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