« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
Here Comes The Sun - The BeatlesLooks like convicted briber/lobbyist Jack Abramoff did spend a lot of time nuzzling with Karl Rove after all.
Yeah. I can understand why some women are not too pleased with this ad...
I don't think most people understand what happened yesterday. Our country changed. In many ways, it changed more yesterday than it did on 9/11/06.
On that day 5 years ago, many people lost their lives. But our country's principle's were unscathed. Yesterday, Congress passed a bill which sacrificed much of what this country stands for, effectually doing what our enemies (who hate our freedoms, remember?) could never do to us.
I suspect that many in Congress who voted for the Torture Bill (including the 12 Democrats) didn't know what they were doing and/or were so afraid of being perceived as "soft on terrorism" in an election year that they didn't care. It's like 2002 all over again, where voting against the Iraq War would have been perceived as weak (in an election year).
WaPo sums up some of the more disturbing features of the new law:
The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial and limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys. Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions, except in death penalty cases, and appeals must go through a second military panel before reaching a federal civilian court.
By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities. Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions, as they are known, and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.
At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects.
Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal summed it up nicely:
"If you're an American citizen, you get the Cadillac system of justice. If you're a foreigner or a green-card holder, you get this beat-up-Chevy version," he said.
Now comes the inevitable question: Why should we care how terrorist detainees are treated?
Well, for one thing, we detain people who are not terrorists. We know this to be true. According to a Defense Department data on the Gitmo detainees:
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.
So when people argue "Why should we give rights to terrorists", they need to understand that we're not necessarily talking about "terrorists". We're not talking about people have been found guilty of committing acts of terrorism, or even been accused of committing terrorism. Or even accused of anything. That's why as much as a third of them have been released (after sitting there for years without indictments or trials of any sort).
In fact, many of these detainees are probably innocent. How do they end up in our custody? It's a scam:
Pakistan’s routine practice of offering rewards running to thousands of dollars for unidentified terror suspects has led to illegal detentions of innocent people, said Claudio Cordone, senior director of research at Amnesty International.
“Bounty hunters – including police officers and local people – have captured individuals of different nationalities, often apparently at random, and sold them into US custody,” he said.
Now, nobody can say for sure how many people being detained by the United States are truly innocent and how many are really, truly, honest-to-God terrorists. For that, we would need -- oh what are those things called -- trials.
And therein lies the problem with the new law: it basically allows the Bush Administration not to care. Worse than that, it allows the Bush Administration to decide who is an "enemy combatant" (yes, even you could be one) and there is not a damn thing any court can do to overrule it.
There is a guiding principle of this country that everyone has the right to defend themselves, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We've always taken the position that these rights are not "just for Americans", but for everyone. Read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence lately?
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
When you are found guilty of committing a crime, you lose your liberty. But here's the thing: you have to found guilty first. This is a founding principle of this country -- a principle that we (supposedly) would like to see spread around the world. A principle that we have defended in war after war. Even Nazi war criminals had their day in court.
And we've just abandoned it. So how can we take a principled stand against despotism elsewhere, while we sanction it here?
But ultimately, the debate about torture and indefinite detention of detainees doesn't turn on the issue of what detainees are "entitled" to. It's about the kind of country we are.
Is this America? Do these pictures (reflecting what America has done to detainees) make you proud of your country?
Because Congress yesterday just said this is "okay" -- morally and legally.
We are torturers now. Officially.
So when Senator Mitch McConnell says...
"We are at war against extremists who want to kill our citizens, cripple our economy, and discredit the principles we hold dear--freedom and democracy..."
I want to agree and ask: Then why are you sacrificing those very principles that extremists want to destroy?
When he says...
"This system is exceedingly fair since al-Qaida in no way follows the Geneva Conventions or any other international norm. Al-Qaida respects no law, no authority, no legitimacy but that of its own twisted strain of radical Islam. Al-Qaida grants no procedural rights to Americans they capture."
I want to agree and ask: So how does dragging American to the level of Osama's cave actually benefit us?
Here's some quotes from an article describing recent dream research:
Liberals are more restless sleepers and have a higher number of bizarre, surreal dreams -- including fantasy settings and a wide variety of sexual encounters.
Woo-hoo!
Conservatives' dreams were, on average, far more mundane and focused on realistic people, situations and settings.
They dream about people having a panel discussion about the Federal Reserve policy.
Liberals were far more likely to have sexual dreams about strangers and a variety of partners, while liberal women showed a greater tendency towards same-sex fantasies than their conservative counterparts (24 versus four per cent).
Woo-hoo!
Conservatives, by comparison, were far more likely to report having sexual dreams about their spouse or current partner.
"I had a dream about my husband clipping his toenails."
While left-wingers might be more adventurous in the subconscious bedroom, they're also more likely to wake up in a cold sweat.
Well, the reason we wake up that way is because of our passionate dreams.
Overall, conservative males appear to sleep the most soundly and remember the fewest dreams, while liberal women are the most restless sleepers and fantastical dreamers.
Cool. And then the "researcher" concludes:
"While some of my colleagues think my research reinforces the stereotype of repressed, uptight conservatives, it also shows that many liberals may he hanging on the edge of mental well-being... There may be a lot of hidden distress and unpleasantness in the liberal mind."
Why? Because I dream about sex?
That got me to wonder about the dream researcher behind the study. So I did a little research on this "dream researcher" and I should point out that he's hardly what you would call a "scientist". His PhD is from University of Chicago Divinity School, and his conservative religious bent appears in much of his articles. For example, in one article entitled "Dreams and the 2004 Presidential Election", he writes:
A Bush-supporting 28-year old woman from North Carolina had this dream twice within a week in mid-October: “I had a dream that Bush lost. It was actually set up like, a newspaper article I was reading. I was reading that Bush only served one 4 year term. (which would lead me to believe he didn’t win) Then I was trying to see who was the new president, but I couldn’t find the name, I assumed it was Kerry but something told me maybe it isn’t.”
Perhaps the Biblical tradition that doubling a dream signals its prophetic truth (Gen. 41:32) enhances the credibility of this woman’s dreams, at least from a conservative Christian perspective.
In my view, injecting a "conservative Christian perspective" into a "scientific" analysis damages this guy's credibility as a scientist. Scientists (and I include legitimate dream researchers in that category) should be impartial observers of the natural world.
Still, I thought the whole dream/political thing was interesting. And his data strikes me as probably accurate, although his analysis of the data leaves much to be desired.
How embarrassing.
Paul Vance, the lyricist for the early 60's hit "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini", died earlier this week. His passing was noted by the Associated Press.
This came as a surprise to the other Paul Vance -- the one who really wrote the lyrics to the novelty hit (and who has collected millions of dollars in royalties from it).
The widow of the exposed (dead) imposter stated the obvious:
"If this other man says he did it then my husband's a liar, or he's a liar"
She's standing by her (dead) man, but it must be kind of awkward to know that the "little lie" he told her many many years ago (probably when they were courting) is untrue.
Apparently, a bunch of zombies held a protest in Austin this past week:
A good time was had by all.
That is, until the pirates showed up, staging a counterprotest.
The full photo set is on FlickR.
Why do I bring this up? As a shameless plug for this:
I haven't seen the show, but I hear good things. Also, I wanted to say that I think this is Jeff Driver's best poster ever.
P.S. I should also plug Cat On A Hot Tin Roof and Grace & Glorie, both of which I hope to see this weekend (both close this weekend). I've heard nothing but good things about both of them.
And, oh yeah -- we're working really hard to bring you "On Golden Pond" in a few weeks, so mark it on your calendar.
From the New York Times:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
Nice summary.
Publius points to these quotes:
On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country.
From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth.
Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. . . .
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies.
Those quotes are all from Bush's Second Inaugural Address, and every thing he said is belied by his advocacy of the torture bill -- an unconstitutional bill which shows how Bush's America is opposed to the principles of freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law.
Put another way: The writ of habeas corpus is one of those basic foundations of modern Democracy. Without it, words like liberty and freedom have no meaning.
UPDATE: Law Professor Bruce Ackerman explains what the legislation means. If you only remember one thing, remember this:
"The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Glenn may sound hyperbolic, but the fact is, he's not.
There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period.
But maybe the last word should go to founding father Patrick Henry:
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury ...necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
UPDATE - THE SILVER LINING: Specter's attempt to put habeus corpus back in the bill failed to pass the Senate by a 51-48 margin.
The good news is that this bill is so transparently unconstitutional (at least, the part suspending habeus corpus) that it simply will not surive the courts.
In the meantime, expect more of this:
If this is what it is cracked up to be, I'm signing up.
Many people have 3 phone numbers: a work number, a home number, and a cell phone number. How can your friends and family know how (and when) to reach you?
Wouldn't it be great if you could give your contacts ONE phone number, and their calls would reach you no matter where you were?
That's the idea behind Grandcentral, a web application that lets YOU decide where to take your calls.
Here's some interesting features:
(1) YOU get to pick your Grandcentral number.
(2) You can switch phones right in the middle of a conversation. That is, if you are at home talking on your cell, you can pick up the conversation on your home phone without ending the call.
(3) All your voicemail goes into one centralized location. You can check your voicemail from (or for) any of your phones. You can even check your voicemail through the Internet.
(4) Caller ID, all the time. You can customize your Grandcentral service so that certain callers automatically go into voicemail, while others find you.
(5) You can have customized voicemail greetings for whoever calls.
(6) It's FREE (for 3 phones or less).
| Gasoline Prices |
Recent Comments