Absolution

It's official.

I am officially absolved for comparing the Republicans to the Soviets.

None other than the Shooter himself, Darth Cheney, said so in a recent speech.

As time passed, the terrorists believed they'd exposed a certain weakness and lack of confidence in the West, particularly in America. Dr. Bernard Lewis explained the terrorists' reasoning this way: "During the Cold War," Dr. Lewis wrote, "two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: 'What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?'"

So, apparently we were not fighting the Soviets in the Cold War to protect the world from Soviet totalitarianism. Apparently, we were fighting them because they got to be totalitarian and we couldn't.

The Rule of Law Died Again Today.

Kagro X over at Big Orange says it better than I can:

So what we're saying here is that secret memos can now be drafted (retroactively and be backdated if necessary?) that purport to be "legal directives" upon which the telecom companies can claim to have relied in "good faith." Or worse, they may even be able to say they received nothing but oral assurances that their activities were "legal." And if you want to see these "legal directives," it just so happens that since they've been prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel or some other close advisors to the president, executive privilege may just prevent you from doing so.

Or "national security."

Or "I just don't feel like it, and you can't make me."

And that's the real problem here. How is anyone to tell the difference between law that meets the commonly accepted definition we all work with every day on the one hand, and "whatever the hell the president says" on the other?

What is "law," anyway? Is it the stuff that Congress passes in public and that you can read in order to be able to obey it? Or is it just anything that can in practice frighten you into obeying? If you can be sent to jail, or immunized from suit, or whatever, based on a secret showing that you relied in "good faith" on a memo an "administration" official gives you (and literally nothing more -- and perhaps even a lot less), you really have to ask yourself that question. What. Is. Law?

It's Official: I Live in the Soviet Union.

Those of you who remember the USSR - remember how we'd get on them about the whole "internal passports" thing? How we said that one of the hallmarks of totalitarian Stalinism was having to beg permission from the government to move around within your own country?

Well, take a look at this.

Oh, it gets better. Blue Patriot Woman at the Great Orange has analysis.

In related news, a music scholar had her visa torn up, was groped during a search, threatened with detention in a Santa Clara, CA facility, and kicked out of the country - apparently for being brown. Or Welsh.

And these are just the cases we hear about. How many do we miss? And since when does DHS have a detention facility in Santa Clara?

And why the hell are we hearing O.J. crap when this is going on?

Guest Blog: Top 10 Censored Stories 2006-07

DJShay at Daily Kos guest blogs at Electronic Darwinism:

The San Francisco Bay Guardian has a must read article today. It’s a list of the Top 10 Underreported Stories of the last year. The list is part of a list of 25 Top Censored Stories of 2006-2007 from Project Censored, group that tracks underreported news stories in the National Media. Below is a summary of the Top 10 list. I urge you to read the entire San Francisco Bay Guardian article as well as visit the Project Censored Web site and view the entire list.

From the article:

There are a handful of freedoms that have almost always been a part of American democracy. Even when they didn't exactly apply to everyone or weren't always protected by the people in charge, a few simple but significant rights have been patently clear in the Constitution: You can't be nabbed by the cops and tossed behind bars without a reason. If you are imprisoned, you can't be incarcerated indefinitely; you have the right to a speedy trial with a judge and jury. When that court date rolls around, you'll be able to see the evidence against you.

The president can't suspend elections, spy without warrants, or dispatch federal troops to trump local cops or quell protests. Nor can the commander in chief commence a witch hunt, deem individuals "enemy combatants," or shunt them into special tribunals outside the purview of our 218-year-old judicial system.

Until now. This year's Project Censored presents a chilling portrait of a newly empowered executive branch signing away civil liberties for the sake of an endless and amorphous war on terror. And for the most part, the major news media weren't paying attention.

The stories that are listed and linked to below are stories that have been diaried here [at Daily Kos] as well as at other blogs. But none has been given the scrutiny that they deserve in the MSM, Traditional Media, Corporate Media, Legacy Media, etc. Choose your own terminology. And some of these stories I am hearing about for the first time. So, start spreadin' the news.

No. 1 - Suspension of Habeas Corpus

"Why does it contain language referring to 'any person' and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting 'in breach of allegiance or duty to the United States'?" Parry wrote. "Who has 'an allegiance or duty to the United States' if not an American citizen?"

No. 2 - Martial Law

Tucked away in the deeper recesses of that act, section 1076 allows the president to declare a public emergency and dispatch federal troops to take over National Guard units and local police if he determines them unfit for maintaining order. This is essentially a revival of the Insurrection Act, which was repealed by Congress in 1878, when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act in response to Northern troops overstaying their welcome in the reconstructed South.

No. 3 - AFRICOM

Though the official objective may be peace, some say the real desire is crude. "A new cold war is under way in Africa, and AFRICOM will be at the dark heart of it," Bryan Hunt wrote on the Moon of Alabama blog, which covers politics, economics, and philosophy. Most US oil imports come from African countries — in particular, Nigeria. According to the 2007 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, "disruption of supply from Nigeria would represent a major blow to US oil-security strategy."

No. 4 - Secret Trade Agreements

"The overall effect of these changes in the rules is to progressively undermine economic governance, transferring power from governments to largely unaccountable multinational firms, robbing developing countries of the tools they need to develop their economies and gain a favorable foothold in global markets," states a report by Oxfam International, the antipoverty activist group.

No.5 - Slaves Construct Iraq Embassy

Once on site, they're often beaten and paid as little as $10 to $30 a day, CorpWatch concludes. Injured workers are dosed with heavy-duty painkillers and sent back on the job. Lodging is crowded, and food is substandard. One ex-foreman, who's worked on five other US embassies around the world, said, "I've never seen a project more fucked up. Every US labor law was broken."

No.6 - FALCON

Though the US Marshals Service has been quick to tally the offenses, Whitney says the numbers just don't add up. For example, FALCON in 2006 captured 462 violent sex-crime suspects, 1,094 registered sex offenders, and 9,037 fugitives.

What about the other 7,481 people? "Who are they, and have they been charged with a crime?" Whitney asked.

No.7 - Blackwater

"It's become nothing short of the Praetorian Guard for the Bush administration's so-called global war on terror," author Jeremy Scahill said on the Jan. 26 broadcast of the TV and radio news program Democracy Now! Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army was published this year by Nation Books.

No.8 - KIA - Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture

The deal provides a captive customer base for genetically modified seed maker Monsanto and a market for cheap goods to supply Wal-Mart, whose plans for 500 stores in the country could wipe out the livelihoods of 14 million small vendors.

No.9 - Privatization of Infrastructure

As Daniel Schulman and James Ridgeway reported in Mother Jones, "the Federal Highway Administration estimates that it will cost $50 billion a year above current levels of federal, state, and local highway funding to rehab existing bridges and roads over the next 16 years. Where to get that money, without raising taxes? Privatization promises a quick fix — and a way to outsource difficult decisions, like raising tolls, to entities that don't have to worry about getting reelected."

No.10 - Vulture Funds

Named for a bird that picks offal from a carcass, this financial scheme couldn't be more aptly described. Well-endowed companies swoop in and purchase the debt owed by a third world country, then turn around and sue the country for the full amount — plus interest. In most courts, they win. Recently, Donegal International spent $3 million for $40 million worth of debt Zambia owed Romania, then sued for $55 million. In February an English court ruled that Zambia had to pay $15 million.

So, How's that War on Terror going?

Story from Yahoo News, via Orcinus:

A 27-year-old Austin man was arrested on Friday and charged with placing an unexploded bomb containing some 2,000 nails outside an abortion clinic in the state's capital.

The explosive device also included a propane tank and a mechanism "akin to a rocket," Austin Police Commander David Carter said.

The device was discovered on Wednesday in the parking lot of the Austin Women's Health Center, police said.

The Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force -- made up of federal, state and local law enforcement authorities -- arrested Paul Ross Evans, who authorities said was on parole for an unspecified crime.

Just casually curious as to when this guy gets his all-expense paid trip to Guantanamo Bay, with free waterboarding and kangaroo court trial military tribunal thrown in.

Nope, the story goes on to say about how this guy actually got some due process, like arraignment, bail hearing, presumption of innocence, that sort of thing. Guess he was too white and right-wing to be a terrorist.

The Deep Shallow

Today's post is written by guest blogger GreyHawk.

This morning, a Republican Congressman gave voice to his concerns regarding the non-binding resolution about the Iraq War that coined a new term for the distinguished men and women of the Hill. It was well spoken, and hit the mark squarely.

He said it was a "deep shallow." (Hat-tip to Roxy of ePluribus Media.)

Representative Bob Bishop of Utah made what I found to be a singularly insightful speech on the House floor regarding the non-binding resolution that Congress is now passing time on:

Yesterday, I had the opportunity of going back to Baltimore and watching a play, "Wicked." And in the play, the main character, the male lead, Fiero, is in love with Elphaba. And she tries to distance herself from him by saying, "Yeah, but you're thoughtless and shallow." And Fiero says, "I know, but I am a deep shallow." This resolution is a deep shallow. It may have words aimed at the White House and the White House action, but regardless of those words, when history is written the finger of accusation will not point to the executive branch, who has been consistent, it is going to point back here to Congress, to our actions.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of the declaration of war. Instead, we passed a resolution approving force. With a war declaration, there is a commitment to action and to ultimate goals. A resolution of force implies something less, and it allows Members of Congress who did that to say, yes, I agreed with force but I didn't expect it to be used this way. Or, I wasn't really that serious. Or I didn't expect it to be anything more than a little war taking place. It is a process that allows you to be deeply shallow.

This resolution may clear the conscience of some people, it may put political distance between others, but it does noting for soldiers, it does nothing towards a U.S. victory, to benefit this country, or to improve the body politic. Our words, our actions, our votes will be looked on in history with contempt, for they are indeed in this issue deeply shallow.

In conclusion, I would like to describe the good that will come from this resolution for our Armed Forces.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Notice the extensive list of good things that will come of this non-binding resolution, situated between the last two sentences of the excerpt.

Heady stuff, eh? Powerful. I can't believe there's even room for debating such goodness.

...the concept of what good may come of the non-binding resolution has been explored here and elsewhere before. I'm not going to delve into the subtleties of the various pros and cons. To quote again from Mr. Bishop's speech, from a section just before the excerpted bit,

By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing, but allows us all to make statements for media consumption and allows some of those who made the original vote to use force the ability to shirk the responsibility of that particular action.

That's all.

Sure, there are benefits to putting one's thoughts down or forcing one's opponents to give voice to words that could come back and haunt them. But our troops are still inadequately supported. Our troops are still dying, their families faced with a sotto voice, a folded flag.

It's all well and good to say that with the Republican majority broken and the GOP stranglehold on Congress loosened, we can forego any thoughts of impeachment and let the Bush Administration serve out the remainder of their term relatively neutered, but that's purely a fantasy. They are not neutered, and they do not intend to be. In fact, they have been actively working to prepare for this very time when Congress might actually attempt to stall their plans.

A somewhat random and eclectic perusal of stories and diaries paints a starkly pessimistic picture of the lengths that the Bush Administration will go to. Let's review a couple, shall we?

1. Trial by Fire? Executive Order on Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by exmearden describes how an executive order sets the stage to bolster the MCA and Patriot Acts in order to denaturalize a citizen -- declare that person's citizenship revoked and thus term that person an alien, enabling the label of "enemy combatant" to apply and effectively remove any and all rights and liberties.


2. US Attorneys Establish Patriot 2 Via Precedent (Repost) by TheFatLadySings -- also cited within the piece by exmearden -- speculates on one possible goal of the Attorney Massacre -- the de facto establishment of Patriot 2 through the creation of precedents that bolster the underlying "adjustments" to law and how they are executed. ePluribus Media has been running a series on other relevant aspects of the Attorney Massacre -- they are posting another one soon that touches on the use of political profiling. (There's a lot more going on with regard to the US Attorney Massacre; check this comment for a list of the various other pieces they've covered so far, and keep an eye open for the profiling piece.)


3. In the piece Things Running in the Background by ABA, several aspects of the Patriot II provisions are explored and extrapolated -- very scary stuff.


4. A diary titled A Government of Men, Not Laws? by Vox Libertas illustrates the manipulation of laws to enhance the Unitary Executive Theory, which in and of itself is a dangerous threat to our nation. Here's a killer excerpt:

   The second action that fits into this pattern of centralized Presidential control is to be found in H.R. 5122, the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", which among a great many other things amended the Insurrection Act, which along with Posse Comitatus controls and limits the President's use of the military within the United States. The changes are worded as a collection of edits which alter a substantial fraction of the wording of section 333 of the Insurrection Act, and so I found it helpful to create a marked-up version of §333, showing the changes. Also helpful is a flow chart in the Wikipedia entry for the insurrection act.
   

   As either of these should make clear, the major change is to expand the circumstances under which the President can deploy the armed forces and take direct control of the National Guard away from the Governors who normally command them. In the past, he could do so only in cases of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy". Under the new wording "natural disasters, public health emergencies and terrorism" are added to the list as is the wildcard "other circumstances". Other changes include specifying that the President can use the armed forces, including the National Guard, in US territories as well as the states, explicitly naming the National Guard rather than referring to "the militia" and what appear to be minor textual changes.
   

   With a broad enough interpretation of "other circumstances" and "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws" or "impedes the course of justice", the President can pretty much deploy the military domestically whenever he feels it necessary and become the sole military commander in the area, federalizing the National Guard. So long as you trust the President, this isn't such a bad thing. But as other nations have learned, elected officials are not always what they seem.
   

   Adjustments that bolster such changes and additions are going to be very hard to erase and resolve back toward a true nation of the people. The capacity for a ruling elite is being reinforced at every turn.

   
   

5. Then there are two that tie directly to immigration and national security in the form of a national ID -- I consider them related, in that they help control "the masses" without having to worry (much) about the distinction between "citizen" and "non-citizen." REAL ID: States Revolt, ID Ghetto Our Future? by lapin and Immigration: Attrition by starvation term by BlueStateLiberal.

How bad must things get before more people begin to wonder if our nation suffers from either Creeping Fascism or Just a Simple Dictatorship? (hat-tip BooMan)

Our nation has been betrayed by those who cover for the current Administration's gross negligence, criminal incompetence and outright unConstitutional behavior. Our people have sent a clear message to Congress and the Executive Branch through last November's election. Elections have consequences. And the November election of 2006 also set some expectations. Congress is on notice.

The Executive Office is manned by people who now clearly meet the definition of "domestic enemies" -- enemies of the State, who seek to undermine the proper workings of government for their own good. Those who adhere to them and give them aid and comfort are committing treason. The White House, with the adherence of these traitorous bastards, is attempting to define any opposition by Congress to their plans as unPatriotic and treasonous, knowing full well that they themselves are the ones truly betraying their nation.

Enough is enough, folks.

It is time for Congress to stop the political games, to step up and call out against the tactics of this Administration and their proponents. The political comfort zone of staying within "the deep shallow" must be forbidden to them.

It is time to act.

Impeach, starting with Vice President Cheney. Set the process in motion for Bush, too, so that he cannot issue pardons and interrupt the process, but pursue Cheney through to the end. Then finish the process on the Unitary Executive and his coterie of malcontents.

We have two years. Even two days is too much, with the cost in both lives and money, as well as a multitude of other resources, burning away in the raging inferno of incompetence that surrounds these criminals and decimates everything in their path.

Crossposted at DailyKos, ePluribus Media, BooMan Tribune, My Left Wing, Never In Our Names (NION), The Impeach Project (TIP) and Progressive Historians

Where the Hell Are These Guys Learning Civics?

Steven Bradbury, as reported in - God help us - Newsweek, seems to think that there are circumstances in which it's perfectly OK for the Chimp to order the military to kill American citizens on American soil. Current and former government officials were quick to justify this by bringing up various "24"ish scenarios, but apparently none of the officials were willing to attach their names to this idiocy.

University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein is only too willing to sign on, however - saying that:

the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

Emphasis mine. Evidently, blatantly violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution merely puts the Chimp on "less solid legal ground". Left undiscussed is what happens to the suspect, or to the legal concept of presumption of innocence.

They're still trotting out this crap.

I Finally Figured it Out

Who Attorney General Alberto "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales reminds me of:



I mean, habeas corpus isn't just Constitutional Law 101 - it's Schoolhouse Rock. Federalist 84? Tenth Amendment? Apparently, neither of these exist in Torturin' Al's Bizarro World - or, like all to many, he considers the Constitution clause by clause and not as a whole, just like anyone trying to get out of a contract does. I mean, the concept that the Constitution doesn't enumerate individual rights but rather limits the Federal government's infringement of them is grade-school civics.

Are You Sure AG Gonzales Used to be a Lawyer?

Glenn Greenwald on AG Gonzales:

But ultimately, there are only two options -- (1) the administration is now complying fully and exclusively with FISA when eavesdropping, in which case all of its prior claims that it could not do so and still fight against The Terrorists are false, or (2) the administration has changed its eavesdropping program some, but it is still not fully complying with FISA, in which case nothing of significance has changed (at least on the lawbreaking issues) because the administration is still violating the law.

The FISA court and the administration cannot reach an agreement for proceeding that deviates from the FISA law itself. So it is only one or the other of the two options, neither of which reflect well on the administration.

I know I'm no lawyer, but I thought that releasing legal opinions weakening the case of the guy whose ass you're trying to cover was, you know, bad.

Local News: Hate and Death Threats from KSFO Winger Radio

Yeah, I need to pay more attention to local issues.

Thanks to Spocko, who I can't link to because Disney bullied his ISP into shutting down his blog (UPDATE: Spocko's Brain Lives! Here's a link to Spocko's blog), I found out about local radio station KSFO's contributions to civility and moderation in political debate.

And there's no way in hell I can put enough sarcasm on that.

Here's some more light reading on the subject - oh, and don't take my word for it, have a listen for yourself:


Brian Sussman tells caller to say 'Allah is a whore'

KSFO caller suggests bombing Syrian mosques

Brian Sussman wants military weapons in his home

Brian Sussman says he doesn't have to tolerate Islam

Brian Sussman says we should cut off detainee fingers and penises

Melanie Morgan and Ann Coulter say liberals should be executed

Coulter and Morgan say Bill Keller should be executed - sound effects by Officer Vic

Brian Sussman says Islam is a false religion

Officer Vic wants to send a hit team after photojournalists

More laughter about Bill Keller in the electric chair

Honky talk-show host is offended because Sen. Obama is a 'halfrican'

Paint a bullseye on Rep. Nancy Pelosi?

More bullseye talk about Rep. Pelosi

Morgan accuses SF Chronicle of 'blacking up' Richard Pombo

KSFO crew says 'dig up Rachel Carson and kill her again'

Coulter says 'at least they hit some UN peacekeepers'

Morgan says 'hang the NY Times editors'

KSFO crew wants to kill liberals

KFSO crew says 'liberal tree should be pruned'

KSFO crew says liberals should be 'stomped to death'

KSFO crew says 'gonna track that e-mail down and do something unpleasant to his cojones'... then Melanie does a live spot for Brite Smile

KSFO crew says 'then, attack the NY Times'

KSFO caller says Bill Keller should be 'lined up and shot'. KSFO crew says 'skip the trial'

KSFO says 'unpleasant things are going to happen to stupid liberals'


Lee Rodgers talks about civility, then says 'someone should have belted that chinless bitch a long time ago' This one is just precious.

Lee says we need to kill millions of Muslims in Indonesia

Lee says the AP should commit mass suicide

Lee suggests hooking a Sears DieHard battery to someone's testicles, then blowing them away


mp3 audio clips in zip (with KSFO contact info)

wma audio clips in zip (with KSFO contact info)


Hat tip to Ripley and Online Blogintegrity.

Oh, hey - KSFO's contact info sort of snuck in there. I'm sure they're looking forward to hearing from you about this.

I can think of some other people who would love to hear your rational, nonpolitical argument on the value of hate speech and incitement to murder as a means of marketing their products. I'll post contact info from them as soon as I can get it - and if I can figure out how to spam-proof it. You may have to contact me at the link in my profile for the list - but I assure you, the need these people and businesses have to hear from you about this is worth the extra effort.

Update: RJB has posted more contact information at his blog. Remember, these advertisers are (or should be) just as horrified at how KSJO is selling their products and services as you are. They signed up for family-friendly Disney Radio, not hate and calls to murder.

Update: Here's a preliminary list of those good people that need to hear your concerns regarding this matter:

Administaff	800-237-3170
Agape Village	800-379-0103
Agape Village Foster Family Agency	209 824-5365
American Diabetes Association	703-549-1500,
AT&T
BAAQMD
Benchmark Lending	800-680-4000
Best Buy	612-291-6114
BFS Retail & Commercial Operations LLC a subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.	630-259-9121
Big O Tires (TBC Corp) via Sumitomo Corporation of America	561-227-0955
BMW of North America LLC.	800-831-1117
Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.
Bright Smile	1-800-542-4802
Cache Creek	800-992-8686
California Teachers Association
Check 'n Go	513-336-7735
Choice Hotels International	301-592-6719
Cingular Wireless
Cyber Mesa Telecom
Dennys
Eastern Furniture
FedEx
Freecreditreport.com Experian	847 517 5600
Frontier Airlines	800-265-5505
HMS Capital
Home Depot
HoMedics Inc..	1-800-466-3342
Humidex-Atlantic	800-293-9577
In and out Hamburgers	1-800-786-1000
Infineon Raceway at Sears Point	800-870-RACE ext. 137
John M. Cummuta	800-743-8533
Kaiser Permanente
Learning Annex Real Estate and Wealth Expo 1800-US ANNEX	(212) 371-0280
Match.com (an operating business of IAC/InterActiveCorp )	800-926-2824.
Michigan Economic Development Corporation	(517) 335-1871
Microsoft Dynamics
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.	888-560-MMSA (6672)
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company	314-982-1000
New York Life Insurance Company	212-576-7000
OSH (part of Sears Holdings)	847-286-9036
Outofbk.com (Automated Finance Corporation)	(877) 688-6325
Pacific Gas and Electric Company	916-923-7053
Preparation H (Wyeth)
Pulte Homes, Inc.	1-866-785-8325
Riviana Foods
Shreve and Company Jewelers	(415) 421-2600
Sleeptrain
Sutter Health	415-925-7905
Taylor Made Water Systems	925.521.9100
The Jewelry Exchange -Goldenwest Diamond Corporation	714-542-9000
The Jewlery Exchange
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc
Verizon
Verizon Wireless	(805) 372-6969
Visa Security Play (Visa U.S.A., Inc.)
Wheelworks
Window Broker	888-240-3688
Zuffa, LLC. (parent of UFC : Ultimate Fighting Championship)

Already we have an update. Looks like Spocko's getting a new site. Looks like this is all over teh intertubes. Looks like the San Francisco Chronicle is about to get involved. Fun times.

Oh yeah, 'cause Disney's lawyers are going to find this:

I have posted links to these files in accordance with Fair Use guidelines, for non-profit, non-political, and educational purposes only. Any resemblance to political statements supporting or opposing these statements is purely coincidental, and probably all in your imagination. This post is as apolitical as...ummm...Path to 9/11.

Also, defending loathsome incitements to murder based on people's skin color, religious beliefs, and/or political affiliation is - while very necessary to support our First Amendment - not what Disney's customers and corporate affiliates would consider to be consistent with Disney's family-friendly corporate image.

Once again, waiting for the Libertarian response

Guess what, Gentle Readers? We just lost the mail.

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Hat tip to Atrios and the New York Daily News.

I await the response of the Libertarians. Will it be more Republican't ass-covering, or will they finally, finally realize that the Chimp is a bigger threat to their cherished freedoms than every Democrat on the face of the earth rolled together? Personally, based on their showing for actual Liberty so far, I'm betting most of them roll with the Republican't ass-covering, but it warms me in my middle age to believe that there may someday be a straw that breaks that particular camel's back.

Wanna bet there's some lame-ass Bushite who will tell me, with a straight face, that the Chimp's Decidering to read mail without a warrant is to "protect freedom"?

How can anyone justify this? The way the Chimp snuck it through on one of his extraconstitutional signing statements shows that even he can't justify it - although now that he's been found out I'm sure he'll give it the ol' Harvard C-student college try.

The Kind Of Horseshit I Have to Deal With

Thursday, I posted an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Nov. 30th column about how the warrantless wiretapping program is still illegal no matter how the Chimp uses the extrajudicial, unconstitutional powers he's seized for himself.

This is the kind of response I get:

Andy D said...

The program continues to be misrepresented. The program isn't wiretapping, and it has safe guards built in so that only terrorist are targeted. The information obtained from the program can't be used for civil criminal investigations. It has netted results, and we have captured high profile targets using this program.

Horseshit, Andy.

I find it illuminating that, in a column about how Bushites try to focus on the use rather than the legality of warrantless wiretapping, when the money quote I used was

It is truly astounding to watch people incapable of understanding the point that the reason it is wrong and dangerous for the President to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants is because doing so is against the law. Shouldn't that be a simple enough proposition that every functioning adult ought to be capable of understanding it?

Andy responds by once again "misunderstanding" the point. What part of "because it's a felony" do you not get, Andy?

Here's another quote, from the same column. I'd icily suggest that you read it this time, but that leads me to the realization that I screwed up the link to it in the last post. I'd better fix that.

One more time: the principal problem with the President's warrantless eavesdropping is not that he is abusing the secret eavesdropping powers he seized (that is something we do not yet know, because the Congress has not yet investigated that question). Instead, the "problem" is that the President is engaging in the very conduct which the American people, through their Congress almost 30 years ago, made it a felony to engage in, punishable by up to five years in prison -- that is, eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight.

Thus, even if Lanny Davis and the other Republicans on the panel think the President is using his illegal powers carefully, his conduct is no less illegal. Why is it necessary even to point that out? This has been the obvious and paramount point from the beginning, as I wrote in my book (at pages 25, 60) (emphasis in original):

The heart of the matter is that the president broke the law, deliberately and repeatedly, no matter what his rationale was for doing so. We do not have a system of government in which the president has the right to violate laws, even if he believes doing so will produce good results. . . .

The NSA eavesdropping scandal, as its core, is not an eavesdropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal....

Are we clear, now? I even added some emphasis, so you wouldn't miss the point. Address that, if you will.

Once again, Glenn brings it home

Today's column here. I can't add to it, but here's a taste:

It is truly astounding to watch people incapable of understanding the point that the reason it is wrong and dangerous for the President to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants is because doing so is against the law. Shouldn't that be a simple enough proposition that every functioning adult ought to be capable of understanding it?

You'd think so. Some of these Bushites claim to be studious, serious people with law degrees and everything, but my five-year-old daughter gets the point that, time and again, seems to escape them.

Unless, of course, their stupidity is a rhetorical device to cover their dishonesty.

Up to you. We report, you deride.

Freedom of the Press.

Something else that, were I not a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald's blog, I wouldn't have known:

Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press photographer who was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq back in April -- almost six months ago. Along with 14,000 other people around the world (at least), he continues to remain in U.S. custody without being charged with any crime. The U.S. military has vaguely claimed that he has close ties with Iraqi insurgents but refuses to specify what it is specifically that he is alleged to have done, refuses to provide any hearing or process of any kind for him to learn of the charges or contest them, and refuses to respond to AP's requests for information about why he is being held.

Apparently what he's guilty of is trying to document the war in Iraq. The bastard. That will teach him to commit photojournalism without spouting the Partei line. How the hell do you think we went from 17th in the world in freedom of the press to a whopping 53rd?

And see that power that the Administration is using on journalists it doesn't like? That's the same power that they, thanks to that obscenity called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, can now use on you.

Points for any seething Bushites reading this:

First, where in the Constitution does it say that only citizens have the right to due process of law? Last I checked, if a foreigner committed a crime in the US, we put him on trial instead of summarily jailing him.

Second, although the Military Commissions Act specifies that it only applies against non-citizens, how would a United States citizen "mistakenly" labelled as an enemy combatant seek redress without habeas corpus? Answers involving the infallibility of the Bush administration will be met with well-deserved derision.

Third, what's with all the hate? Labelling everyone that disagrees with you America-haters that need to be jailed or killed for the good of the country makes you look like a bunch of brown-shirted, jackbooted, seig-heiling fascists.

Because If I Could Let Bullshit Slide, I Wouldn't Be Doing This

Yeah, I was just going to let it slide, but screw it. The biggest perk of running your own blog is the ability to get the last word.

On the off chance that Blog Mad or Blog Explosion inflict my site upon PrivatePigg's delicate sensibilities, my response to his response:

1. No, you and Brian are trying to make the argument about FDR and not Bush, and I won't let you.

2. Again, no you don't get to switch the argument. And no lefty claims that every Muslim in the US is in internment - note that I didn't, either. I merely asserted that the populations of Gitmo and whatever other hellholes we're operating are exclusively Muslim. You could easily rebut this by listing all the inmates that aren't Muslims - not merely non-Arab, because they're not the same thing.

3. Let me enlighten you regarding this little concept we have here called freedom of association:

[While the]United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. The United States Supreme Court jurisprudence names two distinct ways in which the right may be implicated:

1. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected as a fundamental element of personal liberty when choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships are at issue.

2. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected for the purposes of engaging in activities protected by the text of the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. Because the role of these relationships is central to safeguarding individual freedoms, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State. Thus, there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of preserving other individual liberties.

This is not merely a conservative meme, it's a libertarian one.

4. One thing we agree on is that this Administration has made the 4th Amendment irrelevant. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of due process of law either.

And those "I'm smarter than you" quips apparently drew blood, hence your response. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Really read it - then come back here and tell me that ol' Chimpy is merely exercising his Constitutional powers. This would be one of the many reasons why his approval is at 33%.

Oh, and regarding your use of liberal as an insult:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.^[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.^[3]

If this is an insult, remind me to get insulted more often. Of course, I'm casually curious as to when fiscal responsibility, constitutionalism, less intrusive federal government, and personal responsibility became liberal values, but whatever.

Yep, lots of wikipedia this time. Not the source I prefer, but you win arguments with the sources you have, not the ones you want or might wish to have.

PS: Regarding your refusal to patronize my site, PrivatePigg - it's fair enough, as I have yours blocked as well. On the other hand, I read yours first. You should think of doing the same next time, lest you find yourself once again accusing a libertarian whose idea of fine dining is a restaurant with metal silverware of being a liberal elite. Just sayin'.

Once Again, We Get Mail

Yes, for a second time, I'm going to directly address a comment. This comment was posted in response to "That Didn't Take Long":

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.. At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race. The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason. If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. - Brian

Brian, Brian, Brian. Here, let me go through this point by point:

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.

Okay, laying aside for the moment what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during a declared war against an alliance of fascist nation-states, this talking point is straight out of the "He did it, so I can do it too" school of jurisprudence so beloved by my five-year-old. While adorable coming from a small child, it's disturbing when a putative adult bases civil liberties and foreign policy decisions on it. I believe the proper response would be, "So, if FDR jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?", save that I doubt a polio-crippled FDR could have managed. We can leave the minutiae regarding FDR's physical limits aside, for my point is made.

At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race.

This is teh funny. In, of course, a bitter and cynical mode of humour. No, we don't have internment camps where the only requirement is race - we have internment camps where the only requirement is religion. Stop me when that starts sounding familiar.

The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason.

Let's explore that, shall we?

From this article on Slate ( and yes, it's the "librul media". You guys think every corporate-owned media outlet save Rush Limbaugh and Fox News is part of the "librul media" - and Rush and Fox don't talk about this):

The data suggests that maybe 80 percent of these detainees were never al-Qaida members, and many were never even Taliban foot soldiers.

So why are they there? Glad you asked:

Most detainees are being held for the crime of having "associated" with the Taliban or al-Qaida—often in the most attenuated way, including having known or lived with people assumed to be Taliban, or worked for charities with some ties to al-Qaida. Some had "combat" experience that seems to have consisted solely of being hit by U.S. bombs. Most were not picked up by U.S. forces but handed over to our military by Afghan warlords in exchange for enormous bounties and political payback.

But weren't they all proved guilty of something at their status review hearings? Calling these proceedings "hearings" does violence to that word. Detainees are assumed guilty until proven innocent, provided no lawyers, and never told what the evidence against them consists of.

Read the full article, with the associated studies, then come back and tell me how hard-core those falafel vendors and taxi drivers we're torturing are.

If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Okay, then. I suppose you don't mind if the cops start searching every house in your neighborhood looking for drugs. Who needs a warrant? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Be polite when they kick in your door at three AM - they have guns.

Do they not teach civics anymore? Is the bare concept of "rule of law" so alien to you? Do you really want to live in a United States where the powerful can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they wish and your only recourse is that they decide that you're innocent?

And what, precisely, is "conservative" about that vision of America?

Oh, for readers that are interested, Brian can be found at superacidjax.blogspot.com. Enjoy.