Zed?

Hi Christy. I hope you and The Peanut are feeling much better and you’ll be super-OK again soon. :)

Madness.

said this downstairs and it belongs here as well

what I have to offer is EXTREMELY important

we need to phrase our request with the most effective language, and that means we have to describe the protections of habeas and what the president claims he has the right to do

without habeas protection the president can invent any law in his own head and charge a person with that “crime” when the “crime” didn’t exist at the time the person engaged in that activity

put your request like that, say “the president can’t do that”

he can also refuse to give you an opportunity to prove the charges filed against you are made up

he can refuse to show you the evidence he is using to claim you committed a crime, and you won’t even be able to show the evidence was manufactured

he can actually use a statement made from someone who heard it from someone and both of those people can want you imprisoned, and he can use that as factual occurrences

if a person wants to steal your business and needs to get you arrested to steal it he can make anything up about you he wants, even though the stories are easily proven lies, but you won’t know the story need to show is a lie

we need to point out what habeas corpus means, not just say “put habeas protection back in the Constitution”

the power of language is most important when addressing this issue because some of our elected officials DO NOT understand what the habeas protection means

if some of the lawyers would care to add to this in lay terms exactly what the administration can do to innocent people without habeas protection I think we it will help also

Hello all,

I just had a short, terse conversation with one of the directors in Skelton’s office.

(I didn’t request one, he picked up. Christy, I remained pleasant, honest. The impression was that they are getting hammered with calls.)

He wouldn’t give his name, just his title, and he insisted that this was too important a subject to be inserted in the bill. That it needs to be a stand alone, to see openly, who will vote for or against. When I asked when the new bill would be brought out, he said, this summer.

When I mentioned the people who have been denied their rights, some for years now, he asked if I was a constituent. Told no, he suggested that I contact my own Representatives, and ended the call.

Still calling, e-mailing, but, this does seem to be their plan, for now, anyway.

fyi - the number for congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is a fax number. Anybody else finding discrepancies on the list? Will see if I can find the right number and post it.

OT

Brace yourselves, Pups. Here’s TPMMuckraker on Abu’s performance tomorrow. JEEZ! He lied. Isn’t that enough?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar.....9.php#more

Welcome to America. Here’s your hood and jumpsuit. Guantanamo base to be US immigration welcome center.

Greg L. at 5 — I’ve heard that there is quite a bit of internal back and forth on this at the moment, whether it should be part of this bill or a stand-alone. Personally, I think they need to know that we are serious about restoring the rule of law — and that we are watching them. And that we expect that the habeas issue be addressed in a serious manner, because we elected them to do just that.

It is awfully good for the folks inside the Beltway to be reminded that the folks who live in the rest of America are paying close attention.

I am told by a reliable source that AG Gonzales’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee will be broadcast on C-Span3 tomorrow. Just FYI.

Christy -

The hearing, according to what I read on the House Judiciary Committee’s Web site, should start at 9:30 AM EDT.

Great post - clear and to the point. This is something we need to focus on, and if politicians just followed the law, we wouldn’t be at war, we wouldn’t be spending billions to prop up dictators, we wouldn’t have a massive military based in 120 nations, etc, etc, etc.

I wish that the founders included a provision that sanctioned or punished politicians who violated the constitution. They didn’t, and what do we have now? Well, that’s pretty obvious - “leaders” that violate it with impunity. very sad.

The Bill of Rights is pretty plain and simple, and is the essence of peace, freedom and prosperity - if they’d just obey it!

Some reading:

“Contract with America: Bill of Rights”
http://www.populistamerica.com.....th_america

Why were the founding fathers so soft on terrorism?

-GSD

Loretta Sanchez’s correct phone number 202.225.2965

Timmeh noted a while back that 73% [I think it was] are already paying close attention to 2008 election candidates….

hmmmm. Maybe the Congress-critters oughta connect the dots.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME
TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN….

oh, and…RESTORE HABEAS…or it’ll be yer ’ss.

Thank you Christy for using them.

So many people do not call, one because they just don’t and secondly because of the cost. Toll free kind of gives them a boost to overcome the first.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 9

Greg L. at 5 — I’ve heard that there is quite a bit of internal back and forth on this at the moment, whether it should be part of this bill or a stand-alone. Personally, I think they need to know that we are serious about restoring the rule of law — and that we are watching them. And that we expect that the habeas issue be addressed in a serious manner, because we elected them to do just that.

It is awfully good for the folks inside the Beltway to be reminded that the folks who live in the rest of America are paying close attention.

Absolutely.

Must get back to callin’.

Re: Greeenwald:

EDPU’d from last thread:

Biodun @ 116

Glenn Greenwald in Salon today:

(snip)

The right to be free of arbitrary executive imprisonment is — and, since the founding of America, always has been — a defining and distinguishing attribute of our country (notwithstanding shameful instances in our past where that right has been denied). All citizens — including, actually especially, those sent to represent the people in Congress — have an obligation to protect that right from government officials who seek to abolish it.

Having disgracefully abdicated that responsibility back in September because they wanted to win the midterm elections, Democrats — now that they have won — can cleanse their historic sin only by committing themselves, not symbolically but in actuality, to the restoration of habeas corpus. Whether they are willing to do so will speak volumes about their true character and about whether their November victory will result in anything other than some televised hearings. If Democrats are too afraid even to take a stand against the Bush administration in defense of this centuries-old core American liberty, it is impossible to imagine any even minimally risky stands they are willing to take.

From TPMuckraker:

“Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) is furious that the FBI is thoroughly investigating him, issuing subpoenas for documents, and interviewing a number of his former aides.”

About time.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 9

I think they need to know that we are serious about restoring the rule of law — and that we are watching them. And that we expect that the habeas issue be addressed in a serious manner, because we elected them to do just that.
.

I would love to see the bill titled with that phrase as well, or an anouncement about the adendum to use that language;

to restore the rule of law and begin to return the integrity back to this nation and her constitution

a VERY nice ring to it

LS @ 18

From TPMuckraker:

“Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) is furious that the FBI is thoroughly investigating him, issuing subpoenas for documents, and interviewing a number of his former aides.”

About time.

Of course he’s furious. He’s a Republic and is above accountability.

Quick OT.

In an event that will most likely be spun as “the surge is working”, US employees of the embassy in the green zone have been ordered to wear helmuts and flack jackets when going outside due to the increased number of mortar attacks landing in the green zone.

More good news! The insurgents are desperate….

-GSD

GSD @ 21

Quick OT.

In an event that will most likely be spun as “the surge is working”, US employees of the embassy in the green zone have been ordered to wear helmuts and flack jackets when going outside due to the increased number of mortar attacks landing in the green zone.

More good news! The insurgents are desperate….

This is wonderful news! Now the leftist whiners will have to admit that Iraqis can be trained to be an effective military force.

EPU’d–

I have “edit” (ED) in my head…

Lou Costello @ 8

Welcome to America. Here’s your hood and jumpsuit. Guantanamo base to be US immigration welcome center.

[from the article]

US officials, worried a flood of US-bound Cubans could follow the death of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, plan to build an immigrant reception center at a US base in Guantanamo, Cuba, the Pentagon announced.

Aren’t all the Cubans in Miami planning on moving home when Castro passes on? Obviously I’m no expert on Cuba, but doesn’t Castro’s demise open Cuba up for investments and tourism growth? So much so, that many people are salivating at the chance to restore Cuba to it’s former glory with tourism and gambling. Opportunity is gonna blow through the whole isle of Cuba.

Sounds like a bogus reason to me to be building such a facility.

Does anyone know the actual bill or language that they are considering?

Because I EPU’d this below, but “restoring” habeas is not a good stand alone fix to the MCA. There are other provisions in the MCA that make any CSRT determination dispositive. That wouldn’t be affected by a grant of habeas, so you get to a court, only to have the court say the issues of status has been settled by an administrative determination that is, per statute, dispositive.

Fixing the MCA needs to be either done by ditching it completely, or by a very thorough approach - otherwise it’s a vicious little monster that can still leave innocent people skewered, just when everyone thought they had won the battle by “restoring” habes.

Sen Dodd had a very thorough approach that he outlined - I didn’t see his bill, but his outline hit all the highlights. Does anyone know if the house bill/insert is anything like Dodd’s approach?

I’m making calls.

Michael Boldin @ 11

I wish that the founders included a provision that sanctioned or punished politicians who violated the constitution. They didn’t, and what do we have now? Well, that’s pretty obvious - “leaders” that violate it with impunity. very sad.

They did: Impeachment. Unfortunately most of the Republics in congress are too dishonest, cynical, or just plain cowed by the Bush administration to do the right thing.

DoJ Releases Gonzales’ Secret Hiring Order

Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

Mary4 @ 25

Does anyone know the actual bill or language that they are considering?

Because I EPU’d this below, but “restoring” habeas is not a good stand alone fix to the MCA. There are other provisions in the MCA that make any CSRT determination dispositive. That wouldn’t be affected by a grant of habeas, so you get to a court, only to have the court say the issues of status has been settled by an administrative determination that is, per statute, dispositive.

Fixing the MCA needs to be either done by ditching it completely, or by a very thorough approach - otherwise it’s a vicious little monster that can still leave innocent people skewered, just when everyone thought they had won the battle by “restoring” habes.

Sen Dodd had a very thorough approach that he outlined - I didn’t see his bill, but his outline hit all the highlights. Does anyone know if the house bill/insert is anything like Dodd’s approach?

I agree that the MCA should be thrown out completely, and in fact this is what I told the Representatives I called this morning. However, it seems to me this provision to “restore habeus corpus” gives us the framework to call Congress and light a fire under ‘em to repeal this despicable piece of legislation.

LS @ 29

Sampson was the lackey.
Goodling the liaison.

Mary4 at 25 — They are doing mark-up on the bill now, so no one has actually seen the language as it’s being written in at this point. My understanding is that the Dodd Bill hasn’t migrated over from the Senate, but that folks who are pushing for this particular provision are pushing that as an idea. This was one of those jump on this issue and force them to understand that we not only have not forgotten about this entire mess, but that we will not be silent about it, either.

But it is currently a work in progress. Hence the need for calls today.

Prairie Sunshine @ 31

LS @ 29

Sampson was the lackey.
Goodling the liaison.

Sampson was the lackey.
Goodling the liaison.
Gonzales the liar.

Christy. Great post. I called a few already. My rep. is Vern Buchanan (R) in a still contested race. So I called Patrick Murphy’s office (PA) and Kirsten Gillibrand who is the bill’s co-sponsor.

Both calls were pleasant and both said response has been good. Let’s keep up the pressure. A few more will hear from me. (If a stand-alone won’t come forth until the summer, a lot of damage to people’s lives can happen before then.)

Thanks Christy and Pups for all you do.

If anybody knows me, I like Teh YouTube. I’ve been watching many hours of peaceful protests being ignited into violence by the police, like the LA cops just showed. Worst and specifically on topic, I’ve seen ’security’ personnel pick out a peaceful protester and state loudly: “I saw wires in his bag. I think he has a bomb. I think he’s a terrist.” When the accused person says “That’s not true. You’re just trying to start something”, ’security’ says [in singsong] “You’re going to jail…you’re going to jail”. Then flatly states “And it’ll be 30 days before they find out you’re innocent”! This is exactly what happens when Habeas is trampled. God help America!

LS @ 29

Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

That is because Gonzo is desperately trying to insulate the Whitehouse. If he even hints that Goodling was an active participant, then he indirectly implicates the Whitehouse. Sampson has testified that the reason Gonzo got so upset with McNulty for proclaiming that Bud Cummins was forced out solely to make room for Rove’s former aid.

Gonzo is there to lay on the sword to try and protect the Whitehouse. It will not work, but that is his story and he is sticking to it.

LS @ 29

Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

We all need our ‘Monicas’. And a troll like Gonzo needs to ‘hire his help!’ Maybe we need to check the DC madam numbers more closely. *wink

epu’ed, but i was also told that the habeas corpus restoration (and no, mary4, i have no idea if the amendment would live up to it’s name) was pulled from the defense appropriations bill because they were worried that it would provoke a veto.

is it too much to ask that they do the right thing, instead of protecting president bush from having to veto another bill?

i still have a few more calls to make, but i need to take a few deep breaths first. i am so angry with my party…. (more from epu land i won’t repost here).

Elliott @ 33

Prairie Sunshine @ 31

LS @ 29

Sampson was the lackey.
Goodling the liaison.

Sampson was the lackey.
Goodling the liaison.
Gonzales the liar.

Rove the leader.
Bush the loser.

IrishJim @ 36

LS @ 29

Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

That is because Gonzo is desperately trying to insulate the Whitehouse. If he even hints that Goodling was an active participant, then he indirectly implicates the Whitehouse. Sampson has testified that the reason Gonzo got so upset with McNulty for proclaiming that Bud Cummins was forced out solely to make room for Rove’s former aid.

Gonzo is there to lay on the sword to try and protect the Whitehouse. It will not work, but that is his story and he is sticking to it.

I agree. It will be interesting to see how this performance will compare with his last one.

selise at 38 — There is a reason I usually call this “dialing for spines.” SIGH Sometimes, they need to know we have their backs on an issue as much as we need to push them toward it.

Whitehouse is the Senator–ours!

White House is a place…passive.

Bush Chee-knee Rove is the center of the stinkin’ onion…as folks like Delay are now finding out as these Rethugs peel away every outer layer.

Gonzo? Next?

Petraeus?

Glad to see Glenn’s post taken so seriously here.

The meek silence on the part of Barack Obama as this legislative atrocity was being deliberated cemented my opposition to his candidacy.
I called his office repeatedly to get the Senators position on the upcoming act, but he was ‘keeping his powder dry’ and did not have one.
If someone could not find a spine and use his national profile and prestige to oppose the repeal of habeas corpus, then he is not getting support from me, ever, even if his opponent is Attila the Hun.

When will the Left stop their co-dependent enabling of such callow, manipulative washington democrats, and hold them accountable for such betrayals?

Gonzales is just becoming more and more farcical. It was all Kyle’s fault, because you gave him too much responsibility? Is that really the story you’re going with now?

thanks christy & selise.

I’m all about restoring habeas.

I just am very aware of issues in the MCA that will leave courts bound and gagged, even with habeas. Great work to coordinate contact efforts.

I was fortunate to chat with Mike Farrell on FDL on Sunday afternoon. His reply to one of my comments was, “We’ve been looking to Canada for leadership in many ways.”
Might I suggest America take a look at our Supreme court ruling, that denying someone Habeas Corpus is a violation of our Constitution

Supreme Court unanimously rejects secret detention

America has lost its moral compass and a leader without morals is a dictator. Congress has a duty to remove dictators and restore democracy; demand that they do so or they will be replaced in the next election.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 41

selise at 38 — There is a reason I usually call this “dialing for spines.” SIGH Sometimes, they need to know we have their backs on an issue as much as we need to push them toward it.

[my bold]

Frank Probst @ 44

Gonzales is just becoming more and more farcical. It was all Kyle’s fault, because you gave him too much responsibility? Is that really the story you’re going with now?

What will he hatch next?

Petrocelli @ 46

America has lost its moral compass and a leader without morals is a dictator. Congress has a duty to remove dictators and restore democracy; demand that they do so or they will be replaced in the next election.

Amen.

spurious @ 40
IrishJim @ 36
LS @ 29
Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

–

That is because Gonzo is desperately trying to insulate the Whitehouse. If he even hints that Goodling was an active participant, then he indirectly implicates the Whitehouse. Sampson has testified that the reason Gonzo got so upset with McNulty for proclaiming that Bud Cummins was forced out solely to make room for Rove’s former aid.

Gonzo is there to lay on the sword to try and protect the Whitehouse. It will not work, but that is his story and he is sticking to it.

–

I agree. It will be interesting to see how this performance will compare with his last one.

–
Do you mean, compared to the last time where he pretended to be a Pinata for Leahy & Co.? *g*

BTW The assertion of habeas corpus is not in the Bill of Rights. It’s in the text of the Constitution itself.

Article I, Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 48

Frank Probst @ 44

Gonzales is just becoming more and more farcical. It was all Kyle’s fault, because you gave him too much responsibility? Is that really the story you’re going with now?

What will he hatch next?

there’s the specter of what he will hatch next.

Hugh at 51 — Yes, it is the only one of the civil rights deemed so important by the Founders that it was placed in the text of the Constitution. It is worth reminding members of Congress of that fact.

Petrocelli @ 50

spurious @ 40

I agree. It will be interesting to see how this performance will compare with his last one.

Do you mean, compared to the last time where he pretended to be a Pinata for Leahy & Co.? *g*

Yes. Pinatas can’t be held accountable, and isolate the one holding the rope.

Petrocelli @ 50

where, as Bush pointed out, he answered the questions that he could answer honestly.

Hmmmm. Imagine if Sen. Stevens’ son had no right to habeas corpus… or Gov. Huckabee’s son… or Jebbie Bush’s son…

or Paris Hilton….

then imagine each of them in the uniform of the U.S. Marines…on duty in eye-raq.

What a different world it would be…pronto.

ThinkProgress:

Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid

During today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he doesn’t know whether the 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq is still valid, acknowledging that his view differs with that of President Bush.

During his questioning of Gates, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) noted that the authorization listed two purposes for the use of force: 1) to defend the United States against Saddam Hussein and 2) enforce U.N. resolutions against Hussein’s government. Byrd asked Gates, since Hussein’s government no longer exists, “do you agree that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?”

Gates responded: “I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd, is that I don’t know the answer to that question.” Gates admitted that his answer contradicts that of the President, who believes the resolution “still continues to authorize the actions that we are taking in Iraq.”

(snip)

Thank you, Christy!!!
I got notified about restoring Habeas Corpus last night, and have already forwarded this information to my e-mail lists, as well as sending myself.

This would be a major restorative, if we can get this passed by a large margin.

Bob in HI

Petrocelli @ 46

I was fortunate to chat with Mike Farrell on FDL on Sunday afternoon. His reply to one of my comments was, “We’ve been looking to Canada for leadership in many ways.”
Might I suggest America take a look at our Supreme court ruling, that denying someone Habeas Corpus is a violation of our Constitution

- Supreme Court unanimously rejects secret detention

America has lost its moral compass and a leader without morals is a dictator. Congress has a duty to remove dictators and restore democracy; demand that they do so or they will be replaced in the next election.

You wouldn’t believe how much i cheered internally that at least Canada was keeping its head on straight when i read that on CBC.ca site, Petrocelli. For my part i’m badgering my rep as much as i can here in my home in michigan. I have a lot of family in canada, but this is my home too.

spurious @ 54

Yes. Pinatas can’t be held accountable, and isolate the one holding the rope.

but if you hit it right, all the candy comes out!

Just checking on the documents signed by Abu G. I believe they are most surely “stamped” - not original signatures, either one. The distances of the dots, etc., are absolutely identical. Also, the document requesting the authorization from Abu, is signed by someone “for” someone (Michael H. Allen “for” Cord).

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 57

ThinkProgress:

Gates Contradicts Bush, Says ‘I Don’t Know’ If 2002 War Authorization Is Still Valid

During today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he doesn’t know whether the 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq is still valid, acknowledging that his view differs with that of President Bush.

During his questioning of Gates, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) noted that the authorization listed two purposes for the use of force: 1) to defend the United States against Saddam Hussein and 2) enforce U.N. resolutions against Hussein’s government. Byrd asked Gates, since Hussein’s government no longer exists, “do you agree that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?”

Gates responded: “I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd, is that I don’t know the answer to that question.” Gates admitted that his answer contradicts that of the President, who believes the resolution “still continues to authorize the actions that we are taking in Iraq.”

(snip)

He also admitted that the plan was to keep US forces there at least through the end of the Bush presidency, whenever that may be.

Elliott @ 52
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 48
Frank Probst @ 44
Gonzales is just becoming more and more farcical. It was all Kyle’s fault, because you gave him too much responsibility? Is that really the story you’re going with now?

–
What will he hatch next?

–
there’s the specter of what he will hatch next.

–
Will he be “biden” his time thinking of what to hatch next?

[mod note: nesting quotes watch we must]

Off topic, abit. Charlie Savage in today’s Globe about the dead-in-the-water FEC:
http://www.boston.com/news/nat.....nels_work/

Politics could cloud election panel’s work
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — The six-person Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign-finance laws, is entering the presidential election season with three temporary commissioners who have not been confirmed by the Senate, two commissioners whose terms have expired but who have not been replaced, and one vacancy.

As a result, most of the commissioners who are now passing judgment on campaign-finance fights will also be looking ahead to their own confirmation battles — a process that threatens to intensify the politics surrounding an agency that was set up to resolve disputes over election rules in a bipartisan manner.

“This is symbolic evidence of how dysfunctional this agency is, when there is not one commissioner serving today under the normal process for appointing and confirming federal officials,” said Fred Wertheimer , president of Democracy 21, a group that has frequently criticized the commission as failing to take sufficient steps to reduce the influence of money in politics.

I’m a bit of a laggard today. Should have put this somewhere earlier; but just tuned in. Sorry if it’s already been mentioned.

I’ll just say, one implication would be that actual ‘enforcement’ seems to be left in the hands of our apolitical DoJ….and what Schlozman/Gonzo have wreaked. Or wrought.

Elliott @ 60

spurious @ 54

Yes. Pinatas can’t be held accountable, and isolate the one holding the rope.

but if you hit it right, all the candy comes out!

Let’s hope someone gets in a good shot!

OT but encouraging:

Beck: I’m a loser.

Gosh, CNN, sorry that whole whoring out to the right wing thing sorta blew up in your face.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 41

selise at 38 — There is a reason I usually call this “dialing for spines.” SIGH Sometimes, they need to know we have their backs on an issue as much as we need to push them toward it.

amen to that… and i’m going back to the phone now…

i very much appreciate everyone who’s calling today - because you are making my calls matter. my call alone doesn’t have much impact - but when we act together, that’s where we can help make a difference. thanks christy.

LS @ 61

Just checking on the documents signed by Abu G. I believe they are most surely “stamped” - not original signatures, either one. The distances of the dots, etc., are absolutely identical. Also, the document requesting the authorization from Abu, is signed by someone “for” someone (Michael H. Allen “for” Cord).

LS aka Nancy Drew! thanks for noting that.

Fuck ‘em. They gave away America.

“Please give us our Constitution back! Pretty please with sugar on it?”

Good luck to you all, but this is nothing we should have to ASK for.

aliasofwestgate @ 59

Petrocelli @ 46

I was fortunate to chat with Mike Farrell on FDL on Sunday afternoon. His reply to one of my comments was, “We’ve been looking to Canada for leadership in many ways.”
Might I suggest America take a look at our Supreme court ruling, that denying someone Habeas Corpus is a violation of our Constitution

- Supreme Court unanimously rejects secret detention

America has lost its moral compass and a leader without morals is a dictator. Congress has a duty to remove dictators and restore democracy; demand that they do so or they will be replaced in the next election.

You wouldn’t believe how much i cheered internally that at least Canada was keeping its head on straight when i read that on CBC.ca site, Petrocelli. For my part i’m badgering my rep as much as i can here in my home in michigan. I have a lot of family in canada, but this is my home too.

Those who wish to read the Reuters article, I have fixed the link @ 46.
The greatest weapon we have against our real enemies is truth, freedom. That is what the founders of democratic countries realized centuries ago. We defeated communism, fascism, theocracy and every other adversary with the truth as our guide and mentor. As Christy said in an earlier post, we cannot demand that other people live up to moral behavior when we do not do so ourselves.

Elliott @ 60

spurious @ 54

Yes. Pinatas can’t be held accountable, and isolate the one holding the rope.

but if you hit it right, all the candy comes out!

Yeah, well Whitehouse was using an ICBM to hit the Pinata. *g*
I eagerly await the next barbecue on Thursday, even the Repubs were roasting Abu last time.

Petrocelli @ 70

Elliott @ 60

spurious @ 54

but if you hit it right, all the candy comes out!

Yeah, well Whitehouse was using an ICBM to hit the Pinata. *g*
I eagerly await the next barbecue on Thursday, even the Repubs were roasting Abu last time.

If he could just hit the ones jerking the rope!

[mod note: nested comments watch we are]

John H. Farr @ 69

Fuck ‘em. They gave away America.

“Please give us our Constitution back! Pretty please with sugar on it?”

Good luck to you all, but this is nothing we should have to ASK for.

this is nuts. think about it from the perspective of the innocent people being held - it is up to US, the people, to right this wrong.

it is OUR responsibility.

Check out Gonzo’s signature at the bottom of this short PDF:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annual.....P1/p03.pdf

Then check out the signatures on the documents on TPM (link at #7 upthread).

selise @ 73

John H. Farr @ 69

Fuck ‘em. They gave away America.

“Please give us our Constitution back! Pretty please with sugar on it?”

Good luck to you all, but this is nothing we should have to ASK for.

this is nuts. think about it from the perspective of the innocent people being held - it is up to US, the people, to right this wrong.

it is OUR responsibility.

Why do you assume these people are innocent? They are enemy detainees caught on the battlefield. They have no habeas corpus rights.

IrishJim @ 36

LS @ 29

Interesting that Gonzo seems to be laying the blame totally on Sampson in his written testimony for tomorrow, but I saw no mention of Goodling…(raises an eyebrow)

That is because Gonzo is desperately trying to insulate the Whitehouse. If he even hints that Goodling was an active participant, then he indirectly implicates the Whitehouse. Sampson has testified that the reason Gonzo got so upset with McNulty for proclaiming that Bud Cummins was forced out solely to make room for Rove’s former aid.

Gonzo is there to lay on the sword to try and protect the Whitehouse. It will not work, but that is his story and he is sticking to it.

This is why he “continues to be effective”.

Katymine, the toll free number also allows some of us to make calls from work that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to make. Thanks for the numbers.

I just called Congresswoman Giffords’ office in Tucson and related my desire to have the habeas corpus restoration accomplished immediately.

Hey folks, take a look at the “Secret Memo” linked to above. It is a bizarre and circuitously illogical instrument, only made more so by the memorandum comprising the last two pages. There must be more, but it appears to me to be nothing more than a hidden cya document bogusly sanctioning White House political manipulation of Justice Department makeup. It is dumbfounding. Maybe just dumb.

Gang,

Christy’s upstairs with a fresh thread. Sorry, don’t know how to link to it.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 57

Good for Byrd. I have tried to point out for some time that the AUMF against Iraq has long since ceased to provide any legal rationale for our ongoing presence in Iraq. The reason for this is that nobody or almost nobody goes back and actually reads it.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

As for point 1, we invaded the country, took away its sovereignty, reconstituted a new state, and returned sovereignty to it. The Iraq of today is not Saddam’s Iraq referenced in the AUMF.

As for point 2, all of the UN Resolutions cited in the AUMF are from the First Gulf War of 1990-1991. There was no UN Resolution sanctioning the use of force for Bush’s invasion in 2003. And there wasn’t going to be one. There were 3 veto wielding countries out there (Russia, China, and France) who would have sunk any such Resolution, something for which they were criticized in this country at the time although history has proven them right. This is why Bush and company had to go back and jerry rig an argument using UN Resolutions more than a decade old and aimed at a different conflict.

The AUMF against Iraq is and has been a shell I would argue from June 28, 2004 when sovereignty was returned.

new thred, Jane(nyc) got the zed

LS @ 61

Just checking on the documents signed by Abu G. I believe they are most surely “stamped” - not original signatures, either one. The distances of the dots, etc., are absolutely identical. Also, the document requesting the authorization from Abu, is signed by someone “for” someone (Michael H. Allen “for” Cord).

Presidential Pardons now come with Bush’s signature preprinted. The Preznit wants to avoid writer’s cramp because it makes it hard for him to hold onto the handlebars.

Former Fed @ 77

I just called Congresswoman Giffords’ office in Tucson and related my desire to have the habeas corpus restoration accomplished immediately.

Former Fed are you in Southern Arizona? If so, cool. I wouldn’t worry about Gaby, she’ll be fine.

Petrocelli @ 71

Yeah, well Whitehouse was using an ICBM to hit the Pinata. *g*
I eagerly await the next barbecue on Thursday, even the Repubs were roasting Abu last time.

me too!
speakin of roasting, I actually burned the popcorn the last time, microwave still reeks of it, I ‘xpect it’ll smell like that in the hearing room tomorrow as he turns on the spit.

selise @ 73

John H. Farr @ 69

Fuck ‘em. They gave away America.

“Please give us our Constitution back! Pretty please with sugar on it?”

Good luck to you all, but this is nothing we should have to ASK for.

this is nuts. think about it from the perspective of the innocent people being held - it is up to US, the people, to right this wrong.

it is OUR responsibility.

you’re right, selise, the ship of state is not going to right herself on her own

bmaz @ 83

Yes, in Tucson.

Gabby is great. I personally liked Jim Kolbe but it is nice to have someone more progressive as our rep.

Lee at 75 — Why do you assume that they were caught on the battlefield? A large number of the folks in Guantanimo were turned over for bounties by rival tribes — we paid them to give us people that, in large numbers, have turned out to have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. We are currently holding over 80 people who have had hearings in Guantanimo, been deemed to have been detained wrongfully and to have had no dealings with terrorism, attacks against the US forces or otherwise, but because we have held them in Guantanimo and branded them as “terrorists” for years now, no one wants them back.

So we are stuck, indefinitely warehousing innocent people whose reputations we tarnished, who cannot go back to their homes or families — and we have held them for years — without being able to bring a single, solitary charge against them. That is wrong. And had they had access to habeas review earlier in this process, we would not have been holding them for years because the government would have been required to show proof that they were being rightfully and lawfully held.

The Bush Administration is doing this in your name. And mine. And I, for one, have had enough. See here, here, here, and here for starters on this. And I can link up even more — this barely scratches the surface. We are better than this, or we ought to be — and I refuse to act like we don’t have to follow the law or our ethical obligations because some scary terrorists yell boo. We either live up to who we say we are, or we are nothing more than a shell game with an illusory Constitution and a sham king sitting on a throne marked President. My ancestors did not fight for a free America for nothing — and I’m not about to shame myself by rolling over for another wannabe King George, either.

Here are some of W’s signing statements. Note the repeated unitary executive reference throughout.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.....ements.php

Christy at 88: The sources you cite are either lawyers for the detainees, surveys by groups which have a history of opposing the US military or a journalist, also with a history of opposing the President’s policies. Given the choice of choosing to believe our military would not house a detainee at great expense in Guantanamo when a local jail in Afghanistan would do unless that person did heinous things against the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, I choose to believe in the safety of our country. I do not believe civilian courts are competent to judge matters of national security and in the recent Supreme Court case upholding the detainment the Court itself recognized (albeit 5-4) that it was not competent to judge issues more properly suited to the Executive Branch. It is for that reason I would continue the existing Military Commissions Act.

LibertyLee @ 75

Why do you assume these people are innocent? They are enemy detainees caught on the battlefield. They have no habeas corpus rights.

some of the people are innocent - even the pentagon has told that there are dozens of people they think are innocent, and that they continue to hold.

the pentagon has told us that many of the people we hold were NOT caught by us on any battlefield.

but, beyond that - i believe in the american principles of of innocent until proven guilty and due process…. requirements of a free society - something americans have died to protect. i’m not going to roll over and give that away.

selise @ 91

LibertyLee @ 75

Why do you assume these people are innocent? They are enemy detainees caught on the battlefield. They have no habeas corpus rights.

some of the people are innocent - even the pentagon has told that there are dozens of people they think are innocent, and that they continue to hold.

the pentagon has told us that many of the people we hold were NOT caught by us on any battlefield.

but, beyond that - i believe in the american principles of of innocent until proven guilty and due process…. requirements of a free society - something americans have died to protect. i’m not going to roll over and give that away.

My Comments at 90 apply: the civilian courts are not competent to judge whether an individual constitutes a military threat to the United States. That authority is vested by the Constitution in the Executive.

[mod note: nested comments watch we are]

Sorry! Was hoping that three comments without a linky was ok?

[mod note: it’s the more than 3 we worry about…the next nest]

I accidentally got transferred to Loretta Sanchez herself (!) and told her that I supported restoration of habeus corpus, which she seemed happy to hear.