Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Emerging Outraged Majority

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

American voters are in a nasty mood. Across the board, Americans feel betrayed by the process, elected officials, and the government. At the very heart of discontent are lies about the war, the lobbying of congress, the fiscal soundness of the nation, the state of "freedom" itself.

Liberal Democrats —especially the growing grass roots anti-war movement —feel betrayed by Democrats whose only position vis a vis the GOP seems to be of the form "...but we could have fought the war better than Bush!" That's cold comfort to those who believe the war was not only wrong but premised upon a pack of GOP lies. It's a poke in the eye to progressives who believe American foreign policy is now dictated by Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Bush's policies are seemingly un-opposed though they seem to have made terrorism worse and Americans less safe.

GOP politicians, however, are even less well off. E. J. Dionne, writing in the Washington Post, has written a brief but accurate history of how the GOP has been hijacked by the increasingly extremist right wing, how "moderate Republicans" have either left the party or been marginalized, how Bush's huge budget deficits point up the hypocrisy of GOP "conservatism".

I am unhappy with Democratic triangulation of the center. I am less interested in out-maneuvering the GOP than in defeating them straight-up on issue, on points, on substance. But I suspect that I am less disenchanted with Democrats than GOPPERS with the GOP. Can you imagine how upset I might be if I were a GOPPER, favoring responsible government, confronted with Reagan/Bush deficits of truly historic proportions? Similarly, some GOP types were staunch civil libertarians. Where are they to go now that Bush has assumed dictatorial powers? Some old time Republicans disdained empire to the point of isolationism. What are they to do now that Bush has embarked upon world conquest for the benefit of Halliburton and handful of oil cronies? Many Republicans, like Nelson Rockefeller, for example, could have been described as "moderate" or even "liberal". What are they to do now that Bush has radicalized the GOP?

A fundamental re-alignment of American politics is underway. Moderate and liberal Republicans —all but extinct —have no choice but to make common cause with the Democratic party. This seems to be a mirror image of an earlier re-alignment in which "conservative" Democrats became Republicans. There were dramatic individual examples of that. Former Texas Governor John Connally's joining the GOP is one. The most sweeping re-alignment, however, was Nixon's "southern strategy" which resulted in a solid "red" south. Admittedly, Nixon was helped out by LBJ who virtually ceded the south when he signed the voting rights act. What does that say of the south?

Major developments signaling a major re-alignment are bad news for the GOP. A recent Gallup poll indicates more Americans now identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans —a shift that may give Democrats the edge they need in November. And from the same poll, we learn that independents give Democrats the advantage, though Democrats had been neck and neck with the GOP since the second quarter of 2005.

Elsewhere there is evidence that the GOP is running scared while "...on the run". GOP candidates are on the defensive, forced to decide how closely they wish to identify with Bush who shows no sign of reversing his plunge in the polls. Problematic for the GOP is the party's conflicting, if not hypocritical, positions on the out-of-control federal debt and deficit and the Bush administration's inept response to Katrina. Overriding everything else, however, is Bush's tar baby —the war on Iraq! It's a tar baby that has permanently stuck itself to whatever legacy Bush might wish to leave behind. It is nothing if not a quagmire and will ultimately prove to be a war crime of unimaginable proportions! Until recently, Bush continued to lead Democrats on the issue of "terrorism". Now, when it has become clear to all but a few diehards that the war against Iraq has made terrorism worse, Bush has lost even that advantage.

A TIME poll is stunning: 3 in 5 Americans now say the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Given a choice, a "generic" Democrat beats "generic" Republicans in races for Congress by a margin of almost 10%. What is clearly an anti-Republican wave cannot be good for the GOP's longer term prospects. Stuart Rothenberg, of the Rothenberg Political Report is quoted thus: "The only question is how high, how big, how much force it will have. I think it will be considerable."

If there is a big picture, Kevin Phillips can always be counted on to get a handle on it. His latest book —American Theocracy —makes the analogy to California which recalled Gray Davis.
Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutional remedy, the possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.
—Kevin Phillips, Time to Recall Bush?
In American Theocracy, Phillips zeros in on what he calls " petro-politics" which he credits with having sparked the emergence of "the new national party politics of oil".
Phillips is the kind of tough-minded realist who doesn't even bother to feign shock at the idea that our foreign policy has a bottom line. When Dick Cheney said in 1999 that ''by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day," certain geopolitical consequences followed. Why pretend otherwise?
Axis of ills:An indictment of recent Republican policies, domestic and foreign, Scott McLemee
But this is not a real political movement. It is, rather, the Bush administration outsourcing the conquest of the world to Halliburton. The Roman Empire had similarly, outsourced to previously conquered tribes the defense of Rome. Bushco, however, has outsourced the seizure of world oil supplies to Halliburton even as Halliburton seems to have hijacked the armed forces of the United States to do its dirty work.

Here's the truly tragic aspect of the Bush's coup d'etat: the Democrats —time and again —have simply failed to oppose, have failed to put forward an alternative to Bush's corporate rule of America, the GOP's concerted, deliberate, and well-organized subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law:
Unfortunately, the Democrats’ “Real Security” plan , released yesterday, falls short of providing a sharp alternative to Republican policies. Whether one looks at the primary document, a 10-page brochure, or the 123 pages of back-up material, what emerges is not a plan, but a mixture of rhetoric and goals that is short on specifics and fails to set clear priorities. Its vagueness no doubt derives from the consensus nature of the document. The current Democratic Party is a fractured mosaic of factions with divergent positions on issues ranging from the war in Iraq to how best to address Iran’s nascent nuclear enrichment program. Coming up with a common platform that takes a clear stand on anything is no small task.
— Democrats' Tough Talk, William D. Hartung
Kevin Phillips has summed up more in fewer words than most books and articles to date on the origins of Bush's power, the nature of his constituency, and the real reasons for the the so-called "war on terrorism". In even fewer words: the war on terrorism is not about 911, Bin Laden, or Saddam; it's about OIL! Thus, Phillips exposes the lies told by Bush on the road to theocracy:

How the GOP Became God's Own Party

By Kevin Phillips
Sunday, April 2, 2006; B03
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.
The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.
...
Because the United States is beginning to run out of its own oil sources, a military solution to an energy crisis is hardly lunacy. Neither Caesar nor Napoleon would have flinched. What Caesar and Napoleon did not face, but less able American presidents do, is that bungled overseas military embroilments could also boomerang economically. The United States, some $4 trillion in hock internationally, has become the world's leading debtor, increasingly nagged by worry that some nations will sell dollars in their reserves and switch their holdings to rival currencies. Washington prints bonds and dollar-green IOUs, which European and Asian bankers accumulate until for some reason they lose patience. This is the debt Achilles' heel, which stands alongside the oil Achilles' heel. ...

Impeaching Bush is just the start

By Dennis Fox/ Gadflying,Thursday, March 30, 2006"

Town Meeting urges our representative in Congress to introduce and/or support a resolution impeaching President George W. Bush." That's the warrant article Brookline Town Meeting will probably approve in May. It's good, but it's not enough. ...

Impeachment: Too Easy

Impeaching the president is the remedy when Congress can't control him. This Congress hasn't even tried. Since talk of impeachment is in the air, it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to ...

US invasions and genocides: Dutch soldiers refuse

Indymedia Argentina
"Two thirds feel politicians in The Hague have handled the issue badly and only 4 (FOUR) percent of the respondents think the performance of the (cowardly, malignant, brain- and spineless) MP's and 'ministers' on the issue has been good.". ...
From an excellent blog:

It is the victors who write History

And in so doing, they will always gloss-over their own excesses or omit them altogether - but the awareness of guilt endures notwithstanding, and is passed on subliminally to subsequent generations.

In this context, a friend of mine on a discussion board brought an important article to my attention, regarding war crimes and victors and abuses.
An excerpt:
No one knows how many civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. The most careful assessment, by the website Iraq Body Count, estimates at least 36,000. The true figure could be three times higher. The uncertainty is explained by General Tommy Franks' now-notorious remark, "We don't do body counts."

Three interesting facts nevertheless help shape a sense of the possibilities. One is that the US forces insist that they use precision techniques to minimise "collateral damage". The second is that the coalition recently and controversially admitted using phosphorus weapons in its attack on Falluja. The third is that one of the US marine air wings operating in Iraq announced in a press release in November 2005 that since the invasion began it had dropped more than half a million tons of explosives on Iraq.
The felt inconsistency between the first fact and the other two reminds one that ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the fourth Geneva convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians. ...
An update: Bush has been frightened by Peace Activists in Texas. They've have frigtened him so that he won't sbe spending Easter in Texas.

Bush cutting back visits to Crawford ranch amid protests, paper to report

RAW STORY, Published: Sunday April 2, 2006

Since last summer President Bush's visits to Crawford, Texas have been "less visible," which some experts link to demonstrations of antiwar protesters held nearby his ranch, according to an article set for the Waco Tribune-Herald in Monday editions.
According to the Tribune-Herald, the police chief of Waco has said President Bush will not be celebrating Easter there with his family, as he has done in the past. ...


Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The Founding Fathers' Revenge: How the People Can Fire George W. Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It's time to fire Bush. There is a way that the people of the United States can fire Bush short of a Constitutional Amendment implementing a recall. And it beats waiting around for the actions of a Congress which enjoys even lower ratings than Bush. The remedy is "revolutionary" —but the best part is that it's entirely constitutional and there is absolutely nothing —within the law —that Bush can do about it. He can but wait for the verdict and pack his bags when he gets it. The "revolutionary" remedy had been foreseen by the founders. It is a new National Convention as described in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Why this extraordinary measure?

Congress has proven that it lacks the will to impeach though Bush's support continues to collapse. Bush himself expects that it will be left to a successor to clean up the mess he's made in Iraq. If that's the case, then it's better that a successor get started sooner than later. It is ironic that Bush has openly defended his overt usurpation of dictatorial powers even as he presides over the historic collapse of his popular support. How logical is that?
According to SurveyUSA.com, which tracks Bush’s approval ratings in all 50 states, Bush’s support in the March readings plunged to double-digit net negative numbers even in some staunchly Republican states: -12% in South Carolina, -17% in Indiana, -18% in Virginia, and -19% in Tennessee. In Bush’s home state of Texas, public disapproval topped approval by 14 percentage points.

—Sam Parry, State after State Repudiates Bush

In November, Ted Rall made a compelling case for a national recall of Bush and last week there was some buzz about how a national recall could be effected. Now former Nixon staffer and distinguished author Kevin Phillips (Wealth and Democracy) makes the analogy to California which recalled Gray Davis.
Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutional remedy, the possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.

—Kevin Phillips, Time to Recall Bush?

Bush's edge is now within the "margin of error” in four of the so-called "red states". His solid support may be down to only three states. That means that since 2004, Bush has lost his margins of from +20% to +46% in those states. Truly historic.

That Bush is losing support state by state makes the "revolutionary" concept of a new National Convention practical. It is the state legislatures that can make a new national convention happen whether or not Bush supports it. He won't support it and it won't matter.

According to Article 5 of the Constitution, two thirds of the state legislatures may petition Congress to convene a national convention.
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which , in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

—U.S. Constitution, Article 5

In November, Ted Rall made a compelling case for a national recall. At the time, Rall quoted USA today:
“When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls–as President Bush has done twice in the past two months–it’s usually a sign of serious political danger.” —Richard Benedetto, USA Today.
Now Bush's numbers are even worse and more significantly it is not the overall numbers that matter. It's the states! Getting the support of two thirds of the state houses is within reach of a well organized popular movement. Being a creation of the various states, a new national convention is completely outside the Washington bureaucracy. It would be beyond the reach of Bush to intimidate or threaten.

What could a national convention do? A new national convention would have all the powers of the original Philadelphia Convention. According to the late Sen. Sam Irvin of Watergate Committee fame, it could rewrite the Constitution if it wanted to. But a prudent convention need only build upon the framers intentions even though Bush is widely quoted as having said:
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush

A new convention would put teeth into the Constitution making it clear and un-nuanced so that Bush might understand that it is the supreme law of the land, a lesson he might have skipped at Yale. A lesson apparently not high on the Skull and Bones list of activities.

A new national convention could literally write George W. Bush out of a job; it could, if it wanted to, rewrite the job description, change the title from "President" to something else and set the date for a direct election of the new executive.

It could write strict language binding the new executive to the laws of the land; it could establish severe penalties for violations of the law. Impeachment may not even be necessary. The new national convention could literally form a new government —a velvet revolution. And there is absolutely nothing that Bush could do to stop it unless he is willing to order the U. S. Army to attack it. I don't think even Bush would do that.

A new national convention could also set a national standard for the direct popular election of the "executive", abolishing the antiquated Electoral College and requiring paper trails at every precinct in the nation. A new national convention could make unlawful Presidential "signing statements". A new national convention could eliminate completely the corporate sponsorship of all politicians.

A new national convention could put new teeth into the Bill of Rights and could prescribe criminal penalties for egregious violations. A new national convention could eschew the international lawlessness of the Bush regime, withdraw us from Iraq, re-affirm Due Process of Law and the rule of law, and establish new standards of accountability for elected officials and bureaucrats.

A new national convention could end the "imperial presidency" by ending "empire". A new national convention could put the Military/Industrial complex out of business by slashing its budget to Constitutional restraints. A new national convention could establish the standards by which this might be achieved. A new national convention could require the CIA to make public and submit to an oversight committee a line item budget. At present, the CIA budget is a big secret.

A new national convention could re-affirm what Thomas Jefferson called the "wall of separation" between church and state. A new national convention could give this nation a "rebirth of freedom". A new national convention might restore the republic, something the emperor Augustus never got around to doing and something that the emperor Bush has never intended to do.

Meanwhile, Bush continues to thumb his nose at the Constitution and Congress aids and abets.
We need new National Convention —even if Congress should wake up and impeach. This has gotten serious folks and, if any shred of American Democracy is to remains, we must act. We need a NEW government.

Bush chooses to ignore Constitution

DAVID SARASOHN

The U.S. Constitution — which these days a lot of Americans sleep with under their pillows — is fairly direct about the relationship between the president and the laws.

"He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," it says. There's nothing in there about "if he thinks they're a good idea."

You wonder whether President Bush has ever read that part.

You'd think he has, because that requirement comes right between two duties the president probably finds more congenial: "He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers" and "shall commission all the officers of the United States." But sometimes you wonder just how deep his constitutional reading has gone.

OPTING OUT OF PATRIOT ACT

Last month, in a White House photo opportunity, the president signed the renewal of the Patriot Act after a year of legislative fights about expanded powers the act gave the government. After negotiating and rewriting, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., proudly claimed to have added significant limits, including a requirement that the administration regularly report to congressional committees about its use of the new powers.

Signing the bill, the president called it "a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people."

Which didn't mean that he thought the legislation was binding on him.

As the Boston Globe reported last week, after reporters left, the White House issued a statement declaring that the president would ignore the notification requirements if he decided they would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

So, after a year of congressmen debating what kind of law they should pass, Bush reminds them — as he did after he failed to stop Congress from banning the use of torture on prisoners, as he does by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court when ordering wiretaps — that, after all, the laws don't apply to him. ...



Sunday, March 26, 2006

Scalia's Got Some 'Splainin' to Do; He's Thinking Backward Again!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Says "Enemy Combatants" have no legal rights; Scalia is wrong!

Scalia told an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland that the Constitution does not protect foreigners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And then he called European criticism of Bush "hypocritical".

Typically, Scalia's remarks are shot-through with circular fallacies and inconsistencies and —quite possibly —deliberate distortions. Due Process of Law is not limited to "citizens" of the United States as Scalia would have you believe. Moreover, denial of "Due Process" violates Nuremberg and Geneva —treaties to which the United States is bound. In any case, "Enemy combatant" is a term used arbitrarily by Bush; it is, conveniently for Bush, whatever Bush says it is. At last, the right of citizens to defend a homeland against the invasion of an aggressor nation is a settled principle of International Law. Scalia is wrong!

The term "enemy combatant" may or may not not apply to any one currently held in Guantanamo. The issue is Scalia's assumptive premise. If followed to its logical conclusion, we will never know the truth about how many "enemy combatants" —if any —are held at Guantanamo. The Bush/Scalia rationale seems conveniently designed to hide the truth. Denying Due Process to detainees is a sure way to accomplish just that. Taken to its logical conclusion, Scalia's doctrine gives to Bush the power to define American citizens as terrorist. Our rights under the Bill of Rights are thus gone forever.

According to the Washington Post, Scalia's comments came just weeks before the justices are to take up an appeal from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay. The court will hear arguments Monday on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's assertion that President Bush overstepped his constitutional authority when he ordered a military trial for the former driver of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. It would appear that Scalia has already made up his mind. The case will merely go through the motions.

Scalia's prejudice is revealed before the case can be heard. But that is hardly surprising. When the high court ruled two years ago that detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention, Scalia disagreed. One wonders if he now has support he can count on from Roberts and Scalito.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying. "Give me a break."
Give ME a break! Scalia habitually thinks backward —from his prejudice to a convenient rationalization, from conclusions already drawn to convenient premises. It was Scalia who said one of the most absurd things ever coughed up by a judge. Continuing the recount (in Florida), he said, would be harmful to George Bush. Excuse me! The one who gets the fewer number of votes is supposed to lose the election. But if you conclude that neither Bush nor Scalia have any interest in defending either Democracy or the Constitution it all makes sense.
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush

Scalia's dissent in the Rasul v. Bush case in 2004 said:
"The consequence of this holding, as applied to aliens outside the country, is breathtaking. It permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to bring a petition against the secretary of defense. . . . Each detainee (at Guantanamo) undoubtedly has complaints -- real or contrived -- about those terms and circumstances. . . . From this point forward, federal courts will entertain petitions from these prisoners, and others like them around the world, challenging actions and events far away, and forcing the courts to oversee one aspect of the executive's conduct of a foreign war."
Just a fusillade of words! What does Scalia have against learning the truth? Why would he prefer to remain ignorant of who the "enemy combatants" truly are based upon fact and evidence? Clearly —the summary injustice of rounding up people and holding them incommunicado, in secret, interminably, without access to attorney, without charges, without right of counsel, is not a recipe likely to win the hearts and minds of a people. Clearly —the Bush/Scalia formula has made terrorism worse and the world a much more dangerous place.

An audience member in Switzerland asked our prejudiced judge about whether Guantanamo Bay detainees have protection under the Geneva or human rights conventions. According to Newsweek, Scalia replied:
If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy,
Well, Scalia, I am addressing the following questions directly to you should you chance upon this blog: if we are, in fact, fighting a war —as Bush has told us we are —then how would you explain the capture of non-U.S. citizens on anything other than a battlefield? If a citizen of a country that we have illegally invaded shoots back at us, does that not make it a "battlefield" by definition? If a foreign army invaded the United States would not citizens have the right to shoot back at them? What if that foreign power lied about its reasons for invading us? At last, if the person in question is truly an "enemy combatant" would that not make a "battlefield" of the area in which the person in question is doing battle? At last —have we not made of all of Iraq a "battlefield" by invading that sovereign nation upon a pack of black-hearted, malicious, deliberate lies?

And now some questions for anyone who might chance upon this blog: doesn't it seem to you that Scalia does a lot "politicking" for someone who has an income for life? Doesn't it seem to you that Scalia does a lot of "campaigning" on behalf of partisan causes even as he would have you believe that he is an impartial arbiter of justice?

Related updates:

US has ``Black'' torture chamber in Iraq

President's serial hypocrisy revealed again

News today in the New York Times:

[An] elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.
George W. Bush has been naked for years on these atrocities, preaching serial hypocrisy on torture with extraordinary balls, since he claimed back in 2003 that Iraq under his fatherly love would be ``free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police'' and that -- like he claimed three years ago this week -- that Iraqis no longer would have to fear the tyrant Saddam's ``torture chambers and rape rooms''. Seems those same torture chambers have instead been built up and enhanced, continuing to be scenes of torture under Bush to this day, two years after the Abu Ghraib story broke.

Deep Blade has covered serial hypocrisy on torture and rape in Iraq for years now. See entries here, here, and here among other places. A couple of years ago, William Saletan published a timeline called Rape Rooms: A Chronology What Bush said as the Iraq prison scandal unfolded -- damning indictments.

These are war crimes, for which Bush as Commander-in-Chief is ultimately responsible.
SUPREME COURT

Scalia Unplugged

This Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. At issue is whether a detainee held at Guantanamo Bay is entitled to be tried by a civilian court, and whether the Geneva Conventions apply. New revelations reported by Newsweek cast some doubt on whether Justice Antonin Scalia will be sitting on the high court when opening arguments are heard. While speaking at an overseas conference on March 8, Scalia addressed the very issues the court will consider this week, asserting that the Constitution does not protect foreigners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (To watch Scalia's lecture, click here.) In a case involving the pledge of allegiance, Scalia did recuse himself because he had made comments prior to the case that left a reasonable doubt about his impartiality.

WHAT'S AT STAKE: The Bush administration has maintained that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and has established special military commissions to try these detainees without fundamental due process protections required by American and international law. Hamdan's lawyers, on the other hand, say their client and other detainees at Guantánamo are covered by the Constitution and should be afforded basic due process rights. Amnesty International has repeatedly urged the U.S. government to abolish the special military commissions because it contends the commissions breach fundamental standards for fair trial. Solicitor General Paul Clement, using arguments similar to those involved in the warrantless wiretapping issue, will argue that President Bush has the authority to subject captured enemy combatants to trial by military commissions through his inherent commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution and through Congress's passage of the 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Thus, the Hamdan case "will test the scope of presidential power in the war on terror. It may clarify how detained al Qaeda suspects are treated by the US." Also, it will address where the balance of power falls in terrorism cases related to national security.

SCALIA REVEALS HIS BIAS: In his lecture to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Scalia adamantly declared that the Constitution does not protect foreign enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he said. "Give me a break." Scalia's understanding of the legal rights of prisoners flies in the face of one of the Supreme Court's own rulings. In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court specifically stated that allegations by detainees who have been detained without access to counsel and without being charged of any wrongdoing "unquestionably describe 'custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" There is reason to believe, given his comments, that Scalia would not give due regard this prior holding of the Court.

COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT TO THE CASE: Challenged on his beliefs about whether the Gitmo detainees have protections under the Geneva or human rights conventions, Scalia told the Swiss audience: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." The comments are particularly relevant to the case at hand because, according to Hamdan's brief, he was "apprehended on the field of battle in a war between the United States and the government of Afghanistan." In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia wasn't nearly as dismissive of detainee's rights. In that case, he showed disdain for the creation of an alternative process of detention. And, of all the justices on the Court, he took the most restrictive view of Executive power of detention, arguing that Hamdi must be tried under criminal law unless Congress suspended the right to habeas corpus.

GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL: According to Father Robert Drinan, a professor of judicial ethics at the Georgetown University Law Center, the standard for recusal is that a justice "should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality." Drinan added Scalia's most recent comments in relation to the Hamdan case "should logically be a reason for his recusal." Other legal pundits have suggested that Scalia may not need to recuse himself because he did not specifically refer to the Hamdan case in his comments. But in fact, the statute governing inappropriate judicial speech states that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

SCALIA'S STANDARD: Scalia previously recused himself from the Court's decision in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, a case concerning whether the pledge of allegiance should have been banned from public schools due to its use of the words "under God." Prior to the Court's acceptance of the case, Scalia had remarked publicly that removing references to God would be "contrary to our whole tradition," and he suggested that courts did not have a role to play in changing the pledge of allegiance. Scalia's comments were not specific to the Newdow case, but rather, were related to the legal issue at hand, a noteworthy parallel to Scalia's most recent remarks on detainee's rights. Scalia explained he had, on the basis of "established principles and practices...said or done something" that required recusal. In another famous incident, Scalia decided not to recuse himself from a case involving his friend, Vice President Cheney. Scalia argued, "Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse." He argued he would recuse when, "on the basis of established principles and practices, I have said or done something which requires this course." That case did not involve allegations that Scalia had made pre-determined judgments on the legal issues at hand. Though a request for recusal can be submitted by one of parties to the Hamdan case, it is ultimately up to Scalia to determine for himself whether or not he will recuse. Should Scalia decide to recuse himself, it would leave the Court with seven justices to rule in Hamdan. (Chief Justice John Roberts has already recused himself from the case because he participated in a ruling on the case when he sat on the federal appeals court.)
An update:

Supreme Court hears challenge to military tribunals

San Jose Mercury News BY CAROL ROSENBERG. WASHINGTON -

In a key test of President Bush's war powers, the Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether the Pentagon's plan to try Osama bin Laden's ex-driver before a special military commission violates international law and the U.S. Constitution.

Neal Katyal, the attorney for Salim Hamdan, argued that the Pentagon had concocted a charge - conspiracy - that isn't a war crime, had failed to grant Hamdan certain Geneva Conventions rights, such as prisoner-of-war status, and fell short of standards that Congress has set for how the United States must conduct either military or civilian justice.

"This is a military commission that is literally unbounded by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States," he told the court. ...



GOP Fraud, Lies, and Certitude: Sources and Affects

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The 14th-century philosopher William of Occam said Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity. In other words, the best hypothesis is the one with the fewest number of unproven assumptions. Simple folk complicate Occam in the name of 'simplification'. Occam did not say that the 'simplest' explanation is the best, nor did he say that the simplest explanation is always true.

The key to Occam is the phrase: "...the fewest number of unproven assumptions". So called 'simple explanations' which assume as 'fact' propositions for which there is no evidence do violence to Occam's simple dictum: multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.

Occam's razor is problematic for the conservative mentality accustomed to thinking in terms of absolute truths —a world of black or white, a world of you are either for us or against us, a world of if you are liberal you are a traitor! This mentality will discount a 'proposition' if conflicts with a pre-conceived notion, of one for which there is neither proof nor evidence. The GOP inclined, for example, will discount empirical evidence if it conflicts with cherished ideology. In other centuries, this 'top down' mentality burned witches, disemboweled heretics, and, more recently, in Kansas, forbids the teaching of biological science.

In advance of his time, Occam introduced a measure of probability into the very concept of truth i.e., the simplest solution is most probably correct.

Occam presaged Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by some 500 years or so. Heisenberg posited that either the position or the velocity of a sub-atomic particle may be known with certainty —but not both at the same instant. If one value is known, the other is only a probability. If the velocity is known precisely then the location may be expressed only as a probability inversely proportional to the degree to which the location is known.

More recently, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem strikes at the very heart of Russell and Whitehead's grounding of mathematics in pure logic. Gödel proved that in any formal system —consisting of a finite set of axioms and the meta-language in which the rules for inference are set —there will always be at least one true theorem that is not derivable by inference.

Both developments harken back to Occam. Truth is always fuzzy but common-sense has always been the enemy of bigotry, moral certitude, propaganda and state-sponsored lies. That's because liars and moral absolutists have something in common: God and truth is always on their side. Or so they would have you believe.

I would like to be as certain of one thing as Bush and Bushies are of all things. How is it possible that Bush and the GOP are so absolutely correct about all things as Bush would have you believe? The simplest and best explanation is simply: they are not! They know nothing. And what is known they lie about. Global warming is just such an issue. Bushies must surely know the truth of it but lie about it in order to protect a robber baron constituency of corporate sponsors.

The falsehoods of the Bush administration can be classified as:
  • Deliberate, planned campaigns of lies, falsehoods and propaganda!
  • Incompetent mistakes!
The war in Iraq is both. Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the United Nations was clearly a well-planned and orchestrated gestalt of deliberate lies based upon plagiarized student papers, exaggerations in which the Bush administration ignored evidence to the contrary, 20 old black and white satellite photos. The consequences have not yet dawned upon the American public and, indeed, even our elected officials.

Let's try to make clear the significance of this series of lies. If Bush deliberately misled the American people and the world in order to justify his attack and invasion of Iraq, then the war, itself, is and continues to be, a crime against the peace. Its continuation is but a series of individual crimes against humanity. As such, it violates the Nuremberg Principles that the United States had insisted upon at the end of World War II. Violations of Nuremberg are criminal offenses in the United States, prohibited specifically by U.S. Codes, Section 2441.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

—U.S Codes; Section 2441

Bush's order to attack —whatever Congressional authorization he may claim —violates both Nuremberg and U.S. Codes. Moreover, if Bush lied to the American people and to the world, he lied also to Congress. Whatever was passed by Congress is, therefore, null and void by virtue of Bush's deliberate fraud, itself a deliberate subversion of the Constitution. As such, it is most certainly high treason.

Sadly, the War against the people of Iraq is not the only fraud that Bush has perpetrated upon the world and the American people. A short list includes Global warming —about which the GOP and the oil industry waged a 15 year long campaign of lies and misinformation. Other lies, frauds, and hoaxes include the tax cut; faith-based initiatives; the unilateral and quite possibly illegal abrogation of Kyoto; "no child left behind"; his attack on Social Security; his illegal, unconstitutional widespread domestic wiretapping program; the Bush crack down on American civil liberties; his having arrogated unto himself the powers of judge, jury, and legislature.

All are based on lies!

All are illegal!

All make up the gestalt of frauds that ARE the Bush administration!

All make this administration the very worst in American history.

All make this "President" a clear and present danger to America and to the world.

An update:

Bush lies - he wanted war

For a long time, it seemed that I was the only blue-state person who did not think George Bush lied about how we came to invade Iraq. Then, last week, indomitable journalist Helen Thomas asked the President why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the President said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there is plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the 9/11 attacks.

Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, writes in his book "Against All Enemies" that within a day Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in terrorist attacks. When told no, the President said testily, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he had told Donald Rumsfeld to prepare a plan to invade that country, but not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said he would eventually have to take CIA director George Tenet into his confidence. "Fine," Woodward quotes Bush as saying, "but not now." ...

When will Bush's lies be punished?

Mar. 27, 2006 12:00 AM

According to NBC news, the United States paid a six-figure salary to the Iranian foreign minister to keep us briefed on the situation in Baghdad.

Moreover, it was reported that he told the United States well before our invasion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which turned out to be true.

If this is so - and it would be amazing for NBC to report such news without factual support - Congress must immediately begin impeachment proceedings.

For the president of the United States to have had prior knowledge of the lies he was telling us and still go to war would be treason of the highest order.

When will the last of his lies be revealed?

- Don McGuire, Glendale


Image: irregulartimes.com

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Support a National Recall of George W. Bush

By Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

The George W. Bush school of government can be summarized as follows: repeat a lie often enough and just enough people will come to believe it! Clearly —Bush is committed to repeating lies and governing with failed strategies. If the Democrats do not have the will to impeach and remove for incompetence and outright criminality of the high crimes type, then there is no other choice but to organize a national recall movement.

In November, Ted Rall made a compelling case for a national recall. At the time, Rall quoted USA today:
“When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls–as President Bush has done twice in the past two months–it’s usually a sign of serious political danger,” —Richard Benedetto, USA Today.
It's March already! And Bush's numbers are even worse! As I recall, in November, Bush still held a slight edge on the issue of "terrorism" and/or Iraq, the two issues Bushies love to confuse in the public mind. Bush no longer enjoys an edge on either topic. And also since November Bush has continued to flout the law, assuming absolute powers and judicial authority that the founders never intended to bestow upon one branch of the federal government. Most certainly not the executive. Read James Madison and specifically his notes made during the Constitutional Convention.

Arrogating unto himself the power to define who is "terrorist" and who is not, who is an "enemy combatant" and who is not, Bush clearly seeks to render moot the independent judiciary. Bush, himself, will determine which laws he will enforce and which laws he will ignore. In other ways, Bush will replace the courts with his own Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, an arch enabler whose new job description is that of making legal what Bush has already done. There is a word for this: tyranny! Allowing a man who claims for himself the right to assassinate American citizens is inexcusable and dangerous.

Gop candidates meanwhile are well-advised to distance themselves from George W. Bush. In all but a few entrenched red states, Bush not only has no coattails, he is a liability. The GOP will never lead an impeachment effort as it would tear the party apart at the very moment of its greatest triumph: control of both houses, the High Court and the Presidency. A Democratic move to impeach Bush would be doing them a favor. Likewise, GOP candidates might support a recall movement as it would most certainly pull their own fat out of the fire.

Democratic reluctance may be understandable. They don't have the votes on a party line basis to impeach. A failed effort will only strengthen Bush. A successful effort will only embitter GOP hangers-on and radicalize them further. It is better to let the GOP do its own dirty work.

On the other hand, a national movement to recall shifts the paradigm. Millions disillusioned by Bush in both parties could support such a movement without fear. A viable national movement would also give leaders of both parties the cover they need to work for Bush's removal from office.

But punditry aside, removing Bush from office is simply the correct and morally right thing to do for several reasons:
  • Bush has set dangerous precedents not the least of which is the bogus "unitary executive" theory. How will Republicans feel about that when a Democratic President, likewise, tries to rule by decree?
  • The Constitution is already in tatters and will not survive the precedent of Bush serving out his term. Removal from office by a national recall will set the stage for a sweeping righting of wrongs.
  • Iraq is not only a failure, it exposes a fatal weakness in the American pretense of empire. The dollar will not survive another debacle of an Iraq magnitude.
  • Bush's removal now will allow some time to heal before the nation is plunged into a campaign of bitter recriminations, name-calling, and throat cutting.
According to USA Today, five of eight President since 1950 fell below 40 percent —Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. All lost their bids for reelection or opted not to seek re-election. A sixth, Richard Nixon, resigned under pressure from his own party. He would most certainly have been impeached and remove. Only two —Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton —turned things around. Clinton, however, left a mixed legacy and may have even made possible the ascension of the very worst "President" in American history, George W. Bush. Ronald Reagan is revered only by die hard Republicans who were pre-disposed to believe his lies anyway and the nation still suffers from his economic legacy.

Rall advocated setting up a "...California-style recall system on the national level". The California system requires signatures on a petition of some 12 percent of the number of people voting in the preceding election. Something like that must be set up nationwide. I urge activists to get on with it. I'm not good at that sort of thing myself; just let me know how I can help spread the word. That's something I know something about.

If Bush is removed now, there may yet be time to heal some wounds and, at least, begin to undo the damage Bush has inflicted upon legal precedent and the Constitution. There may yet be time to begin a restoration of our Democratic Republic.
Apparently the "major" media missed this one. Bush has declared that he IS the law. Bush and Bush alone will decide which laws are enforced and which are not; Bush and Bush alone will interpret the laws; Bush and Bush alone will rule by fiat:

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." ...

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

It's time to bombard Congress with DEMANDS that Bush be removed from office. We might start with an actual debate on the illegal occupation of Iraq. Check out this site and make your voice heard:

Act for Change

Tell Congress to Hold an Open Debate on the Occupation of Iraq
After three years and more than 2,300 American soldiers dead, there's no end in sight. Sectarian violence rages. President Bush just asserted that U.S. forces are likely to remain in Iraq through 2009. Yet, Congress -- explicitly charged with overseeing military actions by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution -- has done little beyond rubber stamping the President's requests for more and more money to support the occupation.

It's time for Members of Congress to hold an open debate on the occupation of Iraq. But, because Speaker Hastert and the rest of the House Leadership refuses to allow measures critical of the Bush administration to the floor, a bi-partisan group of Representatives are supporting a legislative maneuver called a "discharge petition." If more than half of the members of the House sign the petition, Speaker Hastert will have no choice but to allow a 17 hour debate on the Iraq occupation -- split equally between both sides of the aisle. And members would be able to offer amendments without prior approval from the leadership.

The families who have lost soldiers in Iraq, the veterans returning with debilitating injuries, the taxpayers who are asked to pay for this ever-expanding war, all deserve a frank discussion of our country's role in Iraq. ...
Here's a relevant update from an excellent article:
Students of Western Civilization might also recall that Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 for "glory" (that's French for empire) and to restore Islam to its genuine teachings (I guess meaning to bring those misguided souls back to their Christian roots). The Little Corporal didn't fare much better there than he did at Waterloo or that a latter day Napoleon wannabe is now doing in Iraq. It's a shame he's not still around to explain that to our current "head dreamer of empire." But I doubt it would do much good as below I explain the only authority our warrior president listens to.

The point from my brief history lesson is to connect it to our own present situation. For the first time ever, we now have a president, at least the first one admitting it publicly, who also believes the Almighty speaks to him, tells him what to, and he's just following orders from that higher authority. I don't think he's kidding when he says God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder if that same God told him to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

—Stephen Lendman, Peace Journalism

Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship. ...


Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Bush's New PR Offensive: Old Lies Die Hard!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet yet again! And congress continues to let him get away with it. Once again, the "rule of law" takes a beating. Bush repeats a fairy tale about Iraq and cites it as justification for his thumbing his nose at the Constitution. This is circular, delusional thinking at its most egregious.

The reality in Iraq is a stark contrast to Bush's PR version. Numerous writers in Iraq describe a "...a country convulsed by fear" where sectarian killings are commonplace; the scale of violence is largely unseen. It is most certainly undescribed or referenced by Bush! In a nation —still largely without lights or running water —civilians flee old neighborhoods desperately seeking safer ground —IF it can be found. Death squads roam the streets. Bush never talks about this.

And even as Bush has created chaos and civil war in Iraq, he cites Iraq as justification for his crackdown on civil liberties and the rule of law at home. That, in and of itself, should be grounds enough for impeachment and removal from office immediately.

Socrates said that the good was good not because the gods approved it but that the gods approved because it was good. Bush and his party have reversed the logic of Socrates. The GOP reverses thought processes, thinking backward to make legal crimes already committed, rationalizing bad decisions after the harm has already been done. Fast forward to G. W. Bush, who, like Richard Nixon before him, has said that if the President does it it's legal. If Socrates were alive, he would say that both Nixon and Bush had it backward. Socrates is right; the GOP is dead wrong.

Backward thinking is not uncommon in the ranks of the GOP but it seems to have reached epidemic levels with the ascension of George W. Bush. Before the Supreme Court handed down Bush v Gore, the most infamous 5 to 4 decision in its history, Antonin Scalia had already given the game away. Continuing the recount, he said, would be harmful to Bush.

On still another occasion, Scalia said:

Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

—Antonin Scalia, U. S. Supreme Court Justice

Backward thinking! It assumed that Bush had already more votes than Gore. We know now that such was not the case. Had the court ordered recount continued as it should have, Gore would surely have won the White House. Take Scalia to his logical conclusion and the actual counting of votes need never be done again. Counting votes is sure to be harmful to someone. Last time I checked, the candidate getting the fewer number of votes was supposed to lose.

Ironically, it was Scalia who had said that it was not the court's job to hand down decisions applicable only in single cases; it was, rather, the job of the court to make precedent, establish case law. But, guiltily, the Bush v Gore court added a hasty, guilty proviso limiting Bush v Gore to one case and one case only. This would seem to be, in itself, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment cited so fallaciously and disingenuously by the five vote ideological majority.

And lately Bush crows about "Inherent" powers" and "implicit" authorization! It makes one long for the good old days when President Bush pledged his allegiance to a philosophy of "strict" construction. I've never seen anything in the Constitition about "inherent" or "implicit" powers and, if the GOP had not been disingenuous about "strict constructionism", they would have to admit that they haven't either.

President Truman claimed to have "implicit" or "inherent powers" to seize U.S. steel mills during the Korean War. But, in a landmark decision, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court rejected Truman's argument, ruling that his seizure was unconstitutional.

When the United States signs agreements like the Geneva Conventions, they become the law of the land. Congress is therefore allowing Bush to circumvent the law with his unilateral re-invention of both law and language. Bush has invented new descriptions of "enemies", and he has arrogated unto himself the power to define what he unilaterally chooses to call "enemy combatants". He assumes the power to hold this "class" of his invention incommunicado indefinitely —even if they are American citizens. Though the Supreme Court has said that this is outside the law, Bush would have you believe that he is above the law. If Bush is correct, SCOTUS is moot. Have the justices on the court been given two weeks notice and pension?

If Bush is allowed to interpret the laws, then the independent judiciary is no longer required. Bush has denied authorizing the torture of captives, but when Congress proposed to outlaw the practice, he threatened to veto their efforts. That would seem to be, in itself, evidence that he had ordered torture knowing that it was a violation of the law. Then Bush compounded his crime; when a ban was passed with a veto-proof majority, Bush signed the measure but added a memo that said, in effect, that if he felt the need, he would not obey it, "it" being the law.

It is not Bush's job to decide which laws he will enforce and which laws he will not. I don't give a damn about how Bush "feels" about the law. If he wants to talk about his feelings, let him join a support group! "His "memo" is a challenge to the separation of powers and more evidence that the quote attributed to Bush is accurate:
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush, as quoted in Capitol Hill Blue

On yet another related issue, Bush has acted in a manner consistent with the quote that is attributed to him. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act states —without ambiguity —that domestic phone surveillance could not be conducted without a warrant. A special court [FISA] was set up by Congress so that Presidents could obtain court approvals in a timely manner. Bush, however, chose to ignore and violate the law setting up the FISA court.

It was not only Democrats who were alarmed:
We have not just allegations, but proud admissions by the Republican Administration of George W. Bush that it has been conducting surreptitious electronic surveillance of American citizens, without court approval, in obvious contravention of an explicit federal law to the contrary.

—Bob Barr

Meanwhile, Bush continues to thumb his nose at Congress, wiretapping, bugging and spying on American citizens and boasting about it —though he is violating the law daily! NOTHING said by Bush has in any way refuted the law or rescinded it.

Where is the Congress when the President of the United States thumbs his nose at the rule of law, the Constitution, and the separation of powers? Everything done by Bush over the last several months has supported the charge that Bush exploits terrorism in order to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq —in itself an ongoing war crime. [See:325 000 names on terror list ]

Bush's subversion of our laws erodes Democracy and the rule of law. Our Chief Executive has become an outlaw, and, in the process, we have ceased to be a Democratic Republic.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

U.S. Torture Policies Inspire Renewed International Outrage

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

As the New York Times reveals that Abu Ghraib torture continued after the initial revelations, a Russian federation has demanded that the United Nations order the closure of the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo.

In a paper called "In Defense of Humanity", the 46 deputies representing of the Russian Federation Communist Party have denounced what they've termed "Guantanomo's shame" and have demanded that the U.S. detention center in Cuba be closed. 400 intellectuals from 30 countries signed a formal document calling for the closure.

The signatories include Guennadi Ziuganov, president of the Russian Federation Communist Party, Nobel Prizewinner Zhores Alfiorov, Deputy President of the Law Camera Valentin Kupsov, President of the parliamentary group of friendship with Cuba Vitali Sebastianov, Cosmonaut Svietlana Savitskaya and General Director of the Russian paper "Sovietskaya" Rossia Valentin Chiquin. They have unanimously accused the Bush administration and U.S. Euroopean allies of working to prevent the Human Rights Commission in Geneva from formally condemning violations of human rights by the United States at Guantanamo.

The paper has charged the governments of the European Union with refusing to admit evidence of torture and other human rights violations by the United States.

According to the Latin American news agency, Presna Latina, the 62nd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights is set to convene in Geneva on March 20th. By that time, it is expected that world media will have broadcast new video footage of the U.S. military torturing Iraqi prisoners.

Following closely on the heels of the Russian action, the New York Times reports that torture continued both before and after the closure of Abu Ghraib.

In the windowless, jet-black garage-size room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball. Their intention was to extract information to help hunt down Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to Defense Department personnel who served with the unit or were briefed on its operations.
Signatories to "In Defense of Humanity" have meanwhile called on "world intellectuals, social organizations and anyone of good will" to demand that the United Nations order the closure of the U.S. base in Cuba.
Original 'Toon by Dante Lee. Use with permission only


Tuesday, March 14, 2006

As Bush Descends Into Hell, Will the Democratic Party Find its Soul?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush's reign of terror is falling apart as fast as Iraq slides into utter chaos and civil war. And still —the Democrats can't make the quantum leap from Bush's utter failure in Iraq to the emerging, undeniable fact that there is no "war on terror." The "one" terrorist suspect that Bushco has been able to link in any way with Al Qaeda may walk because, according to Judge Leonie Brinkema, Bushco's case is "irredeemably contaminated". [See: Washington Post, Federal Witnesses Banned in 9/11 Trial]

In all other instances, Bushco has merely defined all opposition as "terrorist". That's neat but fallacious! Worse —it's utterly useless if a real war is to be fought. It never was. In fact, opposition by an indigenous population to an aggressive invader is recognized as "legal" by any standard of international law. People have a right under international law to defend their homeland. Given those facts, one is hard pressed to find a single real terrorist in Iraq.

Is there no Democrat who will state the truth about Iraq? When will the Democrats begin with the most obvious truth: the war was begun upon a pack of lies? When will the Democratic party find the courage to state the fact that the war against Iraq was and remains illegal by every international standard insisted upon by the United States itself. When will the Democrats at last discover that the attack and invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" or with 911? Everything said by Bush about Iraq has been a lie. And the lies continue. Let's make this simple for the party of the "loyal opposition": the war was and remains a crime; it's morally wrong; it's a blunder from which the U.S. may never recover.

Let's be blunt: the Democrats have failed to gain a single point from Bush's numerous and assorted calamities because they've offered no real alternative. Americans are ahead of all politicians on this point.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph Biden's message is of the form "...but we could have fought the war better!" What war? The war on terror or the war against the people of Iraq? What Biden doesn't understand is that the one war was never fought —and the other should never have been fought! I am still awaiting the Democrat who will state flat out that the war was a crime!

The sins of omission, in the one case, and the sins of commission in the other, will forever link the word "evil" with the Bush administration. Certain themes recur whenever "evil" is talked about. The Nuremberg psychologist, Dr. Gustav Gilbert, thought "evil" to be an "...utter lack of empathy" and Hanah Arendt wrote of the Banality of Evil. Both concepts are consistent with a practice of the American right wing: blaming their victims. Many of the most infamous Nazis (Adolph Eichmann, for example) were just numbed bureaucrats doing a job. Others were "just following orders". The commandant of Auschwitz asked: "Is it wrong for a rat catcher to catch rats?"

Evil is often associated with the "Faustian Bargain". In literature, one literally sells one's soul to Ol' Scratch. But in real life, the Faustian Bargain is not so easy to spot. One sells one's soul in many ways. One sells one's soul by trading one's free will and conscience for material or other "gain" —bribes, high paying jobs, a home in suburbia, graft, campaign contributions.

Most corporate employees are bought and paid for. They have little choice but to support the evil corporation, the cancer merchants of big tobacco, the despoilers of the only environment we will ever have. Mere employment has no moral dimensions if the employer is in all cases benign —but what is to be said of the legion of company types who toil daily for Halliburton and, by proxy, Dick Cheney, Darth Vadar to Bush's evil Emperor?

In yet another example, I give you the Democratic Party. By refusing to oppose Bush with any effectiveness and, in fact, enabling some of his most repugnant and tyrannical measures, the Democrats have literally sold the soul of the party and worse —they done so at a discount. As Rick told Ugarte in Casablanca: "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one."

I would think normal people would find the idea that laws can be broken in order to carry out state sponsored atrocities, such as torture and wars of aggression, to be unthinkable. And, in normal times, I suppose, they are and most certainly should be. But the idea of "normal times" is seductive. There is every reason to believe that those lower echelon bureaucrats who carried out Hitler's crimes of aggression and genocide thought the times to be normal. It is sign of abnormal times that lawyers and bureaucrats worked assiduously to make Nazi atrocities legal ex post facto. In the Bush administration, that job has fallen to Alberto Gonzales.

Since the crashing of the Twin Towers, America has appeared to be in a state of mass hypnosis from which it is lately awakening. Americans have now learned that while they slept, Bush has imposed a police state upon the nation, complete with a secret police force, unbridled and unchecked widespread domestic surveillance of citizens, and a lost war waged perpetually nevertheless. One writer referred to it as an "... an ideological state of siege"

We are under seige by a radical right wing —a cancer on the body politic. It has grown since the Nixon resgination about which it is conveniently forgotten that it was Nixon's own party that did him in.
Under the aegis righteous retribution, the anger and frustration the neo-conservatives cultivated during the Vietnam War, and the degenerate Clinton Administration, was unleashed in a torrent of unabashed war mongering.

—When The Phoenix Comes Home To Roost, Douglas Valentine

But about the war —"we" are and were right; the rabid right and the GOP was dead wrong! Worse —the GOP was wrong and knew it but supported Bush anyway. Bush was lying and KNEW IT ...but went ahead anyway. It doesn't get any more evil than that.

It's time to listen to the anti-war movement

By COLIN EAGER

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, an unprecedented movement developed to stop the rush to war, a movement so large and diverse that the New York Times wrote of "two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion."

Tragically, the Bush administration ignored the majority of humankind and launched the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. The third anniversary of the Iraq War will be marked with demonstrations in hundreds of cities across America, including a rally in Lafayette Square at 4 p.m. Saturday.

An anniversary is an appropriate time for reflection, and looking back on the last three years, two points stand out.

First, the anti-war movement has been proven correct in its prewar assessment and warnings. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Invading Iraq destabilized the Middle East, damaged U.S.-Arab relations and created a new breeding ground for terrorists and violent Islamic fundamentalists. ...

PEW: Bush Approval Falls to 33%

In the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal, President Bush's approval rating has hit a new low and his image for honesty and effectiveness has been damaged. Yet the public uncharacteristically has good things to say about the role that Congress played in this high-profile Washington controversy.

Most Americans (58%) believe Congress acted appropriately in strenuously opposing the deal, while just 24% say lawmakers made too much of the situation.

While there is broad support for the way Congress handled the dispute, more Americans think Democratic leaders showed good judgment on the ports issue than say the same about GOP leaders (by 30%-20%).
From our man on the prairie: Garrison Keillor:

Day of reckoning for the Current Occupant

Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services

Published March 15, 2006

Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud, and with a little imagination you could sort of smell grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black, and went to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller," a Republican opera in which love is crushed by the perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.

The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh. It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew, church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign war and steered the economy toward receivership and wielded power as if there were no rules. Democrats are accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making some of the old ideas look awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national interest. What one might call "conservatism." ...
Jessica Simpson has just risen a notch in my estimation:

Jessica Simpson snubs Bush

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Concerned about politicizing her favorite charity, singer-actress Jessica Simpson on Wednesday turned down a invitation to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush, a snub that left Republicans dismayed.

The apparent final word that Simpson would be a no-show at a major Republican fund-raiser with Bush and congressional leaders on Thursday night came after a day of conflicting reports from her camp and organizers of the event. ...

Original 'Toon by Dante Lee. Use with permission only


Monday, March 13, 2006

U.S. court rules our government can break international laws to carry out torture

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

An ominous new decision from Federal judge David Trager has said the United States can violate international laws, presumably international conventions to which the U.S. is bound by treaty. The case involves a lawsuit filed by Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. He had been kidnapped by CIA agents during a stopover at Kennedy Airport. In his decision, Federal District Judge David Trager dismissed a lawsuit brought by Arar challenging his arrest, detention, and torture.
According to Nat Hentoff's column, Liberty Beat, Arar was flown to Syria where he was held in solitary confinement and tortured:
... in a three-by-six-foot cell ("like a grave," he said). He became, internationally, one of the best-known victims of the CIA's extraordinary renditions—the sending of suspected terrorists to countries known for torturing their prisoners.

—The Torture Judge

Arar, subsequently released, has not been charged with a crime —by Syria or the United States, which refuses to cooperate with any investigation. The Canadian Parliament, however, has begun an investigation to include a public inquiry.

The implications of this case are enormous. If Judge Trager's ruling is allowed to stand, American officials will have a "....green light to do to others what they did to Arar." Any crime could then be committed in the name of national security.

Judge Trager's decision is a transparent circular argument, most often found in the decisions of Antonin Scalia. Trager maintains that any other ruling would have the "...the most serious consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both." In other words, Trager has not ruled upon law, but upon expediency. His primary consideration is not what is legal or what is not but rather, what is "convenient" to those agencies otherwise bound to operate within the U.S. Constitution. He has said, in effect, that even a judge must acquiesce in the commission of state crimes —for convenience! They must acquiesce not by or for law —but for convenience!

The concept of "Separation of Powers" is given a NeoCon treatment by an activist conservative judge:
...the coordinate branches of our government [executive and legislative] are those in whom the Constitution imposes responsibility for our foreign affairs and national security. Those branches have the responsibility to determine whether judicial oversight is appropriate.
Hentoff appropriately asks whether or not it is the duty of the judiciary itself to determine whether judicial oversight is or is not appropriate. Here's my opinion for what it's worth: the Federal Judiciary since Marbury v Madison has always determined when judicial oversight is appropriate.
Original 'Toon by Dante Lee. Use with permission only


Saturday, March 11, 2006

A plague on ALL your houses!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I know how to put 99% percent of the world's religious charlatans and political demagogue war mongers out of business for good. Simply hold them to this standard: behave in such a way that what IS true can be verified to be so. How many could be held to that standard? Maybe none!

Chuck Dupree, of Bad Attitudes, wrote recently:
...the right has come to dominate the discussion through clever, and not always honest, use of language and control of the definitions of terms.
This seems to be the crux of the problem, a pandemic malaise that has poisoned our political discourse.

Jean-Paul Sartre, in both Being and Nothingness and Existentialism and Human Emotions wrote of mauvaise foi i.e. "bad faith". He attributed that characteristic to people who literally lie to themselves. It's a good description of the GOP. GOPPERS find various reasons for willingly believing lies and nefarious motivations for speading them —knowingly and willingly. In general, howver, GOPPERS choose to believe Republican propaganda —meaningless slogans and platitudes —because it is focus group designed to make them feel good about themselves. Republicans have forgotten, however, that one is responsible for what one believes. Bertolt Brecht put it this way:
A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

—Bertolt Brecht

Nothing good comes of believing a falsehood. Even worse outcomes are to be expected when falsehoods are espoused and touted by those who know them to be false. Bush's very administration was begun and continues upon various frauds deliberately perpetrated upon the American public.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian from Texas, denounced the NeoCon agenda on the floor of the House of Representatives. His speech has been summarized in bullit points and quoted in John Dean's book Worse than Watergate. Rep. Paul pointed out that the NeoCons are really latter day Machiavellians. They believe that the state is all powerful; lying is essential for the survival of the state; certain facts should be kept secret from the people; and, finally, NeoCons dismiss any argument based upon the U.S. Constitution. Put another way, NeoCons share Bush's attitude with regard to the Constitution.
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush

The NeoCon belief that truth is whatever they can either force or trick you into believing may prove to be America's undoing. I am a realistic person. No one in government will ever live up to the standard mentioned earlier. Having grown cynical of popular religion and politics, I am inclined to trade all the world's ideologies for a single, verifiable truth.

Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet at a time when Catholics and Protestants were at war with one another. William, himself, was most certainly an "underground" Catholic. I will leave to a bona fide Shakespeare scholar the task of debunking my belief that Shakespeare had grown cynical about the faith of his father, the faith that he, himself, had grown up with. On the other hand, Shakespeare may very well have witnessed the gruesome executions of blood relatives for the perceived threat they posed to Elizabeth I. It was in Romeo and Juliet that we find a most memorable line by Shakespeare: A plague o' both your houses!

To Muslim and Christian alike, to Democrat and GOPPER alike, I say: A plague o' both your houses!

As bad as things are, I remain optimistic and many reasons for optimism can be found in much of Shakepeare who returned time and again to the theme that evil is self-defeating. We need only wait —and survive. It was Sir Thomas More, an early casualty of England's religious wars, who said that our natural business is that of "escape".

Why was I surprised when Enron came crashing down? After all, just a few years prior, I had written of Houston's glitzy, pretentious downtown: "...green towers of Oz, smoke and mirrors"! That's what it turned out to be.

Corporate crap, propaganda, and faux cowboy bullshit passes for culture in Houston. But it doesn't stop there. Recently, Houston became home to the largest "mega" church in the world. The Lakewood Church took over what had been the Summit, where the Houston Rockets played basketball. [See Forbes: Christian Capitalism Megachurches, Megabusinesses ] Three pointers are now given up for glitzy media versions of Jesus.


Zealots in Houston?
Members of the Lakewood Church — all 16,000 of them — worship at the grand opening of their new building in a Houston arena that was formerly home of the city’s NBA team.

An excerpt from the Forbes article:

Welcome to the megabusiness of megachurches, where pastors often act as chief executives and use business tactics to grow their congregations. This entrepreneurial approach has contributed to the explosive growth of megachurches--defined as non-Catholic churches with at least 2,000 members--in the U.S. Indeed, Lakewood, New Birth, The Potter's House and World Changers, four of the biggest, have all experienced membership gains of late. Of course, growth for them has a higher purpose: to spread their faith to as many people as they can. "In our society growth equals success," says Scott Thumma, faculty associate at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. "And religious growth not only equals success but also God's blessing on the ministry."
In a nation now ruled by corporations, the corporatization of religion is an unholy and theocratic merger of church and state. It's the very picture of fascism. Is that a Nazi salute that I see in that picture?

Also in Houston, the kooky Rev. Sun Myung Moon is wooing black ministers and rewriting history. One of his "representatives" in Houston is proselytizing the idea that the Jews invented the Holocaust. There are places in Europe where "Holocaust Denial" is a prosecutable crime. However you feel about that, I hasten to add that the Holocaust happened. It's a fact! Live with it!
Our sister paper SF Weekly recently did a story on the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's extravagant attempts to make inroads among black churches by offering preachers such things as free vacations to faraway countries. Dozens of ministers have heeded Moon's call to throw out their crosses and replace them with crowns, the symbol of Moon's church.

The Reverend Bennit Hayes of the Gloryland Missionary Baptist Church in Sunnyside was cited as a minister who had a drawer full of discarded crosses from his parishioners (although the article didn't directly accuse him of taking free trips).

A Moonie in Houston?

Q. Has Reverend Moon paid for your travel expenses?

A. Naw, naw, naw, naw. See, that's one of the most misconceived things that most folks think. That just 'cause you're black you got to have folks pay for your travels.

Q. That's not what I meant.

A. Naw, naw, naw. I want you to just get what I'm saying. I came in paying my own way, up until the time I became a member of the executive committee. And once I got on the executive committee, my travels [are] paid for by the committee...I'm a giver. A lot of the black pastors do come on board for the free ride. That's a fact. But most of us come in here giving.

Q. Reverend Moon has said that the Holocaust is a consequence for the Jews' killing of Jesus. Do you believe that?

A. I was at the Holocaust museum in Israel. And let me say that the Jews themselves, the ones I met, repented for that.

Q. For the Holocaust?

A. No, no. That they actually did set up the murder of Jesus. They repented for that. Because they're the ones that led to the death of Jesus.

Q. But do you believe the Holocaust is a consequence of that?

A. I have my own views on that. But see, Reverend Moon doesn't control your mind. He gives you the liberty, you know, to think for yourself...Reverend Moon has done much more today than what Jesus did in his day. Jesus didn't travel all over the world. Reverend Moon has traveled all over the world. The Reverend Moon's been in prison. Jesus was never in prison. You see what I'm saying?

Q. Reverend Moon has called gays "dung-eating dogs." What do you think of that?

A. That's a little extreme for me. I wouldn't call them that. They're all children of God.

Q. But that kind of statement doesn't turn you off Reverend Moon?

A. Naw, naw. That's the human in him. That's what makes him not totally divine.

"Not totally divine" sounds like something Carson Kressley on Queer Eye would say, but we're sure Hayes wasn't implying anything.

--One Houston preacher gave up the cross for the cult
Moon is not divine. Not even a little bit. He's an idiot —and so are 99% of the Protestant ministers I've ever met. I have met more than my share.

Idiocy is not limited to preachers. It contaminates those in government who may be influenced by them. Voltaire said that if God did not exist, it would necessary to invent him. Is that what happened? Americans are fond of invoking "God" —most often: "God Bless America". I worry that someone, somewhere, some time, said "God Damn America" and God took them up on it.

Elsewhere, people are having to deal with what is, rather than what they would like to think it is:
IN 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia and, after success at the battle of Borodino, marched on and occupied Moscow. Napoleon and his generals took over the palaces of the court princes and great houses of the mighty boyars.

Sadly for Napoleon, the Russians had different plans for their nation. Within days after abandoning their city to the French army, they torched their own palaces, homes, enterprises, and cathedrals. They burned Moscow down around Napoleon. Denied his last great triumph, the disappointed emperor abandoned Moscow and started home. Along the way, he lost the world's most powerful army.

Recently one of Islamic Shi'ites' most revered sites, the golden mosque in Baghdad, was destroyed by sectarian enemies. By this act and the reprisals that followed, Iraq moved a substantial step closer to civil war. Though a remote, but real, possibility, an Iraqi civil war could cost the United States its army. ...

--US Army in jeopardy in Iraq, Gary Hart | March 11, 2006
False prophets are celebrated daily on FOX and similar ilk; Cindy Sheehan, who speaks for millions who have declared the megalomaniacal emperor to be naked, are gagged and threatened.
If "dissent is Democracy. [Then] Democracy is in Trouble. Never before, Lewis Lapham argues, have voices of protest been so locked out of the mainstream conversation, so marginalized and muted by a government that recklessly disregards civil liberties, and by an ever more concentrated and profit-driven media in which the safe and the salable sweep all uncomfortable truths from view.

"In the midst of the 'war on terror' - which makes the hunt for Communists in the 1950s look, in its clarity of aim and purpose, like the Normandy landings on D-Day - we face a crisis of democracy as serious as any in our history. The Bush administration makes no secret of its contempt for a cowed and largely silenced electorate, and without bothering to conceal its purpose the government coordinates 'not the defense of the American citizenry against a foreign enemy but the protection of the American plutocracy from the American democracy.'

"Gag Rule is a rousing and necessary call to action in defense of one of our most important liberties, the right to raise our voices in dissent and have those voices heard."

—Lewis Lapham, Cindy Sheehan Brutalized... more than 'Gag Ruled!'
And from the Washington Post, a harbinger of things to come:
Claude A. Allen, who resigned last month as President Bush's top domestic policy adviser, was arrested this week in Montgomery County for allegedly swindling Target and Hecht's stores out of more than $5,000 in a refund scheme, police said.

Allen, 45, of Gaithersburg, has been released on his own recognizance and is awaiting trial on two charges, felony theft scheme and theft over $500, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman. Each charge is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. ...

--Bush says he's shocked and saddened by the arrest of his ex-aide.
As Buzzflash says: he had best get used to it.