Roots!

I’m looking forward to their PR blitz. Seems to me the Dems are getting cojones-ier. Maybe they read TRex: ATTAAAAAACK!!!!

It’s easy: The Rethug$ are the adolescents (we already know that part) who, when Mommy says That’s wrong, don’t do that again, call Bitch on her and tell everyone who will listen how mean and stupid their mom is. The only ones with sympathy to that pov are other adolescents.

rootz !

John Marshall !

I pray the Dems take this one all the way. SCOTUS took a big dump on the bullshit idea of ‘unitary executive’ and its weak legal props. Popular opinion supports us. For fuck’s sake, if they come at us with “weak on terror” let’s please shove it down their throats. With an indictment chaser.

TEddySF,

Did you know that every time I see a comment from you I give you a virtual {{{hug}}}? You are a wonder.

All I want to say is Jane and Christy RULE!

OT:

‘Daddy’s little b*tch’.

;>)

…Hat tip to Monk for the concept.

Senate Dems need to say:

“An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the Supreme Court.”

“Huge majorities of Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision.”

“Let’s try the Gitmo detainees — it’s what almost all Americans want.”

Please, please, please, Senate Dems: this is a WINNING issue, if you can keep it! It doesn’t need complex framing, Americans get it.

Oh, also: will the GOP just shut the fuck up about how this is “only” a 5-3 decision? I recall an earlier 5-4 decision that was A-okay by them….

Oh darkblack 8, that is a good one.

back atcha, mb, and hi to all the brain family!

Mommybrain 2 — yes it is time for TRex’s “ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTAAAAACK!!!!”

“Lapdog Lieberman”

“Lapdance Lieberman”

It’s so hard to choose. Which would Rape Gurney Joe like less?

oxyRush and the splintered wood…. that sentence hurt a little, Jane….

darkblack,

Brilliantly done!

Do we have any more news on Levin’s plans?

and can we do something to “encourage” the dems to actually press their advantage?

(out to take a walk – need to step away from the laptop at least once a day!) back a little later!

OT-but I can’t resist.

Remember when Conrad Black whined that he just couldn’t attend a court hearing in Chicago on Friday because it was so important he be in Canada for Canada Day? Fitz printed out a page from a web travel site to show how cheaply Black could travel if he wanted to. The judge said it was ok if Black didn’t attend, but lookee what happened.

“At a hearing yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, said Lord Black’s attempt to recover about US$1-million that prosecutors say is part of the bond “raised a concern.” She told his lawyers to ensure he is fully aware of what actions would breach his bail and cause him to lose his house in Palm Beach.

“Mr. Black is here today. You hear me Mr. Black,” Judge St. Eve said to the former press baron, who is indicted on charges that include mail and wire fraud, money laundering and obstructing justice stemming from his time at the helm of Hollinger International Inc.”

Seems he went to court adter all.

LINK

His wife and kids have to go to court now, since they own some of the stock & property pledged for his bond. Hee, hee!

Thanks, Jane. And in addition to being “Supid” they’re stupid, too. :>)

From an earlier post by SusanG, this link leads to a great rant about just this kind of thinking by an ostensible conservative, John Cole, and some wonderful comments by what one of them called the Pissed Off Radicalized Middle.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7118

If the Rethugs really want to run on a torture platform, go for it. The proper, TRexian response is “Why do you hate our troops?” Then cite all the Republicans who said, during the debate of the Detainee Treatment Act, that condoning torture makes our troops less safe. And if they want to counter with Jack Bauer and ticking time bombs, point out that Jack’s last mission involved taking down a President who had connived at murder. And then ask them why they hate our troops.

ATTACK ATTACK ATTAAACK!

Jane -

It’s good to see the vemon and lambswool flying. Great post.

So is the Bush 2007 plan to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions and reinstate the draft? Because you know it will be harder to recruit if we can’t guarantee GC treatment for our own troops. Perhaps that’s the plan: perpetual serfdom, perpetual war, perpetual draft. Oh, and FINALLY get rid of Social Security….

darkblack, by the way, should be declared a national web treasure. kind of like wikipedia, but more accurate.

no soccer spoiler, but I just gotta say:

“Allez, les Bleus, Allez!”

“All this means is that the GOP is very good at PR and always tries to turn everything that happens to their advantage. The remarkable thing here is that people many are already quaking at the specter of a Republican publicity blitz.”

Enough! I have been onto this for years and last time I looked, I wasn’t a genius. The GOP might have been good at PR 4 years ago, but they have NOTHING new. And those quaking in their boots — WHY? Counter the old-fashioned, nothing-new LIARS. Stop quaking and DO something. I am SO incredibly sick of this wimpiness.

And the 40-something percentage of Americans who still believe this garbage should be ashamed of themselves. (But they won’t — too stupid.)

These guys shoot up so many trial balloons it’s hard to see the sky. And methinks that’s a big part of the strategy too.

great(and funny) post jane…..the thugs are those runnung thour country and their mouthpieces……oxylimpaugh and ole grit!!!!!!

Don’t know how this one will cut politically. It’s too complicated for most to every understand the issues- I suspect that the party who has to explain the thing loses. To win, dems need a simple attack that forces the goopers to “explain”. Of course there’s no issue until there’s a bill- and goopers will be the ones to craft it.

Please forgive me if this ground was covered yesterday. I haven’t had the time to read all of the threads.

IANL, yet, this is so important that we all need to understand the implications of the case to the greatest degree possible. Thanks to Christy yesterday, I saw that there was going to be a panel at Georgetown Law talking about the decision and I caught most of it. There is a blog post up with notes on the presentation.

Two things stood out for me. First, from Carlos Vzquez:

(3) Can Congress change the result? Most commentary has said yes, because statutes and treaties are of equal stature and the statute can make the treaty no longer valid as domestic law. But there are significant limits on how Congress can act after Hamdan. Look at the opinion from the previous day: Sanchez-Llamas, in which the Court made the point, quoting Marbury, that the Supreme Court itself is the authoritative interpreter of treaties. Thus Congress can’t do what Yoo advocated, “restore the correct interpretation of the treaty” through a law stating Congress’s interpretation of the treaty. Congress can pass a statute inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions, but it would have to do so by repudiating the Conventions. Congress has the raw power to authorize military commissions that violate Common Article 3, but Vzquez thinks and hopes that it would not do so overtly because the Conventions are of tremendous importance to our troops abroad.

The second was by David Luban:

Does this end the debate on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment? No, it just displaces it. What are the standards for humiliating and degrading treatment? The most likely administration line: those standards aren’t really defined in US law. The torture convention also says we should undertake to prevent such treatment; the Senate ratification included an understanding that what we meant was defined by 5th and 8th Amendment standards: what shocks the conscience or is cruel and unusual. An idea floating around the blogosphere: If there’s a legitimate governmental purpose like national security, then the treatment can’t shock the conscience, and thus doesn’t violate Common Article 3. Ultimately, then, Hamdan won’t end the debate but will shift it to whether conduct that would normally shock the conscience no longer delivers the same shock when done in the name of national security.

emphasis, mine.

I haven’t read a lot of the analyses yet from other sources but I think that these are the points that require a LOT of further thought and action.

Sadly, in my eyes we have long since passed the threshold of shocking the conscience. The question is, can we turn back?

It is time for the dems to to talk about shocking the conscience– Abu Garaib shocked the conscience. Rendition shocks the conscience. The murder of innocent civilians shocks the conscience.

I think we can frame this one successfully, but our senators and reps have to show a backbone.

Dems watch patriots like John Kerry, John Murtha, and John Laesch get swift-boated — and they pause. They pause and think, “is everything in order in MY life? Can I withstand this kind of attack?”

They peer at the end of Dan Rather’s career, and they wonder, “Could Rove do that to ME?”

They see the beautiful adopted Bangladeshi daughter of John McCain, and they ponder, “Could MY family withstand that?”

Our opposition party is frightened of bullies, it’s true. But these bullies are remarkably successful at besmirching the records, lives, careers, and families of incredibly honorable people who’ve served their country well. And, let’s face it, everybody’s got something they’d rather not have everyone know. Bet your last dollar: Rover knows that “something” about everyone. How could he not? It would be irresponsible not to.

“No one could have anticipated the fear that pervades our political system.”

Great post on an important topic, Jane. We need to get out in front of the Repugs on this issue. The quote from Charles Swift on Hardball really puts it in perspective. Democrats need to begin pounding the Repugs for breaking the law and violating the Geneva Conventions with their attempt to use these ill-conceived military commissions to try the Guantanamo detainees. Isn’t breaking the law a concept that the American people can understand? How would they feel if the Bush administration tried to treat them with similar reckless disregard for federal and international law–as Lt. Comm. Swift says, prior to any determination of guilt? It could happen.

I think we have had more than enough of the
“Urinary Expletive”

how to handle the thugs…..http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7806.html

ask Jose Padilla (US citizen) about Americans’ rights in the Age of Bush/Cheney …

Teddy,
Rover knows that “something” about everyone. How could he not? It would be irresponsible not to.

Kinda like J Edgar Hoover, huh? Wonder if Rover has a pair of stiletto heels hiding in his closet too? I still want to know what Gannon/Guckert was doing in the WH those times he didn’t sign out.

I can’t believe our guys and gals aren’t doing their op research too. If not, what are they waiting for?

OfT, but I just got a letter from Jon Tester. His campaign had a goal of $50,000 by the end of this quarter (yesterday).

The result:
——————
We had 1300 supporters come together to raise nearly $62,000 online in the last two weeks of the quarter.
——————

Wow!

it was blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog who did the research on Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Guckert and outted him …

Cspan is going to run the oral arguments for Hamdan v Rumsfeld today at 4pm (pt)/7pm (et). Runs 1:30. FYI.

RevDeb 33 — I think it was Eli who said the other night that if the media was all about ratings, GANNON/GUCKERT would’ve been the biggest story of the decade.

Something’s gonna come out on that story one day, you just KNOW it will.

Hearing those stories about W reveling in the torture of detainees makes me certain that Rover keeps him amused with “tales from the taps” on Enemies of the State. I just know it.

Let them bring it on. If the Repubs want to paint themselves as the party of torture, fine.

I wonder where the money that keeps JimmyJeff blogging at The Washington Blade comes from, anyhow. Can you say “wingnut welfare queen?”

The Gannon story, or actually lack thereof, blew my mind.

Jane’s right. It’s gonna be a story that will make J Edgar look like Emily Litella.

If this thing turns on whether or not the detainees should get fair trials, I am embarassed to say that the goopers will win- americans have no interest in giving fair trials to people who Clusterfuck has successfully painted as terrorists interested in killing americans.

At the moment, I don’t see how dems can get around this one. They will probably wait until goopers draft a bill and then find a way to attack it on other grounds.

Teddy,

I sent my sister in Missoula a link to Howie’s Act
Blue page for Tester. She immediately sent $50, got one of Howie’s CD’s for being one of the first 50 to donate (new Neil Young). She came to visit last week – she has a Tester bumper sticker on her Suburu and another that says “Will trade Bush for Trees”.

Gees that torture’s working out well for them. Afghanistan is failing, Iraq’s failed, and Somalia’s become the the triple AAA farm team in the Terrorists’ League.Ossama’s Bin Forgotten.

I would love to hear the Democrats attack, and tie the torture issue into the desperate and failed policies of the War on Terra.

Jane, 38

Maybe it’s a drum we need to start playing loud and often.

Just thinking.

BTW I sent you a couple of e-mails. Did you get them?

What the Dem’s should be saying….

First — call for “regular order” in dealing with the need to craft appropriate processes and rules for Judicial services for all in the Hamdan class.

Regular order is that the proper committees — Armed Services and Judiciary — both houses — hold serious hearings broadly covering the whole issue and set of issues. Dem’s should demand hearings include a whole range of expert witnesses — let’s hear from the Legal Professors, the Law School Deans, the ABA, and all the rest.

Members should all contemplate Article I Section 8 of the constitution, wherein the matter of establishing inferior courts is given only to congress. All members need to be “required” to read the whole Hamdan decision, for read correctly one can find all the guidelines you require as to what needs fixing, and what probably would pass constitutional muster. Once they have a draft or drafts — time to call in the DOD Lawyers, the DOJ people, look at the available choices, and then actually debate.

Democrats should volunteer to give up August Recess time to stay in DC and really work hard at the task. (See if the Republicans will make that “sacrifice”?) Then they might actually have a bill ready for the floor in September or so.

The whole point is an anti-partisian politics approach of taking the Supremes decision VERY SERIOUSLY. Only Congress can do this and if it is serious, then we need to give it priority over everything. But it can’t be done in a hap hazzard way — it has to be a serious study of the problem which is Congress’s responsibility, and only Congress’s responsibility to address.

How is it that it occurs to so few on the right that, just as our support of tyrannies in the Middle East festered among the disenfranchised people of Saudi Arabia and brought events to our shores, the consequences of our hypocrisy in Guantanamo will fester among the friends, family, and acquaintances of those whom we hold. Like the hydra of legend, we only increase our travails with every hypocritical choice made out of fear.
Great nations do not act in ways that they would not choose for themselves, it is that simple. Great nations have no purpose for revenge and retaliation because they are ungracious choices. Great nations are great because they are gracious, not because they imagine themselves ‘good’ in opposition to that which they term ‘evil’. The opposite of ‘evil’, as an adjective, is ‘gracious’. The opposite of ‘good’ is ‘bad’. The opposite of ‘evil’, as a noun, is ‘grace’. Grace is the awareness that all choice generates benefit for purposes of appreciation. Gracious choices generate benevolence. Ungracious choices generate instructive consequences that a more gracious choice was missed in the taking. Benevolence and instructive consequence might both be appreciated when one is aware of what to look for in the alignment of choice with benefit in circumstances. It is a graciously organized design apparent in life. Religions ask ua to challenge it and play with the consequences so that we might evolve past the limited awareness of willful religious ignorance. There is no mystery to this. Current events in the world demonstrate this. A bad christian may be a gracious christian. A good muslim may be an ungracious muslim. A good Republican is almost always an ungracious Republican. The confusion arises because we are taught that the Golden Rule guarantees ‘good’ behavior. It does not. It guarantees gracious behavior. Somehow Fundamental Evangelists and our executive branch missed this simple children’s lesson. Such missed understanding bears significant consequences that might be appreciated as telling us that more gracious choices were possible. Great nations understand this and elect leaders who appreciate this for them. We have played with this over the last 60 years or so. Our choices belie our claims to ‘greatness’ even as their consequences narrow our options. It is time to play graciously, kids. It’s starts with a change of leadership so that we might reconcile with the rest of the globe we share. Soon, one hopes.
As for the right, I observe this about them and their choices to be offended, angered, fearful, and abusive:

“Choices, corrosive and divisive,” you say,
“Why be and have this way?”
I observe it is so,
as the right all know,
as well they might,
it suits their seeming right.

That said, it is time to progress with what’s left.

Lt. Cmdr. Swift is on C-Span right now. A hero indeed!

Wow, Amilius. Well said.

Apologies if this has already been said, but these feels like the NSA warrantless wiretapping all over again. BushCo. gets busted red-handed breaking the law, and basically says “The law is for pussies! We should all be grateful we have a strong, courageous leader who understands that sometimes you have to go beyond the law to keep us safe from the Scary Badmen.”

It doesn’t work on everybody, but it keeps the base happy, and contemptuous of those wimpy Democrats who would sell out our country’s safety for a mere piece of paper.

All the previous rulings from the Roberts court this session, have been narrowly defined and quite collegial. This was by design to allow the new members of the court to ease into their new positions.

However this decision was anything but narrow or collegial.

How does this bode for next years session?

Teddy 40 — well that really brings new meaning to the term, doesn’t it?

RevDeb — I’m still getting the lay of the land here in terms of what’s going on with Ned but I hope you can come down. Did you get my email about coming up for the Kerry visit? I’d love to do it. Just have to get the dogs settled (house, sitter, etc.)

Thank you, Jane and Lizzy.

‘Do The Aoyagi…It’s a dance of extraordinary magnitude.’

;>)

Eli 50 — were your ears burning? You were already invoked in this thread ;)

OK, some of us feel there may be good reason to celebrate, but the fact that the Hamdan vote was 5-3 (one recusal, otherwise 5-4) is reason to be gravely concerned. It should have been 8-0 if all the justices really respected the Constitution (as 4 of them obviously do not). As long as Bush/Cheney/Addington are in the WH, and the Rubber-Stamp-Do-Nothing Congress (Republicans and Dems) is sitting, the Constitution is in the gravest danger since it was ratified by 55 delegates on on Sept. 17, 1787.

Secondly, lest we are tempted to make a hero of Justice Kennedy, he is one of the 5 that decided to interfere with the Supreme Court of the State of Florida on the 2000 recount case, thus enthroning the pseudo-emperor. Justice Kennedy is no hero in my book. For him the road to atonement is a long one.

I, for one, am not celebrating….yet.

Look!! Over there!! Is that flag on fire????

Great post Jane.

My response to the “These guys are the worst of the worst, captured on the battlefield” is simple.

I say, “prove it.” Then they have to start explaining and when they do – the facts are all against them.

Less than 10%, from the Seton Hall study based on the military’s own records, are even ALLEGED to be active al-Qaeda fighters.

For years, Chinese refugees had been on their way to Turkey to escape persecution in China were held and they continued to be held for over a year AFTER the army and courts had both admitted it was a big “oops.”

A man who was jailed by the Taliban bc he was vehmently opposed to bin Laden has been held for years, with the acknowledgement that he isn’t an enemy combatant, but, oh well.

We are holding people who have not even been questioned for over a year.

We are holding people who were sold to our soldiers by warlords and impoverished neighbors.

We don’t have sufficient translators and to handle interrogations of these “worst of the worst” we were sending down cronies of department family members who failed both English proficiency and proficiency in the language they are supposed to be translating.

If they are the worst of the worst taken on the battlefield, why are the Republicans afraid of trials?

If they are the worst of the worst – try them and go forward with sentences. But if the trial shows, as it has with the Chinese Uighars, that they were mistakes – then what are the REpublicans suggestions? That is partly how I would turn it back – over and over – we have made mistakes, people have been held there wrongfully for years – what are you going to do about that Sen Graham?

Sen Graham, what do you think SHOULD happen with innocent people who were sold to troops, or who never had access to competent translators, or who have never been told the charges against them or 5 years so that they can respond?

Here’s a piece of paper and a pen Sen Graham, maybe you could make me a list of all the people we can just assume, without evidence, trial and charges, can be locked up at GITMO.

Do you think we should go and re-kidnap the released Chinese Uighars? I mean – if we had them, they must have been the worst of the worst, right? So we need to go and re-detain them, right?

Or is it just possible trials serve a purpose, particularly when you are dealing with troops in the heat of battle in a foreign country where they did not know language and customs and did not understand war lord and sectarian issues and where they were told to go buy suspects off warlords and in Pakhistan – is it just possible we ought to dig in and straighten it out and make sure we have the right people and we can charge them with the right crimes?

As to secrecy – courts deal with secrecy issues all the time. Real courts, like courts-martial, are going to be more likely to get it right than a buckaroo bonzai brigade.

Jane, 53

Haven’t gotten anything from you other than what went on the CT Roots list.

We’d love for you to come up for the Kerry visit. I think you would like Jon Jennings a lot. Was thinking about that this morning.

The other one I sent you was about Jackson MS. Important stuff, though not what we in general are working on right now.

Exactly Jane,

The more they yell and scream now the worse they look. People are shrinking away from them because they’ve gone over the edge (Faux “News”, ratings? Anyone)

There was a study by Robert Cialdini of the Univ. of Ariz. called the Reverse Foot in Door Effect, that explains how human nature will only go so far with crazy fantastic notions but once people begin to see the wingnuttery, you can’t get the trust back.

On another note, your post yesterday about Lt. Cmdr Swift ispired this

I do like “regular order” as a Dem talking point, actually. It has an unfamiliar, yet non-confrontational, aspect about it. Somehow, anyone in opposition to it is “irregular,” certainly not anything a politician aspires to.

“Order,” also, has advantages as a term of debate. Perhaps “regular order,” for the reasons Sara suggested above, could become the new Dem rallying cry. It is new — unbranded by the GOP — and vaguely, positively American-sounding. Also, it’s rather conservative in tone (with echoes of ‘law and order’ perhaps).

It conveys the seriousness of the task at hand, as if it is important enough not to cut corners to accomplish.

Who, after all, would favor either irregularity or disorder? These seem to be its opposites.

REGULAR ORDER

One thing about the Hamdan decision that really bothers me is the White House’s kneejerk response. “You say we’re violating the law? Then change the law so we won’t be violating it.” No hint of thoughtful reflection–”If the Supreme Court says we’re violating the law, then maybe we need to rethink our policies.”

As the July 3 New Yorker article (that everyone should read) makes clear, the military commissions program and many other initiatives, such as torture, were developed in a heavy-handed way in which Cheney operative David Addington (a name that should live in infamy) ramrodded his proposals through, in many cases deliberately keeping the State Department and the National Security Council staff from having knowledge of or input to them until Cheney’s lapdog Bush had signed off on them. Once that occurred, anyone who questioned their wisdom was told they were hurting the President.

Career military lawyers were shocked at some of these ideas, but their voices were ignored or out-shouted. The kind of reasoned debate among numerous parties and points of view that result in sound policy were just completely lacking. Addington is a pig-headed bully and a thug who has done our nation real harm.

Sorry, Republicans do have an innate advantage: A cowering and/or co-opted media.

And RJ Eskow over at Huffington Post has crafted an exquisite response/message for the Democrats to use:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..24184.html

A message that has it all: it tells the truth while revealing the endlessly repeated Republican PR con for what it is, and it relies on defending the country’s founding principles as a campaign strategy for this fall’s election. And to top it all, it inspires and uplifts by honoring our nation’s proud heritage, and by inference every American. I highly recommend reading his post, and hope that it gets widely circulated to (and used by!) Congressional Democrats.

Seems to me that if Democrats want a real win this fall, they will have to really earn it. They can’t take more or less the rest of the legislative year off, as the Republicans in Congress plan to do. The Democrats need to organize, and work hard and long this summer as a unit in the public eye to fully realize their potential at the ballot box this fall. [RJ Eskow has shown them how it can be done - oh, that he were advising, and being listened to by, Harry Reid/Chuck Schumer & Co. and Nancy Pelosi/Steny Hoyer & Co….]

It doesn’t work on everybody

No sucker here, Eli ;-)

The schoolyard bullies only win this one if everyone on the other side stands down.

And when in recent memory has the other side stood UP in a similar situation?

Feingold and a couple others might stand up, only to be cut off at the knees by the majority of Dems, who inexplicably fear nothing more than being called names by fatass Fascist sons-of-bitches.

I admire your optimism, Jane, but I just don’t see it.

TeddySanFran 2:39 p.m.

“Who, after all, would favor either irregularity or disorder?”

9/11! 9/11! There was nothing regular or orderly about 9/11! (they will say).

there’s soccer born every minute

Sorta OfT: Justice Kennedy enjoys being the new “most powerful woman in the world:”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00593.html

Democrats stand UP while Republicans (also Lieberman) stand DOWN !!

WE know who’s weak on terror — the utter fools in the Bush administration!

Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article shows their foolishness in spades — no, wait — I think we really must call these clowns NO-TRUMPs.

Look, I understand why we attacked al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Had 9/11 occurred a year earlier, surely Clinton would have ordered that invasion too (and even more of the world would have been with him).

You can also well imagine that, had such timing been the case, the 2000 election wouldn’t have been contestibly close, and the newly-elected President Gore would have kept a laser-focus on Afghanistan until we nailed bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and every last bit of their network. And then the US and its many partners would have kept faith with the Afghanis, so that their country could today be well on its way to “Showcase of Southwest Asia.”

Think of that.

But by happenstance or cunning, bin Laden took another year to launch his hijackers, and by then harebrains Cheney, Addington and Rumsfeld ruled.

Now, think of this — today’s report in the Times of London. I’m going to borrow quite a bit of it, but I hope you’ll go read the whole thing, as well as the other story links at the top right and bottom of the page.

It’s not just Iraq that BushCo have shattered . . .

Soldiers who went to build bridges fight for their lives

Report by Tim Albone in Kabul, Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, David Charter, Chief Political Correspondent, Michael Evans, Defence Editor

The Taleban is back – and its bloody return has left British mission in almost daily gun battles

FROM the cockpit of a Dutch military transport aircraft cruising above the rugged terrain of Afghanistan this week, Lieutenant-General David Richards could allow himself a moment to reflect on the beauty of a country whose fate will soon lie in his hands.

The British officer, a veteran of successful military interventions from Sierra Leone to East Timor, has now landed what many consider to be the toughest mission in Nato’s 60-year history.

From the end of this month General Richards, with only 8,000 troops, must seek to impose Nato’s authority on four lawless southern provinces where the Taleban have regained their former dominance.

From the end of August, with about 25,000 troops drawn from 36 countries, he assumes responsibility for all Afghanistan after a five-year American-led anti-insurgency campaign.

For the past year British ministers, generals and diplomats have emphasised that Nato is not intending to fight a war but to provide the soldiers, the money and expertise needed to rebuild a country shattered by three decades of conflict. That was the premise on which numerous allies were persuaded to contribute troops to the mission.

The goals are laudable and no one doubts the sincerity of the soldiers, the aid officials and the diplomats to carry out the job. But as with previous military operations – not least the disastrous foreign adventures in Afghanistan of the 19th and 20th centuries – nobody bothered to ask the other partner in the equation, in this case the Taleban.

After being driven from power in 2001 and badly weakened, the organisation, led by the shadowy Mullah Omar, is back in business in spectacularly bloody fashion.

Since the spring, the start of Afghanistan’s fighting season, the Taleban have mounted an impressive comeback. From the relative safety of the rugged border area with Pakistan, thousands of fighters – using tactics honed in Iraq – have launched a series of suicide car bomb attacks and large assaults on coalition forces, as well as daily murders of Afghan soldiers, policemen, teachers and local officials.

One of the toughest jobs has been assigned to the British Army, which has deployed 3,300 men in Helmand province, a lawless and treacherous corner of the country. This week alone British forces have been involved in almost daily battles with the Taleban. There were five significant incidents, including an hour-long gunfight between about 150 British paratroops and 75 Taleban fighters, which left two British special forces dead and killed 12 Taleban. In another incident on Wednesday, Taleban rebels tried to storm a British base in Musa Qala, leading to a four-hour gun battle that left 12 militants dead.

British troops were warned to expect a violent reception, but have been surprised by the ferocity of their foe.

“Their use of the ground was good, they had sensible organisation, were brave, bold and quite cunning. They also knew the terrain better than us,” said Major Will Pike, who led a 120-man team in a battle with the Taleban earlier this month.

. . .

In one memorable moment in April, John Reid, then Defence Secretary, suggested during a visit to Kabul that British forces might not even need to fire a shot in anger during their deployment.

“We are in the south to help and protect the Afghan people construct their own democracy,” he said. “We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years’ time without firing a shot because our job is to protect reconstruction.”

That hope has long been buried by brutal reality. General Richards told The Times that he had already requested reinforcements of more fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to bolster his forces.

. . .

The operation in Helmand, a province four times the size of Wales, is particularly fraught. Britain has committed 30 million [pounds] over the next three years but the big infrastructure projects such as road and bridge building cannot start until security is improved. Currently there is only one official from the Department for International Development to co-ordinate the work in Lashkar Gah, the capital, where some modest development work is under way.

The mismatch between the stated objective and the reality has led to fears that Nato will end up being dragged into an open-ended war. One former senior British general said that the operation had “mission creep written all over it”, meaning that the reconstruction objective was being lost in the battle against the Taleban.

That assessment is already causing deep concern in London, among senior Whitehall officials and serving military officers. “This mission is turning out to be far more dangerous than the public and backbenchers have been led to believe,” Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said.

. . .

Behind many of the concerns is Afghanistan’s bloody history of resistance against foreign forces. British troops lost two humiliating battles in Afghanistan in the 19th century and Soviet forces were driven out only 20 years ago.

In spite of the poor record, General Richards still manages to remain optimistic. “We are going into areas no one has been to for years. Nobody ever said it would be easy,” he said.

. . .

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what Weak-on-Terror Cheney, Addington and Rumsfeld have brought to Afghanistan, the UK, us, and the world.

orangej – I am celebrating – only a little bit, but definitely some.

I did an epu’d summary before the poems thread last night, but I think that Hamdan has pretty much k’d o, directly or indirectly, all the inherent powers, signing statements, CIC special war powers, AUMF and comity arguments that they have used for so many of these programs.

The State Secrets issue is the one that is still out there and hasn’t been taken down. The wind was shifting that way anyway with the NSA and rendition cases. That’s going to be one beat pony by the time they load it up with everything, but the handwriting is on the wall – that is the battlefront. That is already the talking point coming out re: GITMO as well.

Anyone want to tell me what was so secret about the Uighars? And yet that was used for awhile with them as well. THey would still be there if lawyers had not pushed in civilian courts here. Now that cases have demonstrated that yes, we have made some bad mistakes, Senators Graham, Kyle (and somehow they roped Levin in) have taken away access to civil courts. In order for that to be anything but a coverup, the military trials needs to be trials. Real trials.

The theme is that we just cannot give real trial bc there is so much secret information. Oh bull. There is “Secret” info in just about every mob case or major drug case as well. Procedures, informants, witness safety, etc. – always have to be addressed. If a MILITARY COURTS MARTIAL can’t handle that we are in pathetic shape.

But the theme is going to be “it’s all too secret – we can’t have trials” and that’s where the prep work needs to be done. We can deal with sensitive info – it’s not an impossiblity.

BTW – that quote above about nothing shocking the conscience if it is done for a legitimate national security reasons —- BULL.

There have been legitimate national security reasons since nations began, and yet there have been laws of war and domestic conduct and we are not now in a world where anything goes to cover up Dick Cheney’s task force minutes. Almost every atrocity you can think of can be justified by a despot or minor tyrant saying that it was “necessary” to address a threat.

What we need is a gameplan to address world poverty and hunger and disease – but I guess since that would be so overwhelmingly beneficial to our national security, those programs are “classified”.

Face it — those who wait and wonder what Rove could say about their families, etc. — this is not for you. As someone already said — Rove knows a lot.

BUT the important part is — if there is NOTHING, he will still make up something. If this bothers you, get out.

P.S. I love Jane’s titles for her pieces. “They’re Stupid and Ugly and Nobody Likes Them.” hahahahahahaha

orangejumpsuit #55 -

well, maybe we should be going after them as well. Anti-constitution is anti-constitution, after all, no matter what seat your butt is warming; a true defense of the republic suggests such a course. Isn’t there an impeachment procedure for them? It certainly wouldn’t be easy, but…

As Jane said, it is very simple: you’re for the Constituiton or not; the essential litmus test for American Democracy, no matter who you are.

Patrick Fitgerald: partisan hack? How come he is issuing a letter with “bombshell” allegations — ABOUT A PENDING GJ INVESTIGATION — about a Dem governor. Where is the similar letter discussing the “bombshell” allegations about Rove? Cheney? etc?

I’m begging to believe Fitzgerald is a partisan hack, a Republican piece of crap.

http://www.suntimes.com/output…..out01.html

ederal investigators probing alleged job rigging in Gov. Blagojevich’s administration “have implicated multiple state agencies” and have “developed a number of credible witnesses,” a bombshell letter penned by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald states.

Fitzgerald sent the letter to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on June 20 so her employees would not duplicate his office’s investigation of possible violations of a court decree called Rutan, which bars politics from being considered in the hiring and firing of nearly all state employees.

Madigan released the two-page single-spaced letter Friday afternoon as she announced she was curtailing an investigation of the governor’s office the Chicago Sun-Times first disclosed in May 2005.

In his letter, Fitzgerald wrote that the FBI and his staff began investigating “fraudulent hiring practices” by the Democratic governor’s administration about a year ago and opened a second probe late last summer.

“Those investigations have now been merged and involve the alleged rigging of state employment practices to enable political hiring in violation of Rutan and include, among other things, the preparation of fraudulent hiring documentation,” Fitzgerald wrote. “Our investigation has now implicated multiple state agencies and departments and we have developed a number of credible witnesses.”

“A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity”

L’il Debbie recently claimed that the WaPo is making progress in reducing its reliance on anonymous sources. (FWIW, the piece is a pile of crap.)

This quote completely gives the lie to that. No source needs protection here for divulging facts that the Powers That Be are trying to conceal. First of all, there are no facts, just spin. And second, the spin is Administration-approved spin. The source desires anonymity not to protect him from his higher-ups, but to shield his identity from the rest of us: responsibility-free spinning.

punaise

Gaaaaauuuullll.

It’s called over-ownership.
Everything works to youtr advantage, always, even when it looks like it sucks balls for you, because the strategy is so good and nothing bad ever happens to YOU. This delusion is good for Democrats. Let them think that they’re “winning”, even when they plainly aren’t. Nothing says loss like underestimating your adversary and over-ownership.

Many current and former members of the Bush Administration are in legal jeopardy, including people like John Yoo:

* Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes Senate-ratified treaties the supreme law of the land: “… all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

* The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes any violation of the Senate-ratified Geneva Conventions a federal offense: “[any US national who] commits a war crime [i.e., violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions] %u2026 shall be fined %u2026 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.”

* The majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld holds that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the Global War on Terror (e.g., Hamdan): “Common Article 3’s requirements are general, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems, but they are requirements nonetheless. The commission convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.”

* The Nuremberg trials established the precedent of prosecuting everyone who has a role in war crimes, including propagandists (Hans Fritzsche) and lawyers (Franz Schlegelberger).

scarecrow – toucheeeeee

See what happens when gays give up governorships?

New Jersey Governor Shutting Down State Government

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00558.html

I tell ya, this “het power,” it’ll be the ruin of us all….

“It is simply a fact that the Democrats have a leg up on this one. They should not be afraid to use it”.

But afraid they are, Jane. Which is to say, the moral cowardice that led to their acquiescence in the unleashing of the Big Lie war is undiminished.

To be sure, the minority within the minority party- the Feingold’s and Murtha’s- are exceptions to that bankrupt timidity. But they are few and far between, even now, when all but the willfully blind have grasped the depth of the Bushites treachery. A treachery that could not possibly sustain itself, were the democratic party to begin to speak, in honest fashion, the rude truth to the American people.

A little projection goes a long way, but I like the term and may use it, of course in its correct context: “over-ownership.”

punaise –

Indeed. Joga bom, France!

As for the topic at hand, I think Rove et. al. attempting political jujitsu on Hamadan is very, very risky. Barbara O’Brien’s post discusses at length the fragility of American political culture at this moment. Pushing the envelop further, with the Hamadan decision as a stalking horse, risks breaking the political culture entirely.

Perhaps that’s what BushCo. wants. If it is, it reinforces how treasonous their project has been.

yeah Teddy, Illinois didn’t have those problems with Governor Big Jim Thompson either ! Closet power!

Amen Anne. I also think this opens up a venue for NSA employees and felonies under FISA that should be making anyone looking out for their interests uncomfortable and anxious to do come clean and start fresh with judicial and Congressional oversight.

There is no reason for America, the greatest country in the world, (I admit to bias) to CHOOSE war crimes over fair trials.

tom – chicago 75 — that’s just silly. Fitzgerald just got finished indicting Republican governor Ryan.

Treason, schmeason — what can help the GOP win in 2006 is all that counts with BushCo…

Mary,70: Much of my queasiness comes from the fact that the current congress is in self-destruct mode and not even aware that they are careening over the cliff of irrelevance. (The flag-burning amendment was perfect proof of this.) You would think that in the interest of self-preservation the Congress would assert its separate-but-equal powers. Instead they are in abject subservience to the WH, even with 35% PAR.

Now the prospect looms that Rove will crack his whip and Congress will enact legislation to enable Bush to carry out his unconstitutional strategems legally. If this is the prospect, then any good that the SCOTUS decision has done will be vaporized by new repressive legislation.

Does the Hamdan decision leave Bush with no efective counter-punch? I wish I could believe that. He already owns a stacked deck, namely a Rubber Stamp Congress.

anybody see this yet?

Right-wing pundits in Internet ratings freefall

RAW STORY

Many well-known right-wing media figures — including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly — are losing their Internet audiences, according to an analysis of Web site ratings by IPD Group and U.S. Politics Today.

On the other hand, traffic for Moveon.org has risen.

On Thursday, Shakespeare’s Sister checked other sites from the right and left at the same tracking service, Alexa.com, used in the analysis.

According to the blogger, Free Republic, Hugh Hewitt, World Net Daily, and Pajamas Media have all suffered at least a 19 percent decline, while the traffic at Raw Story, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress has risen.

(no mention of FDL. hmmmmm. The Shakespeare’s Sis piece also mentions that sites like atrios and DKos are down as well.)

“is it any wonder?
you’re too cool to fool”

(Bowie)

I am listening to Arlen Specter on CSPAN speaking in the Senate. It doesn’t say when it was taped (they aren’t meeting today, are they?). He says he is introducing a bill that will satisfy the Supreme Court’s concerns as expressed in the Hamdan decision. Apparently it would establish authority for military commissions. Has anybody heard about this?

ATTAAAAAACK!!!! (thanks TRex)

this administration resorts to secrecy in order to hide their incompetence. they aren’t protecting us – they can’t even tell a criminal terrorist from an innocent – and that is why they are AFRAID to use the regular legal system to for the people they’ve captured. THEY ARE AFRAID because their incompetence will be visible to the whole world.

that is why they ALWAYS resort to secrecy… because their actions can’t be justified. they are undermining american principles and values for the base and selfish purpose of attempting to deceive us into thinking that they are actually competent.

but the truth is – they are protecting us from al-queda with the same level of incompetence and deceit as they protected the victims of katrina…

i DARE this administration to use our regular court system to accuse and try ALL the people they’ve detained. they don’t dare – because that would show the american public how incompetent they are.

I don’t think Thomas Jefferson said that any of us “Deserved,” these rights. I think he said that our Rights were “Inalienable!”

Deb Howell has discovered a new department at the Washington Post — the RESEARCH DEPARTMENT — and she would like us readers to know that this department is, well, terrific!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01542.html

From the comments at Shakespeare’s Sister:

A little further research … a very curious result pops up for http://www.firedoglake.com. They are up 539% . If that is good data, it is a good sign for our side.
Tim | Homepage | 06.30.06 – 6:48 pm | #

[ sorry i’m a data geek …. ]

It turns out the statistics from Alexa are dependent upon the rate of adoption of the Alexa tool on browsers and there is no reliable way to know what kind of users have Alexa and those that do not without a lot of research and insider information. Most analysts are saying that Alexa data is only reliable for sites that are near the #1 spot. Data for sites with lesser traffic will not be reliable.

It started looking odd when I noticed a huge disparity between “www.huffingtonpost.com” and “www.firedoglake.com”.

Even though the data is not truly reliable, I think you still have spotted a general trend in the left direction.
Tim | Homepage | 06.30.06 – 7:18 pm | #

Anon @ 80 -

Thought it was curious in the decision that Stevens referenced Nuremberg so much. Guess the point was that conspiracy to commit war crimes has a limited range of war crimes covered. But did warm my heart to see him call out [parapharased] “concrete plans to wage aggressive war”.

Organic George — Actually, no, they haven’t all been narrowly defined and collegial. The “easier” cases, decided earlier in the Term, managed to present that appearance, but there have been a number of split decisions with Kennedy emerging as the the “swing” vote. You might be interested in this roundup from the Alliance for Justice:

http://www.afj.org/2006/06/braving-new-world.html

Oh, and by the way, for the Republicans out there now suggesting that a 5-3 (but really 5-4) decision somehow doesn’t count, in your face with a can of Mace. I know they want to forget Bush v Gore, but how about large portions of the Texas redistricting case that the wingnuts so loudly claimed as vindication for DeLay? Yup. 5-4.

http://www.scotusblog.com/mova…..stric.html

If Congress really wants to repeal the applicable parts of the UCMJ and renounce the Geneval Conventions, which despite all of the current bloviation I don’t think it will do, then the Supreme Court will have to reach an issue it did not decide: the constitutionality of such tribunals. Welcome to several more years of litigation, mofos. W will be back in Crawford before that’s resolved.

yes George et al ALL human beings matter and have a right to dignity.

The Supremes left this thing up to congress- that was pretty clear- so congress needs to take a stand- well actually- several stands.

They have to decide just whether defendants have to be present at their own trials-

They have to decide whether or not defendants should have access to the evidence against them-

They have to decide what sort of evidence is admissable- whether coerced testimony or hearsay is admissable-

They have to decide what burden of proof prosecutors must meet.

They have to decide who can be judges.

In short- they have to decide the whole process.

They’ll probably come up with something that’s pretty close to Clusterfuck’s plan- but shave off a few rough edges that disturbed the supremes- so if the dems choose to fight- it will be about a few details- that will be painted as defending terrorists.

I must say that I have no idea where this thing is going politically- but if goopers play their hand well- it’s hard to see how they lose.

Eli 50 %u2014 were your ears burning? You were already invoked in this thread ;)

Heh. I completely missed it, Jane. I was on my cellphone outside a clothing store, so I didn’t really have a chance to read through all the comments…

(And you were correct)

lotus – Splendid & Stupendous! You go girl!

Jane — bravo. The bully epithet is exactly right. The Dem’s talking points couldn’t be more straight forward.

1. The Administration has functioned in a lawless manner for five years. They’ve ignored the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, International treaties and principles about lawful civilized behavior that have taken centuries to cultivate and nurture. The Administration’s lawlessness needs to stop!

2. The Administration has behaved like bullies both here and abroad. They’ve bullied everyone, from Congress, to our courts, to the American people. It’s time to stand up to these bullies!

3. The Bush strategy has been to make Americans fear everything and then pretent to offer us security. It is a false promise. We are not safer today than we were on 9/11. We are less safe. The tactics of fear are the tactics of school ground thugs and bullies. They’ve even tried to make us afraid of each other, and they’ve done everything they can to divide the country. We have never been more divided since the Civil War. It’s time to stop letting these thugs frighten us.

4. The Bush Administration has squandered all the immense good will that America had after 9/11. It’s all gone. The Administration has stained our honor and the respect we once enjoyed by brazenly defending the use of torture and then lying about it and covering up the responsibility of those who advocated it at the highest levels of the Bush WH and DoD. They even claimed to support Congress’ attempt to outlaw torture — which should not even have been necessary — and turned around with a signing statement that says, “but I was crossing my fingers.” It’s time to hold this Administration accountable for this dishonest behavior.

5. The Supreme Court, composed mostly of appointees from Republican presidents, has now said, loud and clear, “Enough is enough. Follow the law. Follow the Constitution, Abide by the treaties we signed to stop torture and war crimes after World War II. Comply with laws of Congress, and stop just doing whatever lawless thing you want, any way you want. That’s not America.” In America, even the President has to obey the law.

6. It’s time for this Administration to stop its lawlessness, to fire the Attorney General and attorneys working for him, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who falsely claimed it was okay to disregard the law, and to begin to work under the law with Congress to solve this country’s problems, stating with fair trials and procedures for all those foreign and US citizems that we’ve taken and held as prisoners since 9/11. America cannot regain its lost stature in the world until we commit ourselves again to the rule of law.

7. And it’s time for this Congress to start doing its job and stop acting like a spineless rubber stamp. It’s time for oversight and accountability. And if the Republicans aren’t willing to support that, we won’t support anything they do. Instead, we’ll take our case to the American people and ask them to throw the rubber stamp bums out of office.

Amen.

I’m really beginning to get angry at the New Rovian Order. If Bush had prevailed in Hamdan, that would have been good for Bush, right? He wanted to win. So, how is it that the GOP is now portraying the “utter repudiation” of the “governing principle” of BushCo by the Supreme Court as a WIN?

Is this what’s meant by over-ownership?

scarecrow.

let me add another amen to yours.

Teddy,
It is what is meant by Orwellian.

hi RevDeb!

Thank you, dear Anne H! But my few lines ain’t nearly as Splendid and Stupendous as Hutch’s tales, which I’ve nearly made it through. WHAT a daddy you had — no wonder you do all you do!

Scarecrow’s Seven Points!

Say them, Senate Dems. Say them over and over and over.

OK, some of us feel there may be good reason to celebrate, but the fact that the Hamdan vote was 5-3 (one recusal, otherwise 5-4) is reason to be gravely concerned. It should have been 8-0 if all the justices really respected the Constitution (as 4 of them obviously do not).

One of the problems with our system right now is the belief that appointing judges is pretty much entirely the president’s prerogative, and the Senate should only block them if he appoints an axe murderer or someone with no legal experience whatsoever (actually, it might have to be both, provided it’s a Republican president, of course). And the corresponding belief that the filibuster is a dirty trick that somehow circumvents the Constitution.

The result is that the courts are packed with very partisan judges who are more likely to rule according to their political affiliation than honest interpretation of the law. In essence, the courts become an appointed extension of the legislature.

I think that where lifetime appointments are concerned, the bar for confirmation should be set at 60 votes, and the assumption of presidential privilege should be completely thrown out the window, so that every president has to appoint moderate judges who will be acceptable to everyone. The end result will be courts full of judges who are trying to honestly interpret the law. Which is the whole idea.

Just don’t ask me how the hell we can effect such a change.

selise,
welcome to time off! Wanna get together and teach ourselves how to make pretty pages on line?

don’t let the bully pulp it.

Well, Eli, I suggested the other day that Hamdan was a perfectly valid reason for Senate Dems to put a hold on EVERY Bush judicial nominee. We’ll sort it out after 1/09.

The bull leap up it?

scarecrow 102 — EXCELSIOR!

A question for the lawyers among us -

The Hamdan ruling pretty clearly defines the government’s actions as violating the Constitution; as this government was elected to fullfill certain duties under that constitution – ie obligating it to not violate the Constitution – does Hamdan then give standing to anyone/everyone who voted in the last Federal election?

Well, Eli, I suggested the other day that Hamdan was a perfectly valid reason for Senate Dems to put a hold on EVERY Bush judicial nominee. We’ll sort it out after 1/09.

Suits me, but it would require spine not in evidence this far.

I kinda suspect that the Dems would need at least 53-55 seats to block an Alito clone, even with Bush at 30% flat.

I don’t really understand their rationale, other than, I dunno, fear of being called obstructionist, I guess. But given what they would be obstructing, they should wear that accusation as a badge of honor.

“Ole 60 Grit O’Beirne”

I don’t know where you coined this from, but for some unknown reason every time I see it or think it I start to laugh. It’s become my humor mantra.

Another comment on Hamdan. As far as the Republicans are concerned, until Hamdan is actually *used* to invalidate other executive power grabs, that invalidation is purely theoretical, and that’s how they’ll spin it (assuming they haven’t already started).

RevDeb, yes! will email you….

starcane, K O’B’s original moniker around here was “Sandpaper Snatch.” That help?

“Ole 60 Grit O’Beirne”

I don’t know where you coined this from, but for some unknown reason every time I see it or think it I start to laugh. It’s become my humor mantra.

The “Ole 60 Grit” part explains the “O’Burny” part.

starcane 117 — “Ole 60 Grit O’Berine” is a creation of Punaise.

tee hee

Punaise – congrats on les bleus (though I was leaning the other way and disappointed at the lack of finesse)

Jane – if you’d like, I can check with mom about possible sitters – she may know someone from her friendships with yale students – just let me know

on Hamdan and the Dems – I think we saw a very good example this afternoon of how Dems should address such issues in John Laesch’s response on unitary exec power:

“I think we all agree that the president needs just a touch more than oversite. If this guy openly lied or mislead the country to take us into War in Iraq then a Democratic Congress is going to impeach him.

People who steal candy from a grocery store go to jail. BushCo. has hijacked the United States of America.

I will proudly be part of the Congressional oversight!”

is that so hard? and is it hard for voters to understand? I don’t think so…

perhaps the Dems would like to try a little forthright talk — how about:

“The President has chosen to violate the rules of war and that endangers each and every one of our soldiers fighting for us. Let’s make america a law-abiding country again. Trials worked for the Nazi’s and we think they will work for detainees as well.”

not so hard … not so hard at all

of course, if the Dems let this slide and give W a few weeks to push his spin – as they did with the NSA case – well … they become liable for war crimes too. (in fact, I believe they aready are by funding an illegal war and torture)

So dems should fillibuster EVERY judicial nomination for two and a half years? At ALL levels? Regardless of the qualifications of the nominee? That would be hundreds of judicial vacancies! Think the voters would buy it?

A right many things around here are creations of punaise . . .

siun – France played a great game, very agressive (although they got a bit sloppy with ball control towards the end). Brazil had no offense, or so it seemed, and not much “spark” in general.

The problem for the dems is not how to talk about this. They have a free shot to paint Clusterfuck as a serial violator of the constitution.

The problem is how to VOTE- and what they will be asked to vote ON!

Political posturing and shoutin and yellin is cool- and sometimes it’s a good thing to do- but that’s not what’s at issue now.

I love Scarecrow’s – and would boil it down to this one “In America, even the President has to obey the law”

not hard … not hard at all

lotus – for better and for worse

Of course Rush would not be able to put “the wood” into anything without his bottle of little blue helpers it appears…

Now more than ever, Democrats should be leading the refrain:

Republican Rubber Stamp Congress!

Republican Rubber Stamp Congress!

Republican Rubber Stamp Congress!

In order for the Hamban decision to have any effect, Congress needs to assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government.

Something the Republicans in this Republican Rubber Stamp Congress do not appear ready to do.

The problem is how to VOTE- and what they will be asked to vote ON!

Political posturing and shoutin and yellin is cool- and sometimes it’s a good thing to do- but that’s not what’s at issue now.

Come election time, the Democrats should be making the Republicans own all their failed policies and disastrous nominees. That’s a lot harder to do when half (or more) of the Democratic caucus voted *for* them.

rwc, Congress got bitch-slapped too, you know. I think they know. Rove can spin all he wants — HE’s not in this particular line-of- fire.

As I said yesterday, I’m looking for the polls over the next week or so . . .

If this is the thread that starts unraveling the Republican empire, I for one will be saying, “Hamdan, thank you ma’am.”

As far as I’m concerned, rwc, yes. The attorney who argued the Hamdan case in front of the appellate court, IIRC, is now up for Roberts’ former seat on that same court. In that the Supremes have utterly rejected the Bush Administration’s understanding of its own powers in wartime, I don’t see how they can be trusted to appoint judges. At any level.

Oh, rwc: welcome back! I have missed the polling reports you bring to fdl — and had decided that the pollsters must have taken the summer off until I realized it was you who was on break and not them!

just a reminder to participate in the ongoing Malkin rap-a-thon contest back in Late Nite. I’ve taken my best shots with “B*tch’s Spew, Parts 1 and 2″

C’est vrai, mon cher punaise, c’est vrai.

precisely Eli – precisely!

Apropeax (sp?)

rwc – latest pole numbers for Rush?

siun 124: Yep. The short version works. I like yours:

“The President has chosen to violate the rules of war and that endangers each and every one of our soldiers fighting for us. Let’s make america a law-abiding country again. Trials worked for the Nazi’s and we think they will work for detainees as well.”

Thanks Teddy- Glad to be back!

new thread — Matt O!

Starcane 117, it would be so politically incorrect to be calling her “sandpaper snatch” forever.

Latest poll numbers?

Yeah- here they are. He’s got a bit of a bounce- movin from the low thirties to the high thirties- mostlyh because goopers are comin home:

Time 6/27-29/06 35 59 6 -24
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 6/27-28/06 41 50 9 -9
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 6/24-27/06 41 56 3 -15
.

USA Today/Gallup 6/23-25/06 37 60 3 -23
.

ABC/Washington Post 6/22-25/06 38 60 2 -22
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 6/21-25/06 41 56 3 -15
.

Pew 6/14-19/06 36 54 10 -18
.

CNN 6/14-15/06 37 53 10 -16

john in sacramento says
July 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pm

“a propos” – linky no worky

time to light the barbecue – chicken and corn – yummm… and daytona night racing!

(last year when W visited Nascar, all the announcers, etc were drooling over the administration – this year, Cheney is visiting and the announcers are complaining that they can’t get into the garage area or get to the drivers for interviews coz Cheney’s security has everything sealed off – even Nascar has Had Enough!)

should have been .jpg not .com

Clicky

rwc – mostly because goopers are comin home

oh, when the ain’ts
oh, when the ain’ts
oh, when the ain’ts come marching home….

Nuevo Threado

rwcole — there was also a Time Mag poll released yesterday. “bounce” was dead cat quality, or worse. It that one of the ones you listed?

Also, welcome back. I assumed the American people had agreed not to change their opinions while you were gone. I know I haven’t changed mine.

thanky, I thinky

“Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform,” this official said.

Hmm…sounds like we have mishandled the trying of the DC snipers–and many other serial killers as well. Or perhaps there is some subtlety in the meaning of “terrorist” that I am missing.

How is it that these senior administration officials consistently fail to apply their “reasoning” to other contexts? Apparently the ability for such critical thinking has been deactivated in the minds of all senior administration officials–not that I am suggesting all of them had such abilities in the first place.

rw — oops, I see it. Duh

Scarecrow- Yeah the Time Poll is included. Their previous poll was from March (as I recall)- so a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. Can’t really use it to measure “bounce”.

“Jane %u2014 bravo. The bully epithet is exactly right. The Dem’s talking points couldn’t be more straight forward”.

They couldn’t have been any more straight forward prior to the “Patriot Act” vote, either, or the vote that enabled the Bushites to unleash the Big Lie war. The “talking points” could hardly have been more straight forward on any number of other votes, all of which passed with hardly a peep of righteous outrage from the collaborators of an all too loyal opposition.

Why anyone retains a shred of faith in the integrity of the democratic party is something I do not understand. Why anyone anticipates a sudden stiffening of spine in the event they retake either House is laughable. If they talked turkey prior to the election, they could make good on such promises. But their pusillanimous, egg sucking “strategy” to speak softly and hope for the best betrays their incapacity to prosecute the law breakers who have led this nation into disaster.

When it comes time to make their marks on the ballot, the vast majority of goopers will vote gooper- no matter what they say right now.

Orangejump- all good points. I have little faith in Congress or in any independence of functioning in departments and agencies. Still, a Sup Ct win that just took down almost every argument made by Yoo, Addington, etc. on every one of their illegal programs is something to celebrate. It’s almost a smack in the face to people who worked so hard to make it happen to NOT celebrate it.

rwcole – the Sup Ct did “kick it back to Congress” but I don’t think in the ways that you mention as cleaning up the rough edges.

1. Congress has to make sure that the tribunals meet the Geneva Conventions requirments of regularly constituted courts or — supercede them. Back out of Geneva Conventions. You can’t be both a signatory and yet re-write the parts you want, how youwant. So they have a substantial treaty issue to address if they want to do something that is substantially different from courts- marital.

2. Congress also has to actually amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to revise articles 21 and 36 and say that if the President establishes military commissions or tribunals they do NOT have to comply, as closely as practicable, to the standards for courts-martial, to do things Bush’s way.

3. They cannot simply adopt rules for commissions and not amend the UCMJ or withdraw from sections of the Geneva Conventions or they have conflicting statutory authority and if you conflict but fail to expressly override prior statutes that have been judicially interpreted as having certain requirements, then the requirments stick. You have to override them at this point, not just draft a new piece of legisltion. Such a significant change to the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions should be done VERY carefullly. Not in a weekend meeting at Arlen’s.

If what he means is that they are going to follow rules of courts-martial, good. The problem on the political spin is that the Dems were NEVER strongly standing up and opposing what was going on at Gitmo, so they have no victory to claim. But if they don’t take this as an opportunity to DEMAND hearings with good info before leaping into legislation they are idiots. Info info info, bc that is what is both needed and what makes Bushco look worse and worse. Hearings where the Chinese Uighars are asked to be witnesses, for example. Where actual counterterrorist experts who are not currently with the Administration can testify about how things need to be handled from their view and what accomodations can be made to deal with security v. ability to participate in proceedings concerns, take them behind closed doors as needed, but have very thorough hearings.

Republicans have been getting it wrong for 5 years– wrong on the law, wrong on the facts with only 8 % of the detainees currently alleged to be al-Qaeda fighters. WE are going to get the facts right and get the law right and the innocent need to be freed, while the guilty need to face trial. They need to not just say it as a talking point, they need to mean it and dig in and do it.

AND whatever happens with GITMO (and I personally think the implication of the ruling is that all the Combat review tribunals were also invalid and need to be re-done) the fact remains—the arguments for signing statements, inherent powers of CIC to override statutes, etc. have all bit the dust. Invoking state secrets to cover up illegal activity is still on the table, but whatever the wingers are saying — the Military and NSA both know now – Addington and Cheney and Bush hung them out to dry. They have been breaking the law bc Addington and Bush said: You can if I say so. Well,now they know that argument is a loser. They have soldiers and CIA agents who have participated in violations of the Geneva Conventions – also known as War Crimes under our domestic statutes – bc Bush and Yoo and Cheney said it was fine.

Well, they know it’s not now. The military knows all about following illegal orders. He’s had them doing it for years now.

Again, despite Rove’s spin, military heads and law enforcement heads know that Bush has been giving illegal orders and they need to start drawing the line — or there are possible outcomes that could be very bad.

shoddy — Yes, it’s a disturbing quote. The point has always been that those we hold in custody deserve the same fair procedures that we would want our citizens and service people to receive if they were held in custody by the other side.

Mary,159: Your erudition is a mother lode for us non-lawyers. If you are right, the most hopeful thing to have happened is that the underpinnings of the signing statements are in serious question. But then, signing statements have been around since I believe Reagan, and Clinton used them. So what is new with the way Bush is using them other than his sweeping and cavalier use of them?

I think we are on to a new thread, and this will be EPU’d.

Mary

Nice reply. Are you certain that congress needs to address the Geneva Conventions issue? Wasn’t that mentioned by only four justices? (I’m a little behind on the issue).

It is simply a fact that the Democrats have a leg up on this one.

poor hydrant.

Mary — all good points (and thanks for the three stunning posts several threads back laying out the history logic. Those should be book marked.

It seems to me that the Dems have another strong argument for getting it right this time. It’s been five years, and the Bush Admin has failed to deal with anyone successfully through these tribunals. All the while, the world’s opinion of the US has sunk, with increasing calls to shut down Gitmo. US prestige is at stake, and we can’t afford to screw up again, increasing the derision and contempt of the world (let alone, our own self image). So every time the Admin argues for some shortcut around/under/over fair rules, in disregard of established law, the Dems should say, “there you go again,” and “remember Hamdan. Why are you inviting another slapdown and humiliation from the Supreme Court?”

Seems to me that the ball is in the gooper’s court at this point. Gooper congress will have to come up with a plan- and they will try to defend Clusterfuck as much as possible while complying with the Supreme Court ruling. The result will be a giant compromise.

They don’t have long to do much of anything. It’s July- with a holiday week approaching- followed by the August recess- followed by wall to wall campaigning.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see this one sit until after the election- and that may actually be the best thing to do.

Was it Lott who said that the Hamdan decision was a result of “activist judges” running amok in the US?

The truth seem to be that unless the Congressional Republicans eventually become sickened by WH behavior the only effective check is the press. No wonder they’re being demonized.

rwcole: “Seems to me that the ball is in the gooper’s court at this point.”

I think history will show that Hamdan will be the moment of truth for Congress. It may be their last chance within the next two decades, maybe ever, to re-assert the principle of separate-but-equal powers between the three branches. The Court has already spoken.

I would revise your statement to say the ball is in Congress’ court, not just the goopers, and that include Republicans and Dems. All the more reason why 2006 is crucial…..provided the election is not stolen….again.

With the MSM continuing to frame the debate as Dems weak Rupubs strong, is there any doubt that most of them will cave like they did in 2002. They’ll try to keep the Rethugs from using it as a stick to bash them over the head with, thinking they can make gains in Nov. by supporting legislation creating military commissions. Even if the legislation is not constitutional, they’ll figure that most people won’t notice and that it will be years before the Supremes knock it down, so why not vote for it and try to look tough. Plus, they know that even if the majority of dems don’t vote for military tribunal legislation that the Rethugs will pass it anyway. I know they should make a stand on principle, but how often does that happen?

Yeah it really doesn’t matter if the gooper written bill is constitutional for the purposes of the 06 elections. The supremes won’t rule on the thing for at least a year anyway.

Orange- Well yeah- it’s in congress’s court- but it’s an election year and the goopers have control of both houses. Any bill that gets through will be written by goopers.

Late to this thread, and have read some interesting arguments and points here. Many are excellent.

I’m afraid I have to agree with Sonoma on this one. I don’t see the Democrats being able to maintain a solid front on this issue. Many will do like the ignominious 43 who ran from the Party on the Iraq Resolution, and they’ll do it again.

Let’s face it: The DC Democrats are incapable of doing what is being advocated here. They are too self-centered and craven to pull it off, especially in an election year. I’m afraid that most will fall in line and go for a draconian tribunal procedure to mollify the right and avoid being hit with the tough commercials.

As for the Supreme Court’s ruling, I can’t get out of my head the notorious follow-up to Brown v. Board of Education, known as Brown II, where the Warren Court said that desegregation of public schools could be done “with all deliberate speed.” In other words, no rush. And because there is no indication of a deadline of any kind to this ruling regarding implementation of congressionally enacted procedures, the Gitmo detainees may have a very long wait for a modicum of justice.

I can, of course, see the “victory” in the Court vindicating the concept of the requirement of Congressional action, in contrast to the Bush-Cheney-Addington-Yoo notions of plenary power of the commander in chief during “wartime.” Still, this Court is likely to defer to the Administration on most matters involving state power, and with a Congress acting as a rubber stamp for Executive prerogatives, it may take a long time before things get better.

Also consider how slender we hold to a Supreme Court plurality on this matter. When Justice Stevens is gone, and Roberts is able to vote on similar cases, we might be looking at a Supreme Court that gleefully supports the Addington-Woo “jurisprudence.”

So, let’s be realistic. And let’s be sure to fight for a Senate that can block a radical right Supreme Court nominee.

Isn’t Limpbone an Oxymoron?

Sorry, Jane, I don’t think Tom from Chicago is way off base on Fitzgerald. He just happens to announce a big investigation, not an indictment, of the current Democratic governor who is running for reelection a few months before that election. Libby managed to get his trial postdated after the election, and Rove is “cleared” (at least that’s the Rethug pr) right before the fall election. Also, Fitzgerald inherited the Ryan case from the previous US Attorney for Northern Illinois. He did not instigate it.

I’d say that Fitzy’s qualifications as a stalwart fighter for truth, justice, and the american way- are at least unproven at this point.

Great post – the money quote in that Swift interview, IMO, is this:

“SWIFT: It’s not whether they deserve it or not. It’s how we conduct ourselves. It has to do where if we say that our opponent can cause us not to follow the rules anymore, then we’ve lost who we are. We’re the good guys. We’re the guys who follow the rule and the people we fight are the bad guys and we show that every day when we follow the rules, regardless of what they do. It’s what sets us apart. It’s what makes us great and in my mind, it’s what makes us undefeatable, ultimately.”

I want to hear more of this.

(Testing, disregard)
á á

punaise – 95 – those were my comments on Shakespeares Sister site you were quoting. I continued researching the information even after those comments and came to a few conclusions…

in spite of the unreliability of the information based on “adoption rates” of Alexa [ which I recommend NOT adopting if you value privacy ], i think the results for “firedoglake.com”, while not perhaps usable to negotiate ad rates, are sufficient to indicate that the results [ relative to all other blog and news sites I tested ] do in fact indicate that “firedoglake.com” is basically “kicking ass”.

– tim

“Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform,” this official said.

We Americans might be the only people in the world who won’t see any moral equivalence between a suicide bomber and a Marine company killing 24 innocent civilians to avenge a dead comrade–to say nothing of leveling entire cities. “They started it” or “They’re evil and we’re not” doesn’t mean shit when you’re one of the dead ones, and when you’re looking down the barrel of an M-16 “terrorism” might just as well be wearing the uniform of a liberator. But at least our Marines will get their day in court.

Deeply EPU’ed but who cares. Although less a fan of Patrick Fitzgerald than most here, I would remind that he does have a track record (per wiki):

In 1993, Patrick Fitzgerald assisted in the prosecution of Mafia figure John Gotti, the boss of the Gambino crime family.

In 1994, Fitzgerald became the prosecutor in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In 1996, Fitzgerald became the National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. There, he served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden.
He also served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

On October 24, 2001, Fitzgerald was confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Soon after, Fitzgerald began an investigation of political appointees of Illinois Governor George Ryan (Republican), who were suspected of accepting bribes to give licenses to unqualified truck drivers. Fitzgerald soon expanded this investigation, uncovering a network of political bribery and gift-giving, and leading to more than 60 indictments. Ryan, who did not seek re-election in 2002, was indicted in December 2003. At the conclusion of the trial, in April 2006, Ryan was found guilty on all eighteen counts against him. Ryan’s co-defendant, Chicago businessman Larry Warner, 67, was convicted of racketeering conspiracy, fraud, attempted extortion, and money laundering.
On July 18, 2005, Fitzgerald’s office indicted a number of top aides to Democrat Richard M. Daley, the mayor of Chicago, on charges of mail fraud, alleging numerous instances of corruption in hiring practices at City Hall.
Fitzgerald is also investigating the administration of current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. An investigation announced on December 30 2005 will review contracts between the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and vendors who signed leases to occupy the recently remodeled Illinois Tollway oases. Fitzgerald’s office is investigating possible conflicts of interest between these vendors and one of Blagojevich’s top fundraisers, Antoin Rezko.

In March 2006, former City Clerk James Laski pled guilty to pocketing nearly $50,000 in bribes for steering city business to two trucking companies. Thus far Laski is the highest-ranking City official and Daley administration employee brought down by Fitzgerald’s office.

This beside Conrad Black, Plame (Libby indictment), and the new Blagojevich patronage investigation.

TeddySanFran @ 21:

What a kind thing to say, which I missed on first scan…Thank you.

Commedia del arte…doppio “m”, cara mia.

Tu sai che ti amo, bella. :)