Now, America has an opportunity to elect a Great President for the first time in many decades.
Coming soon: Why the Democratic front-runners are not satisfactory candidates.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Irony of Bush's "Torture Ban"
Today, as you may have heard, the Bush administration released a new directive to CIA operatives that would ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" and "acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel and inhuman treatment."
Oddly, the declaration is being roundly criticized by human rights groups. Why?
Well, for a number of reasons. First, the directive does not represent a legal imperative. CIA operatives, for example, can't be prosecuted under it. Second, the statement is vague and could allow all sorts of abuse, depending on one's interpretation. The language certainly doesn't seem to include the kinds of abuse that are most commonly committed by US agents. It is clear that the Statement is not designed to prevent any act of detainee abuse, or to place restraints on interrogation techniques.
Why then, did the administration issue the directive?
The simplest explanation is that he is responding to public pressure, and that's probably part of it. I read some legal analysis that concluded that this directive may serve to protect CIA agents from prosecution for torturing detainees, though I'm not sure I get that. In any case, it's completely pathetic, and ultimately void of realistic effect.
It is, after all, clear that Bush has no humanitarian inclinations. If you'll remember, McCain tried to pass an anti-torture bill in 2005. It was on that bill that Bush made one of his famous "signing statements", in effect saying, "I'll sign this, but I don't have to abide by it."
Expanding the power to torture has been a cornerstone of this administration's policy, and that will be its legacy, along with a failed foreign policy.
Oddly, the declaration is being roundly criticized by human rights groups. Why?
Well, for a number of reasons. First, the directive does not represent a legal imperative. CIA operatives, for example, can't be prosecuted under it. Second, the statement is vague and could allow all sorts of abuse, depending on one's interpretation. The language certainly doesn't seem to include the kinds of abuse that are most commonly committed by US agents. It is clear that the Statement is not designed to prevent any act of detainee abuse, or to place restraints on interrogation techniques.
Why then, did the administration issue the directive?
The simplest explanation is that he is responding to public pressure, and that's probably part of it. I read some legal analysis that concluded that this directive may serve to protect CIA agents from prosecution for torturing detainees, though I'm not sure I get that. In any case, it's completely pathetic, and ultimately void of realistic effect.
It is, after all, clear that Bush has no humanitarian inclinations. If you'll remember, McCain tried to pass an anti-torture bill in 2005. It was on that bill that Bush made one of his famous "signing statements", in effect saying, "I'll sign this, but I don't have to abide by it."
Expanding the power to torture has been a cornerstone of this administration's policy, and that will be its legacy, along with a failed foreign policy.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Congress shall not suspend the right of Habeas Corpus except during times of invasion or rebellion.
So says the US Constitution. The Republican led Congress of 2006 enacted the Military Commissions Act, effectively suspending the right of Habeas, thus violating the US Constitution. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)has introduced a Bill to restore Habeas in the United States. What a tragedy that the actions of the current administration neccessitated introducing such a Bill in America today.
Walnuts...
I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I used to think of John McCain as a moderate, middle-of-the-road kinda guy. How wrong I was. The guy is a full-fledged whacko. Here's a funny post. A quote: "If McCain wants people to abstain from pre-marital sex -- and he opposes gay marriage -- does that mean McCain doesn't think gay people should ever have sex? Maybe one of the many gays working on his campaign can answer that question for us."
Indeed! We happen to know that at least one of them is, ahem... practicing.
Indeed! We happen to know that at least one of them is, ahem... practicing.
Naugle should clean up his act
Ft. Lauderdale's homophobic mayor gets flooded by rolls of toilet paper. Wanker.
Impeachment: The Conservative choice
George Bush and Dick Cheney must be impeached.
As I have written before, this is not a political question, but a Constitutional imperative. Impeachment is not about "punishing" Bush, or even to prevent this administration from committing further violations of the law.
It is about preserving the framework of our democracy.
This administration has completely reconfigured the nature of the powers held by the executive branch. The constitution clearly defines and limits the powers held by the executive. Bush has claimed exemption from these limitations. The Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when an executive violates constraints on his power described therein. That prescription is Impeachment. It is not an option.
The powers that Bush has claimed for the executive set a precedent. Therefore, even if Bush himself did not abuse the right to torture, to spy on American citizens without a warrant, to detain anyone in the world indefinitely and without a trial, to susend the right of habeas corpus , and to conduct extraordinary renditions, a future President may now use those powers based on the precedent set by this administration.
Furthermore, these actions set an example internationally. Russia is now involved in a conflict with Chechan seperatists who have committed acts of terror. If Vladimir Putin claimed the same powers that Bush has claimed, Russian agents would be able to come to America, seize you from your home, take you to a secret detention facility, and torture you indefinitely, without ever giving you a trial, on mere suspicion that you may be supporting Chechan rebels. Is that the example that America should be setting for the world?
It is incredible to me that today many Americans have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles upon which this country was built, that they would say, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." Hundreds of detainees have been released from Guantanamo after the administration has failed to find any evidence against them. Many remain there in spite of a lack of evidence. There have been many tragic stories like that of Khaled El-masri. Without judicial oversight, nothing prevents the government from illegally abducting you from whatever reason it wants. That's fundamentally un-American. If you're not doing anything wrong, why don't you favor having a military squad search every home in America once a month? That would certainly lower the crime rate.
Bush and Cheney swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States". In this they have failed. Please contact your representatives and senators and urge them to support impeachment.
As I have written before, this is not a political question, but a Constitutional imperative. Impeachment is not about "punishing" Bush, or even to prevent this administration from committing further violations of the law.
It is about preserving the framework of our democracy.
This administration has completely reconfigured the nature of the powers held by the executive branch. The constitution clearly defines and limits the powers held by the executive. Bush has claimed exemption from these limitations. The Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when an executive violates constraints on his power described therein. That prescription is Impeachment. It is not an option.
The powers that Bush has claimed for the executive set a precedent. Therefore, even if Bush himself did not abuse the right to torture, to spy on American citizens without a warrant, to detain anyone in the world indefinitely and without a trial, to susend the right of habeas corpus , and to conduct extraordinary renditions, a future President may now use those powers based on the precedent set by this administration.
Furthermore, these actions set an example internationally. Russia is now involved in a conflict with Chechan seperatists who have committed acts of terror. If Vladimir Putin claimed the same powers that Bush has claimed, Russian agents would be able to come to America, seize you from your home, take you to a secret detention facility, and torture you indefinitely, without ever giving you a trial, on mere suspicion that you may be supporting Chechan rebels. Is that the example that America should be setting for the world?
It is incredible to me that today many Americans have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles upon which this country was built, that they would say, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." Hundreds of detainees have been released from Guantanamo after the administration has failed to find any evidence against them. Many remain there in spite of a lack of evidence. There have been many tragic stories like that of Khaled El-masri. Without judicial oversight, nothing prevents the government from illegally abducting you from whatever reason it wants. That's fundamentally un-American. If you're not doing anything wrong, why don't you favor having a military squad search every home in America once a month? That would certainly lower the crime rate.
Bush and Cheney swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States". In this they have failed. Please contact your representatives and senators and urge them to support impeachment.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Yet another anti-gay, gay legislator... and since when is prostitution "pro-family"?
That settles it. Any politician who supports an anti-gay agenda must immediately be suspect of being in the closet. Such is the case with Representative Bob Allen (R-FL) who was busted soliciting sex from a male undercover officer in a Florida bathroom today.
Ironically, Allen sponsored a bill that would have enhanced Florida's laws banning sex in public areas. He also supported an amendment to the Florida constitution that would ban gay marriage, and has opposed a bill to discorage bullying of gay students.
I've said it before: just being a gay politician doesn't make you deserving of being outed, but if you are an anti-gay, gay politician, you richly deserve to burn.
And this...
Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who campaigned on "Family Values" and against gay marriage, just got busted for soliciting prostitutes by none other than Larry Flynt (editor, Hustler magazine), who commented, "You have people that don't have an ounce of the character that I have who are running our government."
Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh... who's next?
Ironically, Allen sponsored a bill that would have enhanced Florida's laws banning sex in public areas. He also supported an amendment to the Florida constitution that would ban gay marriage, and has opposed a bill to discorage bullying of gay students.
I've said it before: just being a gay politician doesn't make you deserving of being outed, but if you are an anti-gay, gay politician, you richly deserve to burn.
And this...
Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who campaigned on "Family Values" and against gay marriage, just got busted for soliciting prostitutes by none other than Larry Flynt (editor, Hustler magazine), who commented, "You have people that don't have an ounce of the character that I have who are running our government."
Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh... who's next?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Impeach Cheney... for crying out loud
I honestly don't see why there is a stronger argument for impeaching Cheney rather than Bush, but it seems that Cheney impeachment has the momentum for now. There are at least several dozen actions committed by the administration that would Constitutionally require impeachment.
This is not a political question. The US Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when officials commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not optional.
Please register your support here.
This is not a political question. The US Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when officials commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not optional.
Please register your support here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)