9/11 and the Need for Closure

So the President has revealed the 14 suspects who were detained in secret CIA gulags abroad and moved them to Guantanamo. In announcing their transfer to Guantanamo, he pointed to the 9/11 relatives by his side and suggested the need for closure now, 5 years after the attacks.

Here is what closure is not: Detaining the chief suspects in secret locations while fighting court battle after court battle to avoid his responsibility to live up to the Geneva Conventions and our nation's laws. Failing to lay out the evidence against these men in any public forum, so that our enemies abroad can continue to claim that they are innocent. Failing to convict these terrorists in any court. Continuing to push for un-Constitutional legislation to set up special kangaroo courts for these suspects and these suspects alone.

Here is what closure would be: Trying these suspects and convicting them, using evidence presented openly to the whole world, and then locking them up in prison after a free and fair trial.

Personally, I think the Democrats should push for closure. 5 years is long enough.

Median Income Down in 46 of 50 States

In this diary posted on DKos we see that median income has dropped in 46 of 50 states 1999-2005.

This drop in median income is a direct result of Bush administration tax policies, which increase incentive of the very rich to hold the very real increases in worker productivity as corporate (and thus, their) profits.

Are you getting this?

Out of Iraq, Safer at Home

I've got the Democrats' campaign slogan. The Dems need a national platform, just like the GOP in 1994, because otherwise they will fight 100 separate races and fail to capitalize on the complete chaos that the 4-year Republican monopoly on power has created - for the party, for the Federal budget, for our armed forces, and for our standing in the world.

Out of Iraq:

• Pledge to begin a drawdown of forces in the first half of 2007
• Because 62% of the American public agrees with this policy
• Because the ongoing failure of our occupation is not making America safer, but quite the opposite
• Because anyone who wants to "stay the course" in Iraq will vote Republican anyway
• Because Bush & Co. are spending all their time talking about the importance of closing our eyes and trusting them
• Which plays right into Democrat hands if they are just willing to state this intention and put a stamp on it

Safer at Home:

• Pledge to pass legislation implementing each and every one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
• Because something like half of these have not even been started on, 5 years after the attacks
• Because Katrina demonstrated that the Bush Administration has learned nothing about how to safeguard American lives in emergency situations, even when they have 5 days' warning
• Because one thing we know is that at some point in the next two years, Americans will be in crisis and will need their government's help, and we want that help to be there for them

The End of the Valerie Plame Affair

Richard Armitage admits to doing it all. Bit of a shocker.

Read Holbrooke

in the WaPost today.

And that way, a few months from now, you cannot say that you never saw World War III coming.

Should the United States Execute George Bush as a War Criminal?

Apparently,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has been going around congress and quietly asking members to consider making legal some of the violations of the Geneva Conventions article 3 that George Bush has already admitted to violating.

He's doing that because the War Crimes Act of 1996 says that US Nationals who violate the Geneva Conventions Article 3 are in violation, and subject to imprisonment and execution under that act (ouch).

So, the Supreme Court has already held that the Geneva Conventions Article 3 applies to the War on Terrorism, and Bush has publicly acknowledge violating it. In fact:

At a July 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Air Force's top military lawyer, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, affirmed that "some of the techniques that have been authorized and used in the past have violated Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. The top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, who were seated next to Rives, said they agreed.

The bill was originally passed by voice vote in the House (effectively unanimous), and unanimously by the Senate.

What exactly should be done with that?

Rogue Waves make the Science Times

NYT Story.

Totally awesome... Average number present on the world's oceans: 10. Cause: Unknown, but they prefer areas of strong current. Average height: 100 feet. Theoretical maximum: 200 feet. One possible explanation for the ship-swallowing capabilities of the Bermuda Triangle. If I ever decide to go on a cruise ship, I think I will stick with the Mediterranean...

A Call For Pardons

Allow me to be the first to suggest that one of the first official acts of our next President, whatever his or her party affiliation, should be to pardon our current President, George W. Bush, along with his Vice President and cabinet secretaries, for any conspiracy to violate and/or direct violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention on Torture (as codified in US law), and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. (I believe this list summarizes the bulk of the crimes known to have been committed by ranking members of the current Administration.) My reasoning goes as follows:

• As President Ford appreciated, prosecution of high-ranking members of the former government sets a poor precedent for the peaceful transition of power in our democracy;
• Stating the plan to pardon these individuals now makes it clear that even though they are not being impeached or subject to active criminal investigation, they are not off the hook;
• Acceptance of the pardon (or even silence regarding it) would serve satisfactorily as an acknowledgment of guilt, and partial act of repentance (see, e.g., Nixon);
• Refusal of the pardon, by contrast, would imply a willingness to be investigated and stand trial for these crimes;
• Acceptance of the pardon would make it clear to international courts that these crimes are not going to be tried in the U.S. (not likely in any case), and would thus allow any individuals to pursue their own remedy through these courts.

An Independence Day Meditation

On the anniversary of our nation's declaration of independence from the arbitrary rule of a man - unconstrained by Constitution, checks, or balances - two quotes:

You really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead.
  — Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), February 3, 2006

Give me liberty or give me death.
  — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I suggest that this election year presents our nation once again (for the 460th time, more or less) with a choice between these two contrary approaches to the problem of governance in the face of a mortal enemy.

An Administration of War Criminals

Well, it looks like killing the newspapers won't be enough - the Administration needs to get rid of at least one more Supreme Court Justice, as well, to cement its deathgrip on superconstitutional power.

The Hamdan decision today (NYT coverage) is notable for several reasons, but I will focus here on one in particular. A majority of the Supremes ruled that the Geneva Conventions (in particular, its "Common Article 3" provisions for the treatment of prisoners), is binding on the government generally, even in the "war on terrorism" and the ongoing conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

This represents a direct overruling of the twisted arguments of our Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, our Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and their bosses the President and Vice President, that US law allows for torture of foreign noncombatants and even the occasional US citizen. Over at SCOTUSblog, Marty Lederman argues that CIA and military personnel who have relied on those arguments to justify their acts of torture since 9/11 may have legal recourse, but any who torture even a single prisoner going forward will be guilty of war crimes (and subject to the death penalty if convicted).

From a somewhat broader perspective, since these policies were promulgated from the top of the Administration, without much (if any) regard for whether they were consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are now shown to be in violation of them, I would argue, the Supreme Court has judged this to be an Administration of war criminals.

The Duds of 'The Devil Wears Prada' - New York Times

Clothes of the movie are reviewed at the NYTimes. My point, which I've made before: fashion is the new architecture. Everybody's going to have to bone up, and have *something* to say about it.

Get reading!

First thing we do, let's kill all the newspapers

The NYT recently exposed yet another "anti-terrorist" program of this Administration, the systematic data-mining of bank and financial institution records: NYT story.

Just to remind you of the litany, here are the programs we know of now thanks to the combined efforts of whistle-blowers & journalists:

• Blanket NSA wiretaps of calls with one terminus (or sometimes both, oops!) in the United States (NYT, which delayed publication at the Administration's request until after the Nov 2004 elections);
• Datamining of all domestic calling records (USA Today; one or two phone companies refused to comply);
• Datamining of international financial transactions for individuals suspected of terrorist ties (NYT, above).

The Administration and GOP allies are calling for a criminal investigation of the NYT and its reporters in this latest case: NYT story. This goes beyond the leak investigations spurred by the earlier stories - which threatened only the unknown officials, who may violate the law in the course of leaking classified information.

I would argue that there is nothing more threatening to our system of government than having the Executive and Legislative Branches banding together to kill the newspapers and their right to report on the doings of that government, both covert and overt. The current round of press attacks, led by Cheney and Bush personally, represents the absolute Nixonian apotheosis of this Administration.

Why Eighteen-Year-Olds should Not Be Trusted to Name Military Operations

ABC News: Coalition Troops Prepare Afghan Offensive. The name of the offensive? Operation Mountain Thrust. No kidding. Really.

I think it's being led by General T. Bagmyballs.

Why focusing on Al-Qaeda is Stupid

Toronto police arrested 17 people on charges of attempted terrorism today - Chicago Tribune story. The suspects are said to have been "inspired by Al Qaeda".

This case illustrates why it is stupid to focus on Al Qaeda itself - to almost any extent whatsoever - in attempts to protect US citizens from terror attacks:

• The attacks on 9/11 involved 17 attackers and roughly $500k. It was not a large effort, neither in terms of personnel nor in terms of finances.
• Now that Al Qaeda has shown the way, it is easy (in fact, predictable) for copycat groups to mimic Al Qaeda techniques.
• The supply of suicidal misfits, willing to sacrifice their own lives (either immediately, or via life imprisonment after the fact) is nearly limitless.
• Once a group has attained a reasonable size, the financial requirements for an attack are, likewise, not significant.
• While Islamic fundamentalism provides one motivation for indiscriminate attacks, it is by no means the only viable such motive. Consider, for example, the second-worst terror attack in American history, the Oklahoma City bombing.

The appropriate fraction of terror prevention efforts that should be devoted to any single group can therefore be roughly estimated by dividing the group membership by the total number of social misfits in the country/world, which - even in the case of Al Qaeda - is negligible.

Patrick: Only 481 Faster!

Robin is in California, and her Flickr page (above) pointed out that our very own Patrick Wojdowski ran on March 19th in the Los Angeles Marathon.

According to the official results, Patrick came in number 482 overall, and 452 in the men's division, with a time of 3:23:09, running an average 7:44 mile the whole way.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeezussssssss.. Congratulations Patrick!

Tom Cruise Screws Up Daughter's Naming

He thought "Suri" meant "Princess" in Hebrew and "red rose" in Farsi.
Wrong.

Typical right wing?

From Newsweek this week: "Right now, I wouldn't vote Democratic if Jesus Christ was running." Judy Deats, a Texas Republican, who is standing by Rep. Tom DeLay in his re-election bid despite the fact that his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has made him vulnerable to political opposition for the first time in more than 20 years.

Is it true that if God himself was opposing the Republican party, that constituents would stand by their candidate? I guess we don't really need to worry, because if God was trying to stop Evil, He wouldn't leave it up to an election. There'd be something wicked cool like a flood or a plague...

Justice Roberts: Tanned, Rested and Ready to Legislate from the Bench.

So much for conservative restraint. Chief Justice Roberts was ready to repeal the 4th Ammendment this week, and in doing so, was ready to write a new law by judicial declaration.

In yesterday's decision Roberts wrote the dissent (vote was 5-3). In the case, a wife gave permission to police to search her home (she was angry at her husband, said he was a cocaine user, and they would find evidence of this); her husband, also present, explicitly denied permission to search. The police searched, found evidence of cocaine use, and arrested the husband.

Roberts:: "In a concluding paragraph of his dissent, he said: 'The majority reminds us, in high tones, that a man's home is his castle, but even under the majority's rule, it is not his castle if he happens to be absent, asleep in the keep or otherwise engaged when the constable arrives at the gate. Then it is his co-owner's castle.'"

Here, Roberts is complaining that the majority was silent on a question of law which was not before the court: what should happen if the second co-owner was not present?

Roberts faulted the majority for declining to address a hypothetical question of law -- not the question before the court, and a question that's likely to come up in the future, sure, but a hypothetical question nonetheless. What do the police do if the co-owner is not present?

That is, per definition, legislating from the bench.

This is going to get interesting.

Bush Administration Getting Ready to Enforce Discrimination

The Bush administration just altered their regulation for security clearances. The policy used to say that sexual orientation was not a basis to disqualify an individual for a security clearance. The new policy says that sexual orientation cannot be the sole basis to disqualify an individual for a security clearance.

So, if you're ugly too......

Link

3rd Anniversary Euphemisms

Since Erica and I share our wedding anniversary with the start of the Iraq War (almost), it looks like we are going to have a big drumbeat of pre-anniversary war news coverage every year until the troops come home, thus I expect, each year for the rest of our natural lives.

Jon Stewart was noting our joint anniversary this week on the Daily Show, and asking what the traditional gift for a 3rd anniversary is. I have consulted Wikipedia and the answer, apparently, is "leather." My oh my.

Erica and I will mutually decline, I think, but one has to marvel at the appropriateness of this gift if one imagines (as Jon did) it coming from the US occupiers to their oh-so-civilly occupied Iraqis. Just think of all the uses! Helmets and body armor, for one. Gloves. Jackets. Whips, straps, and restraints. Thong underwear! Not a one of them out of place.

All of which also brings to mind - yes - Fox News. I was watching the closed captions on one of their programs while at the gym today (no other bicycle free), and noticed one of their anchors discussing, as a key bullet point on the current situation in Iraq, "sectarian violence." And I was thinking about the key Administration Message of the Day: Iraq is not descending into civil war. Of course, they had been forced against all evidence into making this denial because their ex-poster-boy for Iraqi democracy, Ayad Allawi, stated clearly to the BBC that this was exactly the right characterization. So you've got to have sympathy for the Administration on this one, given the awkwardness of their position from the get-go.

But then you parse the meaning of that Fox News phrase, "sectarian violence," and you realize that even these gents are no longer with the program. Truly a leather anniversary, all around.