedly claimed that it had the goods on the Guantánamo detainees but that it needed the information to stay classified -- we now know that the secret evidence may have been secret simply because it didn't exist.
It's now clearer than ever that the Pentagon used the CSRTs to paint a veneer of legality over a largely predetermined decision. If this isn't troubling to the Bush administration, it should be to the American public. Not only are people being held for years unjustly, but the military's efforts and resources are being misdirected from those who really have the intention and means of doing the country harm. Adding these dubious panels to the Guantánamo mix of indefinite detention, abusive interrogations and unfair military commissions, and it's not hard to understand why the U.S. has received less than full support from its allies in the fight against terrorism.
Instead of trying to fix a CSRT process that is fundamentally flawed, the federal courts should be hearing the detainees' habeas petitions. But a ''court stripping'' statute blocks the way. Under the Military Commissions Act rushed through Congress last fall, the courts are prevented from reviewing habeas petitions brought by Guantánamo detainees or other nonnationals held abroad. By tampering with a fundamental right that dates back to the Magna Carta, the act threatens the protections against unlawful detention to which we are all entitled.
Several bipartisan measures are now before Congress that in one form or another would restore habeas to the Guantánamo detainees. That is important and necessary. But the Bush administration need not wait for a new law to be enacted. Abraham showed forthrightness and courage by publicly raising his concerns about the CSRT process at Guantánamo -- perhaps at the expense of his distinguished army career. The administration could show similar fortitude and take steps now, rather than later, to restore an independent check on detentions and ensure that the United States is no longer holding anyone outside the pale of law.
James Ross is legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Massive Effort by GOP to Supress Voter Turn-out from 2004 to 2006
Out of all the many Gooper sins and crimes, this one makes me the angriest.
After all we went through to assure the right to vote for every American, especially African Americans in the deep south in the 60s, now the GOP is trying everything in their power to re-create barriers to voting for minorities, ethnic groups and poor people, who are likely to vote Democractic.
I guess this really says about all that needs to be said about a political party, any political party, when they feel the need to attempt to supress the vote in order to win.
If a voter ID is going to be required for every voter, then the state or federal government government should supply one, free of charge, other wise, the cost of the ID is nothing but a poll tax and we have already had that fight. The state cannot make anyone pay to vote.
Furthermore, states should not be allowed to continue to punish someone who is convicted of a felony and who has completed his/her sentence in accordance with whatever the court has ordered him/her to do. Ex-felons should not be deprived of the right to vote in any state of the union. That, alone, will stop a lot of these voter roll scrubbing scams, like the one used in Florida in 2000.
Sorry, but I just can't believe that there is such a huge number of dead people voting that it would change the outcome of a national election. The very idea is ludicrous.
And why, pray tell, should any political party have access to official state ducuments, like voter registration rolls is the first place? What possible good can come of it? We don't have to try to imagine the bad that can come of it, as the Goopers have managed to make it pretty clear what election skulduggery can come of it.
I think my head might just explode!
U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS
GOP links to vote-fraud push
Two nonprofits had a major role in Republican electoral strategy that included lobbying U.S. attorneys over alleged fraud in voter rolls.
By GREG GORDON
ggordon@mcclatchydc.com
WASHINGTON -- A New Mexico lawyer who pushed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.
Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed.
Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.
He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as ``obsessed . . . convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it.''
Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the nonprofit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund -- an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.
Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.
That strategy, which presidential advisor Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.
THREE FRONTS
McClatchy has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:
• Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and the Lawyers Association were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.
• The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.
• The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.
Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.
ALLEGED `HOT SPOTS'
Public records show that the two nonprofits were active in at least nine states. They hired high-priced lawyers to write court briefs, issued news releases declaring key cities ''hot spots'' for voter fraud and hired lobbyists in Missouri and Pennsylvania to win support for photo ID laws. In each of those states, the center released polls that it claimed found that minorities prefer tougher ID laws.
With $1.5 million in combined funding, the two nonprofits attracted some powerful volunteers and a cadre of GOP-allied attorneys.
Of the 15 individuals affiliated with the two groups, at least seven are members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, and half a dozen have worked for either one Bush election campaign or for the Republican National Committee.
Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm was paid $75,000 for several months' service as the center's executive director, said the funding came from private donors, not from the Republican Party.
One target of the American Center was the liberal-leaning voter registration group called Project Vote, which registered 1.5 million voters in 2004 and 2006.
The center trumpeted allegations that Project Vote's main contractor, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), submitted phony registration forms to boost Democratic voting.
In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such actions close to an election.
Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.
''Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem,'' said Michael Slater, the deputy director of Project Vote. ``And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients.''
Mark ''Thor'' Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations. Vogel described him as ``clearly the one in charge.''
Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they are former clients.
PHOTO ID DEFENSE
But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs.
''Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort,'' Hearne said.
Hearne called photo IDs ``an important voice in election reform.''
Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.
As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page ''investigative report'' on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing ``substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing.''
So far, no charges have been filed.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
After all we went through to assure the right to vote for every American, especially African Americans in the deep south in the 60s, now the GOP is trying everything in their power to re-create barriers to voting for minorities, ethnic groups and poor people, who are likely to vote Democractic.
I guess this really says about all that needs to be said about a political party, any political party, when they feel the need to attempt to supress the vote in order to win.
If a voter ID is going to be required for every voter, then the state or federal government government should supply one, free of charge, other wise, the cost of the ID is nothing but a poll tax and we have already had that fight. The state cannot make anyone pay to vote.
Furthermore, states should not be allowed to continue to punish someone who is convicted of a felony and who has completed his/her sentence in accordance with whatever the court has ordered him/her to do. Ex-felons should not be deprived of the right to vote in any state of the union. That, alone, will stop a lot of these voter roll scrubbing scams, like the one used in Florida in 2000.
Sorry, but I just can't believe that there is such a huge number of dead people voting that it would change the outcome of a national election. The very idea is ludicrous.
And why, pray tell, should any political party have access to official state ducuments, like voter registration rolls is the first place? What possible good can come of it? We don't have to try to imagine the bad that can come of it, as the Goopers have managed to make it pretty clear what election skulduggery can come of it.
I think my head might just explode!
U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS
GOP links to vote-fraud push
Two nonprofits had a major role in Republican electoral strategy that included lobbying U.S. attorneys over alleged fraud in voter rolls.
By GREG GORDON
ggordon@mcclatchydc.com
WASHINGTON -- A New Mexico lawyer who pushed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.
Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed.
Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.
He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as ``obsessed . . . convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it.''
Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the nonprofit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund -- an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.
Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.
That strategy, which presidential advisor Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.
THREE FRONTS
McClatchy has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:
• Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and the Lawyers Association were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.
• The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.
• The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.
Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.
ALLEGED `HOT SPOTS'
Public records show that the two nonprofits were active in at least nine states. They hired high-priced lawyers to write court briefs, issued news releases declaring key cities ''hot spots'' for voter fraud and hired lobbyists in Missouri and Pennsylvania to win support for photo ID laws. In each of those states, the center released polls that it claimed found that minorities prefer tougher ID laws.
With $1.5 million in combined funding, the two nonprofits attracted some powerful volunteers and a cadre of GOP-allied attorneys.
Of the 15 individuals affiliated with the two groups, at least seven are members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, and half a dozen have worked for either one Bush election campaign or for the Republican National Committee.
Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm was paid $75,000 for several months' service as the center's executive director, said the funding came from private donors, not from the Republican Party.
One target of the American Center was the liberal-leaning voter registration group called Project Vote, which registered 1.5 million voters in 2004 and 2006.
The center trumpeted allegations that Project Vote's main contractor, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), submitted phony registration forms to boost Democratic voting.
In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such actions close to an election.
Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.
''Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem,'' said Michael Slater, the deputy director of Project Vote. ``And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients.''
Mark ''Thor'' Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations. Vogel described him as ``clearly the one in charge.''
Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they are former clients.
PHOTO ID DEFENSE
But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs.
''Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort,'' Hearne said.
Hearne called photo IDs ``an important voice in election reform.''
Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.
As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page ''investigative report'' on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing ``substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing.''
So far, no charges have been filed.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Beyond Kyoto
Op-Ed Contributor
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville
WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.
On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”
Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)
But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.
Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.
To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.
We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.
But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville
WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.
On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”
Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)
But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.
Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.
To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.
We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.
But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Bush is to Churchill as I Am To A Physicist
How foolish is this obsession Junior has for old Winston?
How does the term "Islamofascist" add up with the reality of facsim, as defined by its founder, old Benito?
Where, in Osama's game (if it is his game), are the corporatists, who are necessary for fascism to take hold? Who are they? Exxon Mobile, Shell, the military-industrial-security complex in general? Who the hell are the corporate heads who are supporting Osama and his gang of dunderheads?
It isn't difficult, in the least, to pick out the ones who are supporting Bush and Cheney.
Wouldn't it be wild if the ones supporting BuCheney are the same ones who are supporting Osama?
Actually, we wouldn't find it all that surprising.
Another "intelligence" failure
I doubt journalist-historian Lynne Olson will be getting any more congratulatory notes from Karl Rove, who, in a moment of characteristic disorientation, recently praised her for her book, "Troublesome Young Men."
The book is a history of those rugged conservative members of British parliament who, in 1940, ousted the appeasing Neville Chamberlain and elevated the belligerent Winston Churchill to the prime ministership, recognizing, as did Mr. Churchill, the unappeasability of the Nazi regime.
But in reading it (as George Bush, reportedly, is doing now), Mr. Rove stumbled on a bit of a misinterpretation: He seemed to think Ms. Olson's book implicitly compared today's plucky band of Islamofascist fighters to the British antifascist stalwarts of the 1930s, and thus, Mr. Bush to Mr. Churchill.
Whoops. For Ms. Olson, in this morning's Washington Post, has clarified things for Mr. Rove, who, I believe, reads newspapers, and who, it would be my guess, immediately raced into the presidential study to order George to put the scurrilous book down. For Ms. Olson, in her clarification, pointed out that if there's any comparison to be made, it is between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.
What I can't imagine is the degree of sickly whiteness that surely pervaded Mr. Rove's face as he read the article. It was devastating, even deliciously cruel, in its corrective drift. Clinically, surgically, methodically she dismantled any legitimate Churchillian claim laid by the Bushies and the chief Bushie himself -- Mr. Bush.
Mr. Churchill, she proffered, "would snort ... at the administration's equation of 'Islamofascism,' an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940." In addition, she quotes a prime ministerial insider of the era as observing that "The key word in any understanding of Winston Churchill is the simple word 'Liberty.' He intensely disliked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion."
On the other hand, Mr. Chamberlain was merely a ghastly preview of what would come transatlantically 60 years later. He was vastly inexperienced in world affairs, narrow-minded, isolated, naive, unilateralist in temperament, authoritarian and dogmatic, and contemptuous of "subordinate" legislative opinion. Furthermore, "Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest."
The ultimately disgraced prime minister also regarded civil liberties as a casual nicety to be toyed with at independent will -- "Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization," Churchill being one of them -- and generally regarded himself as the final word, judge and arbiter of all, as he inched closer and closer to the enemy's temperament that he claimed to despise.
Until Mr. Bush's rise to inept power, Neville Chamberlain, I believe it can be safely put, occupied the top pedestal in the pantheon of ungodly boobs. But move over, Neville. You've some fierce competition -- and it's so dumb it doesn't even see the likeness.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
How does the term "Islamofascist" add up with the reality of facsim, as defined by its founder, old Benito?
Where, in Osama's game (if it is his game), are the corporatists, who are necessary for fascism to take hold? Who are they? Exxon Mobile, Shell, the military-industrial-security complex in general? Who the hell are the corporate heads who are supporting Osama and his gang of dunderheads?
It isn't difficult, in the least, to pick out the ones who are supporting Bush and Cheney.
Wouldn't it be wild if the ones supporting BuCheney are the same ones who are supporting Osama?
Actually, we wouldn't find it all that surprising.
Another "intelligence" failure
I doubt journalist-historian Lynne Olson will be getting any more congratulatory notes from Karl Rove, who, in a moment of characteristic disorientation, recently praised her for her book, "Troublesome Young Men."
The book is a history of those rugged conservative members of British parliament who, in 1940, ousted the appeasing Neville Chamberlain and elevated the belligerent Winston Churchill to the prime ministership, recognizing, as did Mr. Churchill, the unappeasability of the Nazi regime.
But in reading it (as George Bush, reportedly, is doing now), Mr. Rove stumbled on a bit of a misinterpretation: He seemed to think Ms. Olson's book implicitly compared today's plucky band of Islamofascist fighters to the British antifascist stalwarts of the 1930s, and thus, Mr. Bush to Mr. Churchill.
Whoops. For Ms. Olson, in this morning's Washington Post, has clarified things for Mr. Rove, who, I believe, reads newspapers, and who, it would be my guess, immediately raced into the presidential study to order George to put the scurrilous book down. For Ms. Olson, in her clarification, pointed out that if there's any comparison to be made, it is between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.
What I can't imagine is the degree of sickly whiteness that surely pervaded Mr. Rove's face as he read the article. It was devastating, even deliciously cruel, in its corrective drift. Clinically, surgically, methodically she dismantled any legitimate Churchillian claim laid by the Bushies and the chief Bushie himself -- Mr. Bush.
Mr. Churchill, she proffered, "would snort ... at the administration's equation of 'Islamofascism,' an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940." In addition, she quotes a prime ministerial insider of the era as observing that "The key word in any understanding of Winston Churchill is the simple word 'Liberty.' He intensely disliked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion."
On the other hand, Mr. Chamberlain was merely a ghastly preview of what would come transatlantically 60 years later. He was vastly inexperienced in world affairs, narrow-minded, isolated, naive, unilateralist in temperament, authoritarian and dogmatic, and contemptuous of "subordinate" legislative opinion. Furthermore, "Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest."
The ultimately disgraced prime minister also regarded civil liberties as a casual nicety to be toyed with at independent will -- "Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization," Churchill being one of them -- and generally regarded himself as the final word, judge and arbiter of all, as he inched closer and closer to the enemy's temperament that he claimed to despise.
Until Mr. Bush's rise to inept power, Neville Chamberlain, I believe it can be safely put, occupied the top pedestal in the pantheon of ungodly boobs. But move over, Neville. You've some fierce competition -- and it's so dumb it doesn't even see the likeness.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Are The Democrats Really Ready To Get Serious?
We hope so because, right now, they are all we have.
However, if they aren't going to get serious about the crimes of this White House, they can probably expect the same destruction as the GOP faces, just a little later.
Leahy confronts White House on subpoenas
By HOPE YEN,
Associated Press Writer
The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resisted subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.
"If they don't cooperate, yes I'll go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked in a broadcast interview whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.
"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line is in the U.S. attorney investigation, we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."
At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.
Separately, the Senate has subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office for documents related to the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on people in the United States.
Legal experts have been somewhat divided over the scope of a president's power to shield information and ensure candid advice from top aides. The dispute, if it does head to court, could take months and ultimately outlast the remaining term of Bush's presidency, which ends in January 2009.
Last week, White House counsel Fred Fielding said Bush was claiming executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents. Bush also was invoking the privilege to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former political director, from testifying publicly under oath.
The White House has urged the House and Senate Judiciary committees to withdraw the subpoenas and accept Bush's offer to provide information in private briefings with lawmakers without a transcript.
Over the years, Congress and the White House have avoided a full-blown court test. Under federal law, lawmakers could vote to cite witnesses for contempt and refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney to bring before a grand jury. Since 1975, 10 senior administration officials have been cited, but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court.
On Sunday, Leahy dismissed the White House's proposal for private briefings because, he said, it forecloses Congress' right to subpoena additional information should officials fail to provide meaningful information.
Leahy said he might be open to an offer in which White House officials were to agree to private briefings that were both sworn and committed to a transcript. But ultimately, the public have a right to hear what's been done, he said.
Leahy's committee also has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify this month on the eavesdropping program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.
"The president and vice president are not above the law anymore than you and I are," Leahy said.
Leahy spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
However, if they aren't going to get serious about the crimes of this White House, they can probably expect the same destruction as the GOP faces, just a little later.
Leahy confronts White House on subpoenas
By HOPE YEN,
Associated Press Writer
The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resisted subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.
"If they don't cooperate, yes I'll go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked in a broadcast interview whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.
"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line is in the U.S. attorney investigation, we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."
At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.
Separately, the Senate has subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office for documents related to the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on people in the United States.
Legal experts have been somewhat divided over the scope of a president's power to shield information and ensure candid advice from top aides. The dispute, if it does head to court, could take months and ultimately outlast the remaining term of Bush's presidency, which ends in January 2009.
Last week, White House counsel Fred Fielding said Bush was claiming executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents. Bush also was invoking the privilege to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former political director, from testifying publicly under oath.
The White House has urged the House and Senate Judiciary committees to withdraw the subpoenas and accept Bush's offer to provide information in private briefings with lawmakers without a transcript.
Over the years, Congress and the White House have avoided a full-blown court test. Under federal law, lawmakers could vote to cite witnesses for contempt and refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney to bring before a grand jury. Since 1975, 10 senior administration officials have been cited, but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court.
On Sunday, Leahy dismissed the White House's proposal for private briefings because, he said, it forecloses Congress' right to subpoena additional information should officials fail to provide meaningful information.
Leahy said he might be open to an offer in which White House officials were to agree to private briefings that were both sworn and committed to a transcript. But ultimately, the public have a right to hear what's been done, he said.
Leahy's committee also has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify this month on the eavesdropping program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.
"The president and vice president are not above the law anymore than you and I are," Leahy said.
Leahy spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Executive Privilege Doesn't Fly When A Crime has Been Committed
And there have been many, many crimes committed by this administration, not the least of which is warrentless wiretapping.
Abuse of Executive Privilege
The New York Times Editorial
Sunday 01 July 2007
After six years of kowtowing to the White House, Congress is finally challenging President Bush's campaign to trample all legal and constitutional restraints on his power.
Congressional committees have issued subpoenas for documents and witnesses in two major cases and have asked for the first - and likely not the last - criminal investigation of an executive branch official who might have lied to Congress.
Predictably, the White House is claiming executive privilege and refusing to cooperate with the legitimate Congressional investigations, one springing from Mr. Bush's decision to spy on Americans without a warrant and the other from the purge of United States attorneys.
The courts have recognized a president's limited right to keep the White House's internal deliberations private. But it is far from an absolute right, and Mr. Bush's claim of executive privilege in the attorneys scandal is especially ludicrous. The White House has said repeatedly that Mr. Bush was not involved in the firings of nine United States attorneys. If that's true, he can hardly argue that he has the right to conceal conversations and e-mail exchanges that his aides had with one another and the Justice Department.
When the White House refused last week to even account for the documents it was withholding and why, as presidents generally have done in these cases, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, rightly denounced this arrogance as "Nixonian stonewalling." He pointed out that every president since World War II has at some point complied with Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony by members of the White House staff or other presidential advisers.
Mr. Bush's claim of executive privilege may be somewhat stronger on the spying program, since he personally issued the order to start the wiretapping. But executive privilege cannot be used to cover up actions and policies that involve an outright violation of the law, as the spying program did.
Nor can it be used to shield an official who might have lied to Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Justice Department to investigate Brett Kavanaugh, a former White House official who told a Senate hearing on his appointment to a federal judgeship that he was not involved in forming rules on the treatment of detainees. Recent press accounts suggest that he was.
The White House has predictably accused the Democrats of being soft on terrorism for opposing illegal wiretapping and of partisan politicking in their attempt to get to the bottom of the attorneys scandal. This is the point when we used to wearily watch as Congress bowed and backed out of the room. But lawmakers finally seem determined to do their duty. Partly that's because tough-minded Democrats are now in charge, like Senator Leahy. But even some of Mr. Bush's Republican enablers on Capitol Hill seem to be losing patience.
Last week, three Republican senators, including the highly partisan Orrin Hatch, voted to issue subpoenas for records relating to Mr. Bush's decision to authorize the tapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails abroad without legally and constitutionally mandated warrants. Only three Republicans actually voted against the subpoenas. (Three others did not register a vote.) Not long ago, those same nine Republicans would not even allow Senator Leahy to hold a roll-call vote on issuing subpoenas connected to the attorneys scandal.
If the White House continues to defy Congress, the Senate and the House could file criminal contempt charges. It's a strong measure, but lawmakers should not be afraid to take it, as they have done 10 times since 1975 under both parties.
Last week, in a bit of especially mendacious spin, Tony Fratto, the White House deputy press secretary, responded to the subpoenas on the illegal wiretapping by saying, "It's unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
Actually, Mr. Bush chose that route long ago by defining consultation as a chance for lawmakers to hear about decisions he had already made, bipartisanship as a chance for Democrats to join Republicans in rubber-stamping those choices and Congressional oversight as self- serving and possibly seditious. At this point, confrontation is far preferable to the path the Republican majority in Congress chose for so many years - capitulation.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Abuse of Executive Privilege
The New York Times Editorial
Sunday 01 July 2007
After six years of kowtowing to the White House, Congress is finally challenging President Bush's campaign to trample all legal and constitutional restraints on his power.
Congressional committees have issued subpoenas for documents and witnesses in two major cases and have asked for the first - and likely not the last - criminal investigation of an executive branch official who might have lied to Congress.
Predictably, the White House is claiming executive privilege and refusing to cooperate with the legitimate Congressional investigations, one springing from Mr. Bush's decision to spy on Americans without a warrant and the other from the purge of United States attorneys.
The courts have recognized a president's limited right to keep the White House's internal deliberations private. But it is far from an absolute right, and Mr. Bush's claim of executive privilege in the attorneys scandal is especially ludicrous. The White House has said repeatedly that Mr. Bush was not involved in the firings of nine United States attorneys. If that's true, he can hardly argue that he has the right to conceal conversations and e-mail exchanges that his aides had with one another and the Justice Department.
When the White House refused last week to even account for the documents it was withholding and why, as presidents generally have done in these cases, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, rightly denounced this arrogance as "Nixonian stonewalling." He pointed out that every president since World War II has at some point complied with Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony by members of the White House staff or other presidential advisers.
Mr. Bush's claim of executive privilege may be somewhat stronger on the spying program, since he personally issued the order to start the wiretapping. But executive privilege cannot be used to cover up actions and policies that involve an outright violation of the law, as the spying program did.
Nor can it be used to shield an official who might have lied to Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Justice Department to investigate Brett Kavanaugh, a former White House official who told a Senate hearing on his appointment to a federal judgeship that he was not involved in forming rules on the treatment of detainees. Recent press accounts suggest that he was.
The White House has predictably accused the Democrats of being soft on terrorism for opposing illegal wiretapping and of partisan politicking in their attempt to get to the bottom of the attorneys scandal. This is the point when we used to wearily watch as Congress bowed and backed out of the room. But lawmakers finally seem determined to do their duty. Partly that's because tough-minded Democrats are now in charge, like Senator Leahy. But even some of Mr. Bush's Republican enablers on Capitol Hill seem to be losing patience.
Last week, three Republican senators, including the highly partisan Orrin Hatch, voted to issue subpoenas for records relating to Mr. Bush's decision to authorize the tapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails abroad without legally and constitutionally mandated warrants. Only three Republicans actually voted against the subpoenas. (Three others did not register a vote.) Not long ago, those same nine Republicans would not even allow Senator Leahy to hold a roll-call vote on issuing subpoenas connected to the attorneys scandal.
If the White House continues to defy Congress, the Senate and the House could file criminal contempt charges. It's a strong measure, but lawmakers should not be afraid to take it, as they have done 10 times since 1975 under both parties.
Last week, in a bit of especially mendacious spin, Tony Fratto, the White House deputy press secretary, responded to the subpoenas on the illegal wiretapping by saying, "It's unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
Actually, Mr. Bush chose that route long ago by defining consultation as a chance for lawmakers to hear about decisions he had already made, bipartisanship as a chance for Democrats to join Republicans in rubber-stamping those choices and Congressional oversight as self- serving and possibly seditious. At this point, confrontation is far preferable to the path the Republican majority in Congress chose for so many years - capitulation.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Another DOJ Bushite Bites The Dust
Wonder what unholy truth this one is running from.....
Another Lawyer in Atty.
Firings Flap Quits
The Associated Press
Friday 29 June 2007
Washington - A Justice Department official who was considered as a possible replacement for one of several fired U.S. attorneys announced her resignation Friday.
Rachel Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, will step down July 9, the department said in a statement. The statement did not give a reason for her departure, but Brand is expecting a baby soon.
Brand was a member of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' leadership team. When officials were planning to fire U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas, Brand was named as a possible replacement for Margaret Chiari in Michigan, according to documents released as part of a congressional inquiry.
The firings have led to congressional investigations, an internal Justice Department probe and calls from Capitol Hill for the resignation of Gonzales on the grounds that he politicized his office.
Brand previously served as associate counsel to President George W. Bush and helped shepherd Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito through Senate confirmation.
"Her considerable knowledge of legal policy is rivaled only by her passion for the issues and projects on which she worked during her tenure here at the department," Gonzales said in a statement. "I will miss her significant contributions as an adviser to me."
Brand recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Justice Department's opposition to a bill that would shield reporters from being forced by prosecutors to reveal their sources.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Another Lawyer in Atty.
Firings Flap Quits
The Associated Press
Friday 29 June 2007
Washington - A Justice Department official who was considered as a possible replacement for one of several fired U.S. attorneys announced her resignation Friday.
Rachel Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy, will step down July 9, the department said in a statement. The statement did not give a reason for her departure, but Brand is expecting a baby soon.
Brand was a member of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' leadership team. When officials were planning to fire U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas, Brand was named as a possible replacement for Margaret Chiari in Michigan, according to documents released as part of a congressional inquiry.
The firings have led to congressional investigations, an internal Justice Department probe and calls from Capitol Hill for the resignation of Gonzales on the grounds that he politicized his office.
Brand previously served as associate counsel to President George W. Bush and helped shepherd Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito through Senate confirmation.
"Her considerable knowledge of legal policy is rivaled only by her passion for the issues and projects on which she worked during her tenure here at the department," Gonzales said in a statement. "I will miss her significant contributions as an adviser to me."
Brand recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Justice Department's opposition to a bill that would shield reporters from being forced by prosecutors to reveal their sources.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Cheney and the Constitution
Vice Don't Need No Damn Piece of Paper.
Cheney and the Constitution:
If it weren't so frightening, the irony would be delicious: A Vice President who has done more than any other to push the envelope on executive privilege at the expense of the courts and Congress takes the position that his office has both legislative and executive functions so as to avoid accounting for the use of classified materials.
Any veneer of intellectual legitimacy that executive power defenders have caked on their vision of a monarchical executive evaporates in the glare of this naked opportunism. And the scope and nature of today's constitutional crisis comes into clearer focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
