Posts
Attention Democrat Party Congressional Leaders and other Fair Weather Friends of the Constitution:
Just what the %&*@#% do you think you are doing? FISA, a law only dictators could love, violates a whole bunch of unambiguous prohibitions in the Constitution designed for the express purpose of preventing dictatorships. Why then are you cowards giving Bush and his Neocon henchmen, dictator wannabes one and all, exactly what they want? The so-called “improvements” you are helping pass not only violate 200 year old liberties, they wipe out what was clear grounds for impeachment and will let some egregious criminals in the Administration go free to continue their harm without penalty.
You could have defeated the entire concept merely by doing nothing and letting the odious law expire. Doing nothing is something you have proven so good at over the last several years. Why didn’t you continue doing nothing for just once in your increasingly fruitless careers instead of becoming co-conspirators in the dismantlement of everything this country once stood for?
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts
2008/06/24
2007/11/29
“THEIR’S AND THEIR’S ALONE”
Or, Why the Entire Bill for Iraq Should Be Paid by the Republicans
They demanded we trust them because they, and they alone, knew best.
They proclaimed they, and they alone, could and would keep us strong and safe even though it turns out it was them foolishly pushing us into danger with their international chest thumping and posturing. They then proceeded to jeopardize us further with their laxity and inattention to the very details needed to actually keep us safe and strong.
When the almost inevitable blowback came, they expressed dumbfounded surprise, but still insisted we trust them, and them alone, because they were supposedly the only ones capable of bringing to justice those attacking us. Worse, they were secretly delighted because they believed it gave them a blank check to seek fulfilment of their hearts’ fondest desires, things they could never achieve otherwise in a sane society. In a cosmically comic irony, the violent response of others to our earlier ignorant arrogance was declared an excuse for new egregious excesses of our own, excesses unrelated to the real task at hand, catching criminals.
Reason, rationality, research, and reflection were all declared useless baggage. Common sense? How quaint. Something apparently to be ridiculed.
Impatient to proceed with their secret agendas, they then proceeded to lie about the most critical aspects of what they were doing and why. Heedless of possible consequences, they surged forward unprepared for future needs or end games or contingencies for the usual glitches and unintended effects that plague all wars. After all, according to them, they and they alone knew best. Plans? “We don’t need no stinkin’ plans” seemed to be their operating motto or at least their modus operandi. God was on their side or at least they declared it was. 9/11 - the violent precipitating event of our current troubles was perceived almost as a “gift from God” encouraging them to indulge in their own previously stalemated lust for violence against Unbelievers.
In any event, it became clear they had absolutely no trust in the rest of us at all, we who would have to carry out and bear the burdens of the policies they declared. Interestingly, they alternated between being terrified of us and dismissive of us. They certainly did not trust us with the truth having no confidence at all in their own persuasiveness to win any debates on the merits. They still don’t trust the courts, the Constitution, the Congress, the voters or the small portion of the press they could not isolate, intimidate, mislead, or bribe with perks.
Astonishingly, they lied about even things they did not have to lie about. They became almost textbook cases of the pathology known as “pathological liars.” Aided by their exclusive possession of all the nation’s “Top Secret” rubber stamps, they could lie with almost impunity.
Secrecy became an end in itself, especially useful to cover up mistakes and lies. Their cone of silence was broken only when revealing a state secret might prove useful to attack anyone who disagreed with them or might have proof of lies. This is yet another in the cornucopia of ironies they have gifted us. Having loudly declared secrecy was imperative and inviolate, they felt free to ignore or sacrifice it at whim. It did not seem to matter the cost to the country of the secrecy violations by themselves. That was somehow “different” and legal solely because they were the ones doing it.
When their lies or inconvenient and contradictory facts are ultimately discovered, they pretend it did not matter. It is sometimes so obvious they are wrong, they appear to be downright delusional. Their grasp on reality is becoming increasingly questionable at best.
Nevertheless, they successfully seized the carte blanc they demanded after 9/11 to do exactly what they wanted even before. They began diverting resources, bodies and money. They got all they claimed they needed. But, although a massive hemorrhaging of blood and money continues to pour out and has never stopped or slowed, about the only thing they have shown is that success in seizing power and deluding their own country is not necessarily a predictor of success in doing so in others. Beyond the subversion and perversion of this country’s former ideals, none of their stated goals, except the most minor of ones, one that could have been accomplished in other ways, were successfully accomplished.
That was probably because they tended to fire the people who understood the problems. They replaced those who knew how with liars, self aggrandizers, incompetents, zealots, crooks and even traitors (assuming the word “traitor” includes those who blatantly ignore the words in their oath of office about swearing to defend the Constitution). Many of the flunkies installed by them seemed to see it only as an opportunity to line their own pockets.
All of them, the ones in charge, the ones responsible for where we are today, repeatedly told us the task was almost finished. They told us so often that the phrase “mission accomplished” is now officially an oxymoron, an antonym for the words “success” or “completion.” Yet, what they really did was make the problems far worse, perhaps now unsolvable thanks to them. Plus, they irresponsibly cost our treasury and our grandchildren trillions. They cost thousands of our finest young dead, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, more maimed mentally or physically. That doesn’t even begin to count the totally innocent women and children diminished as “collateral damage.” They cost us our morality, our good word, our trust, our unity, our ability to respond to disasters or future threats, and possibly even our future. They immeasurably weakened us in so many ways. They strengthened those who resolutely hate us, for good reason it turns out. So far the only things they have “accomplished” are to fulfill the fondest dreams of terrorists and those who wish us harm.
There is no end in sight as long as they are in charge. They have screwed it up so bad that thanks to them, and them alone, we can no longer “win” Iraq by any conceivable meaning of that word and the results of getting out are now almost as bad as staying. It is being to appear the only person who might have been able to do as much permanent harm to us would have been for the partisan Republicans sitting on the Supreme Court to have put Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office instead of Bush.
Yet, somehow when everything goes horribly wrong, as it has, they blame others, never ever themselves. For a religious person, the plagues we have been saddled with might make it appear that God is so irritated at those in Washington, he is aiding the other side.
Despite all that, despite the mounting evidence of stupidity and wrongdoing and costs, they still refuse to allow genuine debate and routinely refuse to listen to anyone who might disagree, no matter how conclusive the arguments or proof. They certainly never actually change their core tactics or use other tools. They cannot see anything of value in approaches except using force to get their way.
They seem incapable of cost/benefit analysis. Like a spoiled petulant child, they are utterly incapable of being sufficiently adult to admit when they are wrong so that it can be fixed. They are a party of rich white boys who continually cry “Wolf!” Worse, they have been downright thuggish in attacking anyone who disagrees even mildly on anything. They want to continue forever doing what clearly does not work.
On top of being steadfastly, unchangingly dishonest and/or outright stupid, many have turned out to be unbelievably corrupt. It can probably be said with little exaggeration they have never been right on any subject except how to steal elections, let alone any decision having anything to do with Iraq. It can probably be said as well that all the bank robbers plus all the welfare cheats of all of our history put together have not stolen, wasted or broken as much as this particular gang.
Why then are we still listening to anything they have to say? Why aren’t they impeached or already in jail? Why would anyone consider voting for any of their crowd? Not one is fit to be elected dog catcher, let alone run the country.
Granted, the Democrats have been the brightest of bulbs and they have their shares of liars, gutless wonders, cheats and moral degenerates. Yet, occasionally one or two of them break ranks and decide that their country and their oaths of office are more important than merely obtaining re-election. We can no longer assume that of Republicans.
They demanded we trust them because they alone knew what to do. Well, they got the honor, the power, the money, the volunteers, the opportunity, and year after year to do exactly what they wanted and what they said would work. The bill for Iraq is now due and rightly it is theirs and theirs alone. Let’s make them pay.
They demanded we trust them because they, and they alone, knew best.
They proclaimed they, and they alone, could and would keep us strong and safe even though it turns out it was them foolishly pushing us into danger with their international chest thumping and posturing. They then proceeded to jeopardize us further with their laxity and inattention to the very details needed to actually keep us safe and strong.
When the almost inevitable blowback came, they expressed dumbfounded surprise, but still insisted we trust them, and them alone, because they were supposedly the only ones capable of bringing to justice those attacking us. Worse, they were secretly delighted because they believed it gave them a blank check to seek fulfilment of their hearts’ fondest desires, things they could never achieve otherwise in a sane society. In a cosmically comic irony, the violent response of others to our earlier ignorant arrogance was declared an excuse for new egregious excesses of our own, excesses unrelated to the real task at hand, catching criminals.
Reason, rationality, research, and reflection were all declared useless baggage. Common sense? How quaint. Something apparently to be ridiculed.
Impatient to proceed with their secret agendas, they then proceeded to lie about the most critical aspects of what they were doing and why. Heedless of possible consequences, they surged forward unprepared for future needs or end games or contingencies for the usual glitches and unintended effects that plague all wars. After all, according to them, they and they alone knew best. Plans? “We don’t need no stinkin’ plans” seemed to be their operating motto or at least their modus operandi. God was on their side or at least they declared it was. 9/11 - the violent precipitating event of our current troubles was perceived almost as a “gift from God” encouraging them to indulge in their own previously stalemated lust for violence against Unbelievers.
In any event, it became clear they had absolutely no trust in the rest of us at all, we who would have to carry out and bear the burdens of the policies they declared. Interestingly, they alternated between being terrified of us and dismissive of us. They certainly did not trust us with the truth having no confidence at all in their own persuasiveness to win any debates on the merits. They still don’t trust the courts, the Constitution, the Congress, the voters or the small portion of the press they could not isolate, intimidate, mislead, or bribe with perks.
Astonishingly, they lied about even things they did not have to lie about. They became almost textbook cases of the pathology known as “pathological liars.” Aided by their exclusive possession of all the nation’s “Top Secret” rubber stamps, they could lie with almost impunity.
Secrecy became an end in itself, especially useful to cover up mistakes and lies. Their cone of silence was broken only when revealing a state secret might prove useful to attack anyone who disagreed with them or might have proof of lies. This is yet another in the cornucopia of ironies they have gifted us. Having loudly declared secrecy was imperative and inviolate, they felt free to ignore or sacrifice it at whim. It did not seem to matter the cost to the country of the secrecy violations by themselves. That was somehow “different” and legal solely because they were the ones doing it.
When their lies or inconvenient and contradictory facts are ultimately discovered, they pretend it did not matter. It is sometimes so obvious they are wrong, they appear to be downright delusional. Their grasp on reality is becoming increasingly questionable at best.
Nevertheless, they successfully seized the carte blanc they demanded after 9/11 to do exactly what they wanted even before. They began diverting resources, bodies and money. They got all they claimed they needed. But, although a massive hemorrhaging of blood and money continues to pour out and has never stopped or slowed, about the only thing they have shown is that success in seizing power and deluding their own country is not necessarily a predictor of success in doing so in others. Beyond the subversion and perversion of this country’s former ideals, none of their stated goals, except the most minor of ones, one that could have been accomplished in other ways, were successfully accomplished.
That was probably because they tended to fire the people who understood the problems. They replaced those who knew how with liars, self aggrandizers, incompetents, zealots, crooks and even traitors (assuming the word “traitor” includes those who blatantly ignore the words in their oath of office about swearing to defend the Constitution). Many of the flunkies installed by them seemed to see it only as an opportunity to line their own pockets.
All of them, the ones in charge, the ones responsible for where we are today, repeatedly told us the task was almost finished. They told us so often that the phrase “mission accomplished” is now officially an oxymoron, an antonym for the words “success” or “completion.” Yet, what they really did was make the problems far worse, perhaps now unsolvable thanks to them. Plus, they irresponsibly cost our treasury and our grandchildren trillions. They cost thousands of our finest young dead, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, more maimed mentally or physically. That doesn’t even begin to count the totally innocent women and children diminished as “collateral damage.” They cost us our morality, our good word, our trust, our unity, our ability to respond to disasters or future threats, and possibly even our future. They immeasurably weakened us in so many ways. They strengthened those who resolutely hate us, for good reason it turns out. So far the only things they have “accomplished” are to fulfill the fondest dreams of terrorists and those who wish us harm.
There is no end in sight as long as they are in charge. They have screwed it up so bad that thanks to them, and them alone, we can no longer “win” Iraq by any conceivable meaning of that word and the results of getting out are now almost as bad as staying. It is being to appear the only person who might have been able to do as much permanent harm to us would have been for the partisan Republicans sitting on the Supreme Court to have put Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office instead of Bush.
Yet, somehow when everything goes horribly wrong, as it has, they blame others, never ever themselves. For a religious person, the plagues we have been saddled with might make it appear that God is so irritated at those in Washington, he is aiding the other side.
Despite all that, despite the mounting evidence of stupidity and wrongdoing and costs, they still refuse to allow genuine debate and routinely refuse to listen to anyone who might disagree, no matter how conclusive the arguments or proof. They certainly never actually change their core tactics or use other tools. They cannot see anything of value in approaches except using force to get their way.
They seem incapable of cost/benefit analysis. Like a spoiled petulant child, they are utterly incapable of being sufficiently adult to admit when they are wrong so that it can be fixed. They are a party of rich white boys who continually cry “Wolf!” Worse, they have been downright thuggish in attacking anyone who disagrees even mildly on anything. They want to continue forever doing what clearly does not work.
On top of being steadfastly, unchangingly dishonest and/or outright stupid, many have turned out to be unbelievably corrupt. It can probably be said with little exaggeration they have never been right on any subject except how to steal elections, let alone any decision having anything to do with Iraq. It can probably be said as well that all the bank robbers plus all the welfare cheats of all of our history put together have not stolen, wasted or broken as much as this particular gang.
Why then are we still listening to anything they have to say? Why aren’t they impeached or already in jail? Why would anyone consider voting for any of their crowd? Not one is fit to be elected dog catcher, let alone run the country.
Granted, the Democrats have been the brightest of bulbs and they have their shares of liars, gutless wonders, cheats and moral degenerates. Yet, occasionally one or two of them break ranks and decide that their country and their oaths of office are more important than merely obtaining re-election. We can no longer assume that of Republicans.
They demanded we trust them because they alone knew what to do. Well, they got the honor, the power, the money, the volunteers, the opportunity, and year after year to do exactly what they wanted and what they said would work. The bill for Iraq is now due and rightly it is theirs and theirs alone. Let’s make them pay.
2007/11/07
"WHAT IF JACK BAUER IS WRONG?"
Or, The Alternative Torture Scenario
The Neocons’ favorite justification for legalizing torture is the now infamous “we’ve captured a terrorist who won’t tell us where the bomb is hidden.” That rationalization is popular and persuasive to some probably because it contains an unstated false premise - that we actually have captured a genuine terrorist who has useful information. This "Jack Bauer Scenario" also presupposes guilt, a determination our founding fathers insisted should be determined in a more methodical process, notwithstanding the brilliance of "24" tv scriptwriters in eternally ferreting out all terrorists.
Given the Keystone Kops the Neocons tend to put in charge of things, the likelihood of them really catching a competent terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere rather than just setting it off immediately is probably less than you being eaten by a shark in Kansas. Moreover, both studies and anecdotal information from professional interrogators indicate that physical torture seldom produces reliable information. It is not that the torturee won’t talk, it’s that he or she will say absolutely anything to stop the pain or drowning, true or not. In addition, other techniques, including drugs, have proven more productive even in the short run when circumstances frighten those who say all our rights must be violated.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the Neocons their fantasy scenario, but change one aspect of it. Let’s suppose there is a genuine terrorist and he personally hid a bomb under the White House. Hmmm. On second thought, maybe we should say it’s hidden elsewhere since many wouldn’t mind it going off there unless it was big enough to take out the Smithsonian and National Museum of Art as well. No, let’s say instead the bomb is buried under an orphanage somewhere and we discover proof positive (as opposed to this Administration’s usual mere suspicions, assumptions and ideology). Let’s assume for once we got lucky and traced the unknown evildoer who buried it to a high rise residential building with a thousand people in it, 666 of which are innocent women and children and 332 of which are innocent men. We don’t know who among them is the bomber, but let’s say Jack Bauer has discovered the secret bomber has been residing on that particular street.
What do you do now Neocons? Torture everyone in the building? The Neocons insist it is okay to abandon the Constitution if it is just one foreigner. Is it okay to abandon it for a thousand people? Or, should we torture just the men? (Yeah right. No one under 21 ever was recruited to cause harm and no woman ever had a grievance against our society.) Torture just those who are of a darker skin tone or foreigners with an accent on the assumption that only they would bomb a building? (Oops, forgot about Timothy McVeigh, didn’t we?) Torture only the non-Christians? (I don’t think any of our abortion clinic bombers though claimed they were Muslim.) Torture just those wearing turbans? (That’s going to irritate pretty badly the entire country of India and all its Hindus and turban wearing Siekhs, not to mention everyone of that religion living in this country.) Torture only those who have guns in their homes? (Wow, that would be a tough one for the Neocons who also tend to be almost pathological when it comes to defending the portion of the Constitution regarding freedom to have guns. Their willingness to abandon almost all other Bill of Rights Amendments is almost amusing considering that Neocons insist even one regulation or hinderance of the right to own armor piercing 50 caliber rifles capable of bringing down passenger liners puts us on a “slippery slope.” ) So, what about torturing only those who have a two days growth of beard and non-blond hair? In other words, Central Casting’s concept of villains?
Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them. Neocons though seem to be saying that torture is still a good idea even then because we save more lives than will be lost. That is an unproven conclusion, but okay, suppose we know the bomber is somewhere in a city of a 100,000 and we know the bomb is a nuclear one which might kill 100,001? Still a good idea? The cost/benefit ratio is greater on the side of benefits by one. (Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them.)
Heck, let’s say the bomber is in Portland and the nuclear bomb is a hydrogen one shipped into the port of New York or LA. Now the saving ratio is perhaps ten to one. As to Portland, should we say . . . too bad? That’s the risk you take of living in a “war zone?” Collateral damage so to speak?
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston.
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston. The way to combat such nonsense is to counter with something Scott Adams suggested in his blog as a possible way to negotiate a settlement with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb. He suggested we offer Iran the testicles of Bush and Cheney in exchange for a permanent inspection right to insure no bombs are being made. IF THERE IS EVEN A 1% CHANCE THAT IT WOULD WORK, WE MUST TAKE IT!
The Neocons’ favorite justification for legalizing torture is the now infamous “we’ve captured a terrorist who won’t tell us where the bomb is hidden.” That rationalization is popular and persuasive to some probably because it contains an unstated false premise - that we actually have captured a genuine terrorist who has useful information. This "Jack Bauer Scenario" also presupposes guilt, a determination our founding fathers insisted should be determined in a more methodical process, notwithstanding the brilliance of "24" tv scriptwriters in eternally ferreting out all terrorists.
Given the Keystone Kops the Neocons tend to put in charge of things, the likelihood of them really catching a competent terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere rather than just setting it off immediately is probably less than you being eaten by a shark in Kansas. Moreover, both studies and anecdotal information from professional interrogators indicate that physical torture seldom produces reliable information. It is not that the torturee won’t talk, it’s that he or she will say absolutely anything to stop the pain or drowning, true or not. In addition, other techniques, including drugs, have proven more productive even in the short run when circumstances frighten those who say all our rights must be violated.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the Neocons their fantasy scenario, but change one aspect of it. Let’s suppose there is a genuine terrorist and he personally hid a bomb under the White House. Hmmm. On second thought, maybe we should say it’s hidden elsewhere since many wouldn’t mind it going off there unless it was big enough to take out the Smithsonian and National Museum of Art as well. No, let’s say instead the bomb is buried under an orphanage somewhere and we discover proof positive (as opposed to this Administration’s usual mere suspicions, assumptions and ideology). Let’s assume for once we got lucky and traced the unknown evildoer who buried it to a high rise residential building with a thousand people in it, 666 of which are innocent women and children and 332 of which are innocent men. We don’t know who among them is the bomber, but let’s say Jack Bauer has discovered the secret bomber has been residing on that particular street.
What do you do now Neocons? Torture everyone in the building? The Neocons insist it is okay to abandon the Constitution if it is just one foreigner. Is it okay to abandon it for a thousand people? Or, should we torture just the men? (Yeah right. No one under 21 ever was recruited to cause harm and no woman ever had a grievance against our society.) Torture just those who are of a darker skin tone or foreigners with an accent on the assumption that only they would bomb a building? (Oops, forgot about Timothy McVeigh, didn’t we?) Torture only the non-Christians? (I don’t think any of our abortion clinic bombers though claimed they were Muslim.) Torture just those wearing turbans? (That’s going to irritate pretty badly the entire country of India and all its Hindus and turban wearing Siekhs, not to mention everyone of that religion living in this country.) Torture only those who have guns in their homes? (Wow, that would be a tough one for the Neocons who also tend to be almost pathological when it comes to defending the portion of the Constitution regarding freedom to have guns. Their willingness to abandon almost all other Bill of Rights Amendments is almost amusing considering that Neocons insist even one regulation or hinderance of the right to own armor piercing 50 caliber rifles capable of bringing down passenger liners puts us on a “slippery slope.” ) So, what about torturing only those who have a two days growth of beard and non-blond hair? In other words, Central Casting’s concept of villains?
Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them. Neocons though seem to be saying that torture is still a good idea even then because we save more lives than will be lost. That is an unproven conclusion, but okay, suppose we know the bomber is somewhere in a city of a 100,000 and we know the bomb is a nuclear one which might kill 100,001? Still a good idea? The cost/benefit ratio is greater on the side of benefits by one. (Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them.)
Heck, let’s say the bomber is in Portland and the nuclear bomb is a hydrogen one shipped into the port of New York or LA. Now the saving ratio is perhaps ten to one. As to Portland, should we say . . . too bad? That’s the risk you take of living in a “war zone?” Collateral damage so to speak?
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston.
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston. The way to combat such nonsense is to counter with something Scott Adams suggested in his blog as a possible way to negotiate a settlement with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb. He suggested we offer Iran the testicles of Bush and Cheney in exchange for a permanent inspection right to insure no bombs are being made. IF THERE IS EVEN A 1% CHANCE THAT IT WOULD WORK, WE MUST TAKE IT!
2007/08/08
“APPARENTLY THE WARRANTY ON THE CONSTITUTION HAS ELAPSED”
10 Motives to Fear Why the Democrats Voted to Allow Continuation of Warrantless Searches
I can see only ten potential reasons why those currently (and hopefully temporarily) in control of the Democratic Party so cravenly caved in to Bush and conspired with him to violate the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms by granting him near dictatorial powers for spying and searching without warrants:
1. They have never bothered to read the Constitution. Maybe all they have time to read is bribe requests from lobbyists.
2. They do not understand or have forgotten how central it is to our democracy and what we stand for in the world. D’oh.
3. They can’t read or are of such minimal intellectual capacity that they cannot comprehend the plain meaning and obvious intent of the words. It makes Bush’s stumbling through a children’s story while 9/11 was in progress seem professorial in comparison.
4. Their copies of the Constitution are missing several important pages. I wouldn’t put is past Bushites to razor blade all copies they can locate, but I am beginning to doubt the ability of Democrats to notice.
5. They don’t care or they are lazy, or incompetent or cowards afraid of a fight. From their actions over the last several years, this is sadly an emerging pattern.
6. They have been bought off or being blackmailed. Wouldn’t it be an interesting irony if whatever blackmail is being used was obtained by this same illegal power the Executive Branch has been using for years to secretly search communications?
7. They are more interested in preserving their perks of office than they are obeying their oath of office in which they expressly swore to defend the Constitution. The oath, by the way, is not to defend people or places from attack by terrorists, but to defend the CONSTITUTION.
8. They do not recognize how easily the power to spy and search without warrants can be abused. Nothing prevents it from being used against Americans for purely partisan purposes such as finding dirt to blackmail or destroy political opponents. This is especially possible when there is little or no oversight such as a neutral court to help, at least a little, to discourage violations. That is why the founding fathers made the absolute prohibition such a key and highlighted provision. If the ambiguous prohibition against infringing the right of “militias” to bear arms has been interpreted so broadly that it is perceived as allowing everyone to have any guns they want, then surely an explicit and unequivocal prohibition against searches without warrants ought to be enforced as written.
9. They do not believe Bush and his monomaniacal cabal are capable of using the power in ways not allowed by law. Actually, if this is the reason, it falls into the gross stupidity category already mentioned above since how could anyone who reads not be aware of what Bush and the minions he exemplifies have been doing?
10. They see themselves gaining control of the White House and want the power to spy and search without warrants for themselves.
Keep in mind that to prevent this particular assault on the Constitution, all the Democrats had to do was simply not bring the bill up for a vote. Nothing else. It would have automatically died a natural death this Fall. They did not need to fear a Presidential veto. They did not have to worry about a filibuster stalling work in Congress for a lengthy period. They did not have to worry about having enough votes to win. They did not have to worry about looking ineffectual. They would have greatly pleased their constituents. There would have been little harm as evidenced by the fact that the millions of violations by Bush for literally years so far has not actually accomplished anything useful in saving the nation for harm. The Democrats did not have to even take a position one way or the other and would have had cover by claiming it was not their fault. They could have legitimately said hundreds of bills never see the light of day and there are other things of more importance claiming attention on their limited time. Consequently, they had little worry that doing nothing could be effectively used against them when running for office.
Why then did the Democrats bizarrely go along with a lengthy extension of the surveillance and wiretapping of Americans without warrants outrage? It is not clear which of reasons speculated above resulted in such gross offenses against the Constitution, but whatever the reason, it is scary. We apparently need to replace the present Democrats in Congress as well as the President and all his followers.
Maybe what we need on ballots is a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option when voting so that a new election is immediately held and none of those running at the time are permitted to be in the new race.
I can see only ten potential reasons why those currently (and hopefully temporarily) in control of the Democratic Party so cravenly caved in to Bush and conspired with him to violate the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms by granting him near dictatorial powers for spying and searching without warrants:
1. They have never bothered to read the Constitution. Maybe all they have time to read is bribe requests from lobbyists.
2. They do not understand or have forgotten how central it is to our democracy and what we stand for in the world. D’oh.
3. They can’t read or are of such minimal intellectual capacity that they cannot comprehend the plain meaning and obvious intent of the words. It makes Bush’s stumbling through a children’s story while 9/11 was in progress seem professorial in comparison.
4. Their copies of the Constitution are missing several important pages. I wouldn’t put is past Bushites to razor blade all copies they can locate, but I am beginning to doubt the ability of Democrats to notice.
5. They don’t care or they are lazy, or incompetent or cowards afraid of a fight. From their actions over the last several years, this is sadly an emerging pattern.
6. They have been bought off or being blackmailed. Wouldn’t it be an interesting irony if whatever blackmail is being used was obtained by this same illegal power the Executive Branch has been using for years to secretly search communications?
7. They are more interested in preserving their perks of office than they are obeying their oath of office in which they expressly swore to defend the Constitution. The oath, by the way, is not to defend people or places from attack by terrorists, but to defend the CONSTITUTION.
8. They do not recognize how easily the power to spy and search without warrants can be abused. Nothing prevents it from being used against Americans for purely partisan purposes such as finding dirt to blackmail or destroy political opponents. This is especially possible when there is little or no oversight such as a neutral court to help, at least a little, to discourage violations. That is why the founding fathers made the absolute prohibition such a key and highlighted provision. If the ambiguous prohibition against infringing the right of “militias” to bear arms has been interpreted so broadly that it is perceived as allowing everyone to have any guns they want, then surely an explicit and unequivocal prohibition against searches without warrants ought to be enforced as written.
9. They do not believe Bush and his monomaniacal cabal are capable of using the power in ways not allowed by law. Actually, if this is the reason, it falls into the gross stupidity category already mentioned above since how could anyone who reads not be aware of what Bush and the minions he exemplifies have been doing?
10. They see themselves gaining control of the White House and want the power to spy and search without warrants for themselves.
Keep in mind that to prevent this particular assault on the Constitution, all the Democrats had to do was simply not bring the bill up for a vote. Nothing else. It would have automatically died a natural death this Fall. They did not need to fear a Presidential veto. They did not have to worry about a filibuster stalling work in Congress for a lengthy period. They did not have to worry about having enough votes to win. They did not have to worry about looking ineffectual. They would have greatly pleased their constituents. There would have been little harm as evidenced by the fact that the millions of violations by Bush for literally years so far has not actually accomplished anything useful in saving the nation for harm. The Democrats did not have to even take a position one way or the other and would have had cover by claiming it was not their fault. They could have legitimately said hundreds of bills never see the light of day and there are other things of more importance claiming attention on their limited time. Consequently, they had little worry that doing nothing could be effectively used against them when running for office.
Why then did the Democrats bizarrely go along with a lengthy extension of the surveillance and wiretapping of Americans without warrants outrage? It is not clear which of reasons speculated above resulted in such gross offenses against the Constitution, but whatever the reason, it is scary. We apparently need to replace the present Democrats in Congress as well as the President and all his followers.
Maybe what we need on ballots is a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option when voting so that a new election is immediately held and none of those running at the time are permitted to be in the new race.
2007/08/04
“THE APPARENTLY PRANKSTER FOUNDING FATHERS”
Or, According to Today’s Politicians, the Drafters of the Constitution Really Had Their Fingers Crossed When It Was Written
Let’s see if I understand this correctly. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of which it is a part expressly state no searches shall be allowed without warrants. Together they are the governing documents for our society.
The Bush Administration however was secretly and illegally searching without warrants for years although through the entire period there was an easy and quick way to obtain warrants in a totally secret court even after the searches had already been completed. That latter Act, passed in a time of unreasoning fear and shortsightedness, is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. Its allowance of retroactively granted warrants is or should be of questionable validity. After all, anything allowing searches without warrants is of questionable constitutionality given the unambiguous prohibition in the supreme law of the land, not to mention the inherent danger of such a power being abused by the party in control of the Executive Branch. There is too much of a temptation to use it to spy on political opponents seeking dirt to blackmail or silence them. Remember after all, the Neocons touting Bush as the second coming have already publically declared at various times anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto a “traitor” and guilty of “aiding” our enemies.
Despite Bush and his buds having an ostensibly legal Act on the books granting them permission, if they would just follow a couple of minuscule requirements, to do want they wanted, basically to secretly spy on just about anyone they wanted and search damned near all communications, they chose to ignore the Act in its entirety. The Administration implicitly acknowledged literally millions of violations. Arrogantly, the President did not even bother to seek the sweeping powers granted under FISA to invade privacy. He insisted he has an absolute right to do such searches and spying regardless of what that or any other law says. In fact, Bush and the Bush apologists seemed perversely proud of the fact that they were ignoring the Constitution. They practically bragged about it and used it in political campaigns seeking to keep them in power.
It is easy to see why the President felt he could openly thumb his nose at the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The Republican Party dominated Congress at the time and rubber stamped whatever their anointed Caesar did or desired. To show their complicity in the destruction of the Constitution and its safeguards, rather than impeach the President for admitted violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution as written, the then Republican dominated Congress passed a new Act declaring the Constitution should be ignored on this point. Fortunately, the potential oppression under that new Act was not made permanent. It was about to expire and the Republic was about to be saved, at least from that particular attack on freedom. Hallelujah.
Better yet, the Republicans no longer controlled Congress and it would not matter that they still made the Supreme Court and the White House bark a Neocon Republican tune. The current Democratic Party leadership, had been elected for the primary purpose of putting a break on the imperialist cravings and excesses of the Bush Administration and had the ability to block re-enactment. Best of all, surely they would oppose re-enactment since they had been complaining mightily about the many, many ways Bush and his boys have been trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They had also been complaining that bills they attempt to pass themselves to rein in Bush II’s reign were getting vetoed or threatened to be vetoed, frustrating their efforts.
Here, they did not have to experience the frustration of a veto. They did not have to face the painful decision of using any of the 10,852 other reasons they had to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and others in the Bush monarchy continuing to gleefully violate their oaths swearing to defend the once proud and useful Constitution. Since the dictatorial searches without warrants “law” pasted by the Republicans was about to run out of its own accord, it was the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to do some good finally with their majority position in both houses. All they had to do was do NOTHING. Nothing at all, which is something they seem to be good at. They could have simply keep their mouths shut and not bring up a renewal of the obnoxious and dangerous spying law for a vote. It would have finally died of its own accord. It would have been VETO PROOF for once since the Prez cannot veto what is not passed nor can the Supreme Court overturn not passing a law.
Amazingly, astonishingly, mind blowingly though, the emasculated wimps in the Senate whose symbol is a jackass have decided to let the President continue his violations of the wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I cannot decide if current slate of Democrats in control have never read the Constitution, have only read a copy with pages missing, don’t think it is important, believe their oaths of office are quaint anachronisms, feel their personal power is more important, are gutless, are lazy, are incompetent, still believe anything emanating from Bush’s mouth or some combination of those. Do the Democrats want the spying/searching power for themselves now that they assume they will gain control of the White House?
Rather than acquiescing to Bushies constant demands for Kingship, rather than seeking how closely they can shave the Constitution, why aren’t the Democrats seeking to expand civil rights and protections or at least attempting to return them to something more closely resembling the actual wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why are the Democrats saying the new extension of the Presidents right to search and spy without warrants is only for a short period of time? Forget tacking on minor restrictions which the President has already promised to veto or ignore, why was there a vote to extend at all? Why, why, why?
Why aren’t they listening to their constituents or re-reading their sworn oaths of office? Moreover, why aren’t they looking at the general track record and proclivities of the Bushies on issues such as this when the Bushies assert such a power is needed? Has anyone in the Administration or the pundits who applaud and encourage him ever been ultimately proven right on anything? Anything at all?
We need to undo everything Bush and his minions have done. We need to undo them loudly to let the world know we are no longer a proto-fiefdom operating on whim and ego. We need to replace everyone who was ever hired or appointed Bush or at a minimum those who didn’t quit in disgust or get replaced. Why are we then perpetuating Bush aggrandizements such as his warrant less searches and ubiquitous spying on Americans?
I am starting to think we need to replace all the current leadership of the Democrats as well as all Republicans. This latest fiasco has lead me to wonder if we wouldn’t be better off having office holders at all levels selected at random similar to how jury pools are chosen. That way we might at least have a statistical chance of putting people in office who have common sense, are honest, ethical and honor the genius of our Founding Fathers who designed a marvelous document. Granted, statistics suggest a certain percentage of those who might be randomly selected for office would be morally deficient or mentally incompetent, but the percentage would be smaller apparently than what we have now. In any event, I for one am tired of the Constitution being trashed by both parties so blatantly.
At a time when Republicans are terrifying in their attempts to establish a lasting dictatorship, why do the Democrats have to be so gullible and ineffectual? Is it a sign democracy in this country is doomed? It will be unless we let the Democrats know their actions on things like renewing the warrant less searches law are unacceptable.
Let’s see if I understand this correctly. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of which it is a part expressly state no searches shall be allowed without warrants. Together they are the governing documents for our society.
The Bush Administration however was secretly and illegally searching without warrants for years although through the entire period there was an easy and quick way to obtain warrants in a totally secret court even after the searches had already been completed. That latter Act, passed in a time of unreasoning fear and shortsightedness, is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. Its allowance of retroactively granted warrants is or should be of questionable validity. After all, anything allowing searches without warrants is of questionable constitutionality given the unambiguous prohibition in the supreme law of the land, not to mention the inherent danger of such a power being abused by the party in control of the Executive Branch. There is too much of a temptation to use it to spy on political opponents seeking dirt to blackmail or silence them. Remember after all, the Neocons touting Bush as the second coming have already publically declared at various times anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto a “traitor” and guilty of “aiding” our enemies.
Despite Bush and his buds having an ostensibly legal Act on the books granting them permission, if they would just follow a couple of minuscule requirements, to do want they wanted, basically to secretly spy on just about anyone they wanted and search damned near all communications, they chose to ignore the Act in its entirety. The Administration implicitly acknowledged literally millions of violations. Arrogantly, the President did not even bother to seek the sweeping powers granted under FISA to invade privacy. He insisted he has an absolute right to do such searches and spying regardless of what that or any other law says. In fact, Bush and the Bush apologists seemed perversely proud of the fact that they were ignoring the Constitution. They practically bragged about it and used it in political campaigns seeking to keep them in power.
It is easy to see why the President felt he could openly thumb his nose at the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The Republican Party dominated Congress at the time and rubber stamped whatever their anointed Caesar did or desired. To show their complicity in the destruction of the Constitution and its safeguards, rather than impeach the President for admitted violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution as written, the then Republican dominated Congress passed a new Act declaring the Constitution should be ignored on this point. Fortunately, the potential oppression under that new Act was not made permanent. It was about to expire and the Republic was about to be saved, at least from that particular attack on freedom. Hallelujah.
Better yet, the Republicans no longer controlled Congress and it would not matter that they still made the Supreme Court and the White House bark a Neocon Republican tune. The current Democratic Party leadership, had been elected for the primary purpose of putting a break on the imperialist cravings and excesses of the Bush Administration and had the ability to block re-enactment. Best of all, surely they would oppose re-enactment since they had been complaining mightily about the many, many ways Bush and his boys have been trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They had also been complaining that bills they attempt to pass themselves to rein in Bush II’s reign were getting vetoed or threatened to be vetoed, frustrating their efforts.
Here, they did not have to experience the frustration of a veto. They did not have to face the painful decision of using any of the 10,852 other reasons they had to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and others in the Bush monarchy continuing to gleefully violate their oaths swearing to defend the once proud and useful Constitution. Since the dictatorial searches without warrants “law” pasted by the Republicans was about to run out of its own accord, it was the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to do some good finally with their majority position in both houses. All they had to do was do NOTHING. Nothing at all, which is something they seem to be good at. They could have simply keep their mouths shut and not bring up a renewal of the obnoxious and dangerous spying law for a vote. It would have finally died of its own accord. It would have been VETO PROOF for once since the Prez cannot veto what is not passed nor can the Supreme Court overturn not passing a law.
Amazingly, astonishingly, mind blowingly though, the emasculated wimps in the Senate whose symbol is a jackass have decided to let the President continue his violations of the wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I cannot decide if current slate of Democrats in control have never read the Constitution, have only read a copy with pages missing, don’t think it is important, believe their oaths of office are quaint anachronisms, feel their personal power is more important, are gutless, are lazy, are incompetent, still believe anything emanating from Bush’s mouth or some combination of those. Do the Democrats want the spying/searching power for themselves now that they assume they will gain control of the White House?
Rather than acquiescing to Bushies constant demands for Kingship, rather than seeking how closely they can shave the Constitution, why aren’t the Democrats seeking to expand civil rights and protections or at least attempting to return them to something more closely resembling the actual wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why are the Democrats saying the new extension of the Presidents right to search and spy without warrants is only for a short period of time? Forget tacking on minor restrictions which the President has already promised to veto or ignore, why was there a vote to extend at all? Why, why, why?
Why aren’t they listening to their constituents or re-reading their sworn oaths of office? Moreover, why aren’t they looking at the general track record and proclivities of the Bushies on issues such as this when the Bushies assert such a power is needed? Has anyone in the Administration or the pundits who applaud and encourage him ever been ultimately proven right on anything? Anything at all?
We need to undo everything Bush and his minions have done. We need to undo them loudly to let the world know we are no longer a proto-fiefdom operating on whim and ego. We need to replace everyone who was ever hired or appointed Bush or at a minimum those who didn’t quit in disgust or get replaced. Why are we then perpetuating Bush aggrandizements such as his warrant less searches and ubiquitous spying on Americans?
I am starting to think we need to replace all the current leadership of the Democrats as well as all Republicans. This latest fiasco has lead me to wonder if we wouldn’t be better off having office holders at all levels selected at random similar to how jury pools are chosen. That way we might at least have a statistical chance of putting people in office who have common sense, are honest, ethical and honor the genius of our Founding Fathers who designed a marvelous document. Granted, statistics suggest a certain percentage of those who might be randomly selected for office would be morally deficient or mentally incompetent, but the percentage would be smaller apparently than what we have now. In any event, I for one am tired of the Constitution being trashed by both parties so blatantly.
At a time when Republicans are terrifying in their attempts to establish a lasting dictatorship, why do the Democrats have to be so gullible and ineffectual? Is it a sign democracy in this country is doomed? It will be unless we let the Democrats know their actions on things like renewing the warrant less searches law are unacceptable.
2007/07/29
"EXECUTIVE DISORDER"
Or, Bush's latest Surge against the Constitution
You are not going to believe it. Go to the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html# and read the July 17, 2007 Executive Order in which Bush announces that he plans to give the Secretary of the Treasury power to, among other things, seize all assets of anyone in this country even suspected of posing a "significant risk" that they might disagree with any Iraq goals or policies of Bush. It supposedly will be confined to those suspected of undefined "acts of violence," but considering it extends to future suspected acts as well and considering Bush already has the Secret Service arrest even spectators at campaign event for merely wearing a contradictory t-shirt, not to mention he often conflates all dissenters and opposition as traitors, there is good reason to fear how he will interpret the possibility those he does not happen to like or trust might commit supposedly violent acts.
Executive Orders have the force of law and this one is scary as hell in its implications. Unfortunately, except through the Ron Paul website, no one in Congress or running for office seems to have even mentioned it.
Frankly, I would not want any President to hold such power, no matter how much I might agree with the Chief Executive on other things. And, my by now well justified lack of trust in the Bush Administration not capriciously exercising such total power is infinite.
My guess is not even the most rabid right winger on the Republican Supreme Court would uphold it when tested, but in the years it would take you to fight it through the courts, you could be without access to a dime of your assets the entire time. It gives the power to seize your home, your paychecks, your car simply because of suspicion, not proof or conviction.
If this particular Executive Order is not a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" against the Constitution as well as a violation of the President's Oath of Office, what the hell is? This is exactly what the impeachment remedy was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect against. What does it take to get our elected representatives and senators off their rear ends and convene for the process?
The only saving grace in this whole frightening effort by Bush and Cheney to apparently grant themselves essentially unrestricted control is that they have so broken our military, our domestic law enforcement agencies and our obviously ironically named "justice" department, is that they might not be able to accomplish their hoped for effective abolishment of the Constitution's ideals.
2007/03/31
“THE NEW ‘IMPROVED’ OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES”
From the Office of Attorney Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales
“I, (insert name of incompetent hack) , pledge undying personal loyalty to El Jefe, the glorious George Armstrong Custer Bush, and do solemnly swear exclusive allegiance to the current Republican Platform of military aggression, class warfare, religious indoctrination, arrogance, and intolerance for which it stands.
As to the quaint old Constitution, I promise to uphold at least the Second Amendment and whatever specific part gives sole power to the President to rule everyone else without question. I reserve the right however to invoke the Fifth Amendment when I am caught shafting the Constitution or a Congressional Page/Intern, whichever comes first. Oh yeah, I also promise to obey some of the Ten Commandments if they do not inconvenience me too much.
I understand that I serve to pleasure the President. I also understand I will be fired if ever my performance at torturing terrorists, traitors, illegal immigrants and Democrats (which are all often one and the same) fails to exceed the political aspirations of my boss because firing for lack of political zealotry and poor job performance are hereafter one and the same.
I swear this so help me God, God Jehovah of the Old Testament of course (not that wimpy liberal Jesus of the New Testament). And, except when the FCC can hear me, I will faithfully and fully swear at anyone who disagrees on anything.”
[Footnotes from the Federal Human Resources Department to all new Republican Appointees regarding oath taking: (1) “When do I get my Medal of Freedom?” should not to be the first question after giving the oath. (2) Once the oath is given, you can no longer lie to Congress until you have cleared the exact wording of the lie with Karl Rove. (3) promptly make an appointment with the Preventive Maintenance Department to have a computer specialist show you how to permanently delete embarrassing e-mails. And, (4) meetings with your future campaign exploratory committees and interviewing recruiters from K Street lobbyist firms for future jobs must be conducted after regular business hours or on weekends.]
[Special footnotes for appointees who have law degrees: (1) Be sure to turn in your ethics exemption cards before accepting bribes. (2) When taking calls from indicted Congressmen, please use only the red “scramble” phone to insure the conversations remain private. And, (3) If you have not already done so, please provide a copy for our files of your law school transcript confirming your grade in Constitutional Law 101 was a “D” or lower]
2006/10/21
“A TORTUROUS ALTERNATIVE”
Give our “Jack Bauers” a Medal. Then, Jail ‘Em and Throw Away the Key
Necon Republicans and the unthinking supporters they terrify into voting for them keep trying to justify their demand for broad general power to be granted to Presidents (i.e. Republican ones) to torture anyone anytime for any reason. Their “justification” is invariably the often filmed (but never happened) TV-Land standard plot device relied upon time after time in the 24 series where hero Jack Bauer supposedly has only hours left to keep a nuclear bomb/deadly virus/poisoned reservoir from happening.
In the first place, we have not needed it to date even though there have been lots of Nazis and other equally nasty, devoted, persistent enemies. Even since 9/11, the so-called 1% possibility has not required routine torture. Second, the government as currently run is too incompetent anyway to ever find a genuine suspect in time who might have such information (unless everyone with a different skin color or religion is routinely tortured “just in case”). In the third place, the information obtained from torture is of doubtful reliability. Besides, haven’t we learned by now from our recent experience in Iraq, that when Bush and his buddies start acting as if movie plots are useful to predict what will happen with real people, we get in trouble? But, most importantly, even if the fictional scenario recited actually occurs and torture actually works for once, why must the Prez be handed such broad torture power so anathema to everything we used to believe? Here is an alternative.
Give the torturer a medal, maybe a Medal of Freedom. Salute him. Then, give him a ticker tape parade straight to jail where he should spend the rest of his life so that society need not worry about a sociopath torturer like him continuing to roam around loose in a civilized society. Maybe he proved himself useful for that one time, but after all, he has revealed his own pathology. He has shown he does not really believe in the Constitution. By torturing a fellow human being, he has proven there is nothing he won’t do if he feels thwarted on some other matter. Do we want him free to act on whim again?
So, let’s jail him along with his boss who let things get that far, that late. That way, the torturer can continue to think of himself as a hero. He can write books from his cell. And, we can all thank him for his courage in deciding to lose his own freedom to save others.
But, there is no need to grant what the Neocons want, especially when it might be used for other less trustworthy purposes, purely political ones such as perhaps torturing journalists to find out who leaked embarrassing information. In any event, for that one theoretical, rare or never event, there is certainly no need for America to suddenly become the world’s bulk delivery torturer.
Necon Republicans and the unthinking supporters they terrify into voting for them keep trying to justify their demand for broad general power to be granted to Presidents (i.e. Republican ones) to torture anyone anytime for any reason. Their “justification” is invariably the often filmed (but never happened) TV-Land standard plot device relied upon time after time in the 24 series where hero Jack Bauer supposedly has only hours left to keep a nuclear bomb/deadly virus/poisoned reservoir from happening.
In the first place, we have not needed it to date even though there have been lots of Nazis and other equally nasty, devoted, persistent enemies. Even since 9/11, the so-called 1% possibility has not required routine torture. Second, the government as currently run is too incompetent anyway to ever find a genuine suspect in time who might have such information (unless everyone with a different skin color or religion is routinely tortured “just in case”). In the third place, the information obtained from torture is of doubtful reliability. Besides, haven’t we learned by now from our recent experience in Iraq, that when Bush and his buddies start acting as if movie plots are useful to predict what will happen with real people, we get in trouble? But, most importantly, even if the fictional scenario recited actually occurs and torture actually works for once, why must the Prez be handed such broad torture power so anathema to everything we used to believe? Here is an alternative.
Give the torturer a medal, maybe a Medal of Freedom. Salute him. Then, give him a ticker tape parade straight to jail where he should spend the rest of his life so that society need not worry about a sociopath torturer like him continuing to roam around loose in a civilized society. Maybe he proved himself useful for that one time, but after all, he has revealed his own pathology. He has shown he does not really believe in the Constitution. By torturing a fellow human being, he has proven there is nothing he won’t do if he feels thwarted on some other matter. Do we want him free to act on whim again?
So, let’s jail him along with his boss who let things get that far, that late. That way, the torturer can continue to think of himself as a hero. He can write books from his cell. And, we can all thank him for his courage in deciding to lose his own freedom to save others.
But, there is no need to grant what the Neocons want, especially when it might be used for other less trustworthy purposes, purely political ones such as perhaps torturing journalists to find out who leaked embarrassing information. In any event, for that one theoretical, rare or never event, there is certainly no need for America to suddenly become the world’s bulk delivery torturer.
2006/09/22
“TORTURING OUR CONSTITUTION”
Or, Liberal Republican Is Apparently an Oxymoron
Some have been praising Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner for “standing up” to the President and defending the Geneva Conventions. Any praise was premature. From the reports available on Friday September 22, it looks like they too finally sold out human rights. They apparently want the right to be inhuman. In fact, it sounds like the entire Republican Party now has a pro-torture plank on its platform which is being built out of the scrap lumber it has made of the Constitution.
As far as the so-called “torture-lite” concessions supposedly wrung from the Prez by the so-called “liberal Republicans” (an oxymoron if there ever was one), it still depends entirely on what regulations he chooses to write, on his honesty in reporting and on his willingness to actually obey the law as written, none of which he has ever shown any inclination.
Moreover, has any of the national press stopped to consider that we are now speaking about “legalizing” things that before Bush's election would have been deemed truly unspeakable. Even before their brief “rebellion,” which appears to have only been for show, the three Senators were only opposing a relatively small part of Bush’s plan to dismantle human rights and civil liberties across the board by warrantless searches, automatic assumption of guiltiness of suspects, secret prisons, permanent imprisonment without trial, denial of counsel and prevention of judicial review.
For instance, captives are now supposed to finally be able to see the evidence that convicts them, at least a heavily redacted version blacking out anything deemed "classified." But, throughout our entire nation’s history prior to Bush, it was a right, not a privilege, to see it all. Besides, Bush has long demonstrated a preference to go so far as to “classify” almost everything to be “classified,” “top secret” or “confidential-restricted” information. He would probably like to declare public phone books and even street signs classified to “protect national security.” I am indulging in hyperbole, but barely.
In any event, in just five unjust years, we have morphed so far from the Land of Liberty we once were, that the place is almost unrecognizable. How ironic that all the Republican violations of liberty, democracy and freedom are being done in the name of those goals and allegedly being justified as necessary to save them. Shame on the Republicans for doing it. Shame on us for letting them.
How come only former Communist countries like Hungary seem to care enough about election honesty to riot in the streets when it is proven their leader deliberately lied to the voters?
Some have been praising Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner for “standing up” to the President and defending the Geneva Conventions. Any praise was premature. From the reports available on Friday September 22, it looks like they too finally sold out human rights. They apparently want the right to be inhuman. In fact, it sounds like the entire Republican Party now has a pro-torture plank on its platform which is being built out of the scrap lumber it has made of the Constitution.
As far as the so-called “torture-lite” concessions supposedly wrung from the Prez by the so-called “liberal Republicans” (an oxymoron if there ever was one), it still depends entirely on what regulations he chooses to write, on his honesty in reporting and on his willingness to actually obey the law as written, none of which he has ever shown any inclination.
Moreover, has any of the national press stopped to consider that we are now speaking about “legalizing” things that before Bush's election would have been deemed truly unspeakable. Even before their brief “rebellion,” which appears to have only been for show, the three Senators were only opposing a relatively small part of Bush’s plan to dismantle human rights and civil liberties across the board by warrantless searches, automatic assumption of guiltiness of suspects, secret prisons, permanent imprisonment without trial, denial of counsel and prevention of judicial review.
For instance, captives are now supposed to finally be able to see the evidence that convicts them, at least a heavily redacted version blacking out anything deemed "classified." But, throughout our entire nation’s history prior to Bush, it was a right, not a privilege, to see it all. Besides, Bush has long demonstrated a preference to go so far as to “classify” almost everything to be “classified,” “top secret” or “confidential-restricted” information. He would probably like to declare public phone books and even street signs classified to “protect national security.” I am indulging in hyperbole, but barely.
In any event, in just five unjust years, we have morphed so far from the Land of Liberty we once were, that the place is almost unrecognizable. How ironic that all the Republican violations of liberty, democracy and freedom are being done in the name of those goals and allegedly being justified as necessary to save them. Shame on the Republicans for doing it. Shame on us for letting them.
How come only former Communist countries like Hungary seem to care enough about election honesty to riot in the streets when it is proven their leader deliberately lied to the voters?
2006/04/05
“50 WAYS TO TWIST A TORTURE INVESTIGATION”
Or, How Bush Can Ignore the Ban Against Cruel, Unusual & Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners
1. Pretend it didn’t occur, Sir
2. Let’s modify Webster, Hester
3. Change the law, Ma
4. Blame it on others, Brothers
5. Have someone else do it, Louis
6. Don’t let them know, Joe
7. Hide the man, Stan
8. Use a poison pill, Bill
9. Bury the bones, Jones
10. Call it just partisan bias, Tobias
11. Pretend it’s all phony, Tony
12. Attack the press, Bess
13. Tighten the lid, Sid
14. Be quite contrary, Harry
15. Say it was a Democrat, Pat
16. Certainly wasn’t me, McGee
17. Ignore the rules, Jules
18. Burn the photo, Toto
19. Erase the tape, Jake
20. Destroy the rest, Les
21. Wear ‘em down, Brown
22. Delay and delay, Mr. DeLay
23. Give prosecutors the ax, Max
24. Trim their staff, Taft
25. Cut their budget, Bridget
26. Replace the jury, Drury
27. Use party hacks, Jack
28. Slip them money, Honey
29. Lie on the stand, Man
30. Take the 5th, Cliff
31. Don’t solemnly swear, Jer
32. Intimidate the judge, Drudge
33. Declare a security alert, Bert
34. Claim new kind of enemy, Jiminy
35. Trick ‘em slick, Dick
36. Pull a “Caesar,” Geezer
37. It’s none of their business, Dennis
38. Arrest any protester, Lester
39. Talk about traitors, Tater
40. Put a bag on their head, Ted
41. Strip ‘em naked, Jacob
42. Use the water board, Ford
43. Throw ‘em in jail, Gail
44. Proclaim we’re never inhumane, Jane
45. Start a new war, Fillmore
46. Blow them away, Jay
47. Show them no pity, Liddy
48. Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you, Lou
49. Give them the finger, Inger
50. Trust in voter ennui, Henry
(with profuse apologies to Paul Simon)
1. Pretend it didn’t occur, Sir
2. Let’s modify Webster, Hester
3. Change the law, Ma
4. Blame it on others, Brothers
5. Have someone else do it, Louis
6. Don’t let them know, Joe
7. Hide the man, Stan
8. Use a poison pill, Bill
9. Bury the bones, Jones
10. Call it just partisan bias, Tobias
11. Pretend it’s all phony, Tony
12. Attack the press, Bess
13. Tighten the lid, Sid
14. Be quite contrary, Harry
15. Say it was a Democrat, Pat
16. Certainly wasn’t me, McGee
17. Ignore the rules, Jules
18. Burn the photo, Toto
19. Erase the tape, Jake
20. Destroy the rest, Les
21. Wear ‘em down, Brown
22. Delay and delay, Mr. DeLay
23. Give prosecutors the ax, Max
24. Trim their staff, Taft
25. Cut their budget, Bridget
26. Replace the jury, Drury
27. Use party hacks, Jack
28. Slip them money, Honey
29. Lie on the stand, Man
30. Take the 5th, Cliff
31. Don’t solemnly swear, Jer
32. Intimidate the judge, Drudge
33. Declare a security alert, Bert
34. Claim new kind of enemy, Jiminy
35. Trick ‘em slick, Dick
36. Pull a “Caesar,” Geezer
37. It’s none of their business, Dennis
38. Arrest any protester, Lester
39. Talk about traitors, Tater
40. Put a bag on their head, Ted
41. Strip ‘em naked, Jacob
42. Use the water board, Ford
43. Throw ‘em in jail, Gail
44. Proclaim we’re never inhumane, Jane
45. Start a new war, Fillmore
46. Blow them away, Jay
47. Show them no pity, Liddy
48. Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you, Lou
49. Give them the finger, Inger
50. Trust in voter ennui, Henry
2006/04/04
“A TORTUROUS DEBATE”
Or, The Top Ten Reasons Why Those Who Approve Torture Deserve To Be Tortured
10. Bothersome Historical Reminders. Monty Pythonites notwithstanding, we grew up reviling historic instances of torture such as the Spanish Inquisition. Our fathers fought against the Germans for torturing victims. A major part of at least the current justification for attacking Iraq was the torture used by Saddam. Yet, the only difference from those horrifying examples and what the White House has encouraged through its chain of command seems to be a matter of degree; i.e., the Administration justifies its own barbarism on the grounds that we are not quite as nasty as they were. Since when however is the lowest common denominator the standard by which such practices should be judged?
9. Bad Precedent. If government employees find out they can get away with torture in secret, at best it sets an extremely bad example. How do we even know if those gleefully following White House’s “nudge nudge, wink wink” about interrogation techniques are torturing the "right people" since there are no trials to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt first? Do we automatically assume everyone who disagrees with state policy should be tortured just in case? What will our newly empowered torturers feel they can get away with next? Lying, theft from the treasury, and character assassination seem almost innocent in comparison.
8. Biblical Sanctions. For the religious, they need only ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” Has no one presently in the West Wing heard of the “Golden Rule,” let alone ever actually read the book from which it was derived?
7. Bill of Rights. Even if “thou shalt not commit premeditated torture” is not one of the top Ten Commandments, it’s certainly against almost everything our Bill of Rights stands for, not to mention every single court case that has ever interpreted it. Do a million words of condemnation of the practice mean nothing to those in charge these days?
6. Burdensome PR. Practicing repugnant methods of intimidation and interrogation makes everyone in the country, not only appear to either be international thugs or supporters of thuggery, but rank hypocrites as well. That severely weakens whatever moral authority we once had for persuading others. Perhaps we should be returning the Statute of Liberty to France with apologies.
5. Benefits Unproven. Worse, there is no proof that any convictions or even most confessions could not have been obtained other, less odious, ways. Over the years since American became a Torturers ‘R Us franchise, there have proven to be fewer average annual felony convictions obtained as a result of such tortures than a double amputee can count on his fingers and toes. Plus, any information gained must automatically be highly suspect.
4. Brotherhood of Man, or at least, International Law. Besides making our word on treaties like the Geneva Convention worthless, it jeopardizes our soldiers in the field giving the enemy the belief that the they need not obey the Geneva Conventions either as to those captured. No wonder enlistments are dangerously low.
3. Back to the Future. If it is permissible to use against outsiders, then why wouldn't it be permissible to be used against our own citizens at some point? Dehumanization tends to be catching, even addictive to practitioners.
2. Boundless Costs. Its costs wildly outweigh whatever “benefits” might occur whether we are looking at dollar, psychological or ethical costs. What price can be put upon our souls after admitting to torturing others, especially those later found to be innocent?
1. It’s Just Plain Wrong. Stay after school and write that on the blackboard ten times for each “detainee.” If they jailed Martha Stewart for a few thousand dollars in stock fraud, then why aren’t those who wrote the memos approving torture facing jail time?
10. Bothersome Historical Reminders. Monty Pythonites notwithstanding, we grew up reviling historic instances of torture such as the Spanish Inquisition. Our fathers fought against the Germans for torturing victims. A major part of at least the current justification for attacking Iraq was the torture used by Saddam. Yet, the only difference from those horrifying examples and what the White House has encouraged through its chain of command seems to be a matter of degree; i.e., the Administration justifies its own barbarism on the grounds that we are not quite as nasty as they were. Since when however is the lowest common denominator the standard by which such practices should be judged?
9. Bad Precedent. If government employees find out they can get away with torture in secret, at best it sets an extremely bad example. How do we even know if those gleefully following White House’s “nudge nudge, wink wink” about interrogation techniques are torturing the "right people" since there are no trials to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt first? Do we automatically assume everyone who disagrees with state policy should be tortured just in case? What will our newly empowered torturers feel they can get away with next? Lying, theft from the treasury, and character assassination seem almost innocent in comparison.
8. Biblical Sanctions. For the religious, they need only ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” Has no one presently in the West Wing heard of the “Golden Rule,” let alone ever actually read the book from which it was derived?
7. Bill of Rights. Even if “thou shalt not commit premeditated torture” is not one of the top Ten Commandments, it’s certainly against almost everything our Bill of Rights stands for, not to mention every single court case that has ever interpreted it. Do a million words of condemnation of the practice mean nothing to those in charge these days?
6. Burdensome PR. Practicing repugnant methods of intimidation and interrogation makes everyone in the country, not only appear to either be international thugs or supporters of thuggery, but rank hypocrites as well. That severely weakens whatever moral authority we once had for persuading others. Perhaps we should be returning the Statute of Liberty to France with apologies.
5. Benefits Unproven. Worse, there is no proof that any convictions or even most confessions could not have been obtained other, less odious, ways. Over the years since American became a Torturers ‘R Us franchise, there have proven to be fewer average annual felony convictions obtained as a result of such tortures than a double amputee can count on his fingers and toes. Plus, any information gained must automatically be highly suspect.
4. Brotherhood of Man, or at least, International Law. Besides making our word on treaties like the Geneva Convention worthless, it jeopardizes our soldiers in the field giving the enemy the belief that the they need not obey the Geneva Conventions either as to those captured. No wonder enlistments are dangerously low.
3. Back to the Future. If it is permissible to use against outsiders, then why wouldn't it be permissible to be used against our own citizens at some point? Dehumanization tends to be catching, even addictive to practitioners.
2. Boundless Costs. Its costs wildly outweigh whatever “benefits” might occur whether we are looking at dollar, psychological or ethical costs. What price can be put upon our souls after admitting to torturing others, especially those later found to be innocent?
1. It’s Just Plain Wrong. Stay after school and write that on the blackboard ten times for each “detainee.” If they jailed Martha Stewart for a few thousand dollars in stock fraud, then why aren’t those who wrote the memos approving torture facing jail time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)