Cheney On 4,000 Dead - Bush "Carries Biggest Burden"

By Cernig

Dick Cheney, what a wanker.

I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?" asked ABC News' White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz...

"It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan," Cheney said in the interview, conducted in Turkey. "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have."

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."

Hat tip to Noah Shachtman at Danger Room, who who is just as outraged that Cheney thinks Dubya's burden is greater than those of the families of 4,000 dead. Noah also has a link to ABC's video and no, the above isn't taken out of context.

What a great way to show you support the troops and their families, Dick. Tell them that they volunteered so if their families should suffer..."so?"

Hey, Dubya volunteered too. He didn't have to run for Decider and he didn't have to invade Iraq - he chose to do both. Nor has he ever been anywhere near harms way as a consequence of those decisions. Excuse me while I don't join in your warmonger's group hug, Dick.

Hey, can someone in the press ask John McCain if he thinks the President carries the biggest burden on this one? Pretty please?

Death sentence for stealing two Hot Pockets

By Libby

Before police departments starting using tasers as a replacement for cool headed conversation and common sense, this tragic death would not have happened. Instead, we have some local cops effectively instantly sentencing a teenager to death by misuse of taser.

A 17-year-old died at Carolinas Medical Center Thursday after a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer shocked him with a Taser during a confrontation at a grocery store in northeast Charlotte.

An autopsy will determine how Darryl Wayne Turner died.

Turner had worked as a cashier and bagged groceries at the Food Lion at 3024 Prosperity Church Road, where the incident happened.

Darryl Turner was a high school grad who wanted to go on to college. He had no criminal record. His family says he was mouthy but he wasn't a violent person. He told his mom when he went home for lunch that he had stolen a box of Hot Pockets and was afraid he was going to get in trouble with the regional management over it. His mother wisely counseled him to go back to work and face the penalty. I'm sure she regrets that now.

When the police arrived, Turner was in a heated argument with the manager. The police claim they saw him throw some unidenified object at the man. I'll be surprised if eyewitness accounts bear that out but even if he did, there's no indication that manager was harmed. The kid didn't instantly calm down so the first thing they do is taser him. Pam Spaudling has more on this case and on several other recent deaths and unneccessary taserings that occured in just the last week or so.

Tasers were supposed to be used only as a last resort to deadly force. If the police didn't have tasers, it seems certain they would not have used deadly force in this case. Further, one would guess there were at least two officers against one 17 year old kid. When did our cops become such cowards that they can't even talk down a teenager without electrocuting him first? These incidents are occuring on a daily basis across this country. It's really time to take the tasers out of law enforcement. They clearly have become a liability rather than an asset to police/community relations.

The real truth about Gitmo

By Libby

With a deceitful administration and and a dysfunctional media, it's sometimes difficult to know who or what to believe about Guantanamo but I just ran across this article from my old hometown paper that laid to rest any doubt about the conditions there. It's subscription only, so I won't even bother to give you the link to the article itself, but here's the material quotes.

There is torture at Guantanamo Bay, said Eisenberg. He claims to have seen the results - a crippled hand, men walking with permanent limps, others with physical disfigurements and mental scars. There is little access to doctors for detainees, said Eisenberg.

One of his clients has a skin disease. Eisenberg suspects it is pellagra, a disease often associated with a lack of niacin or protein in a person's diet. The man's skin flakes off into small piles on the desk as Eisenberg talks with him.

There is no human contact for detainees beyond orders from soldiers, said Eisenberg. Detainees are kept in isolated cells almost 24 hours a day. Captives' cells are staggered so men are not within speaking distance of someone who would understand their language.

There is no rest at Guantanamo, said Eisenberg. The buzzing bulbs that light detainee cells and prison halls are never turned off.

This is hell's waiting room, as Eisenberg sees it, and he wants it shut down for good.

I've known Buz Eisenberg for over 20 years. He's a relentless civil libertarian, a great lawyer who has donated countless hours of free time to civil rights cases and a thoroughly honest man. If he says the inmates at Gitmo are being tortured, then they are being tortured. I surely hope our next president will make shutting down that hellhole a priority.

The Source Of Bush's Delusion

By Cernig

Both the WaPo and McClatchy have noticed that Dubya erroneously claimed that Iran had said that it wants "to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people” (Dubya's words).

The claim came in an interview with Radio Farda in which Bush also acknowledged Iran's right to have a peaceful nuclear program, but said he wanted Iran to entirely outsource its enrichment to Russia. Iran has rejected this approach mainly because of Russia's track record in using energy supplies to hold customer nations hostage on political matters.

Bush cited his "belief that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear-power program. It's in their right to have it." But he added: "The problem is that the [Iranian] government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because, one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now -- who knows? And secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some -- in the Middle East."

Iran has consistently said that its uranium-enrichment program is aimed only at producing energy, but the United States and some allies fear Iran is seeking the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

"There's a chance that the U.S. and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the government is going to have to make different choices," Bush said. "And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

The UN Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran in an effort to pressure Tehran to halt its enrichment activities.

"What is acceptable to me is to work with a nation like Russia to provide the fuel so that the plant can go forward, which therefore shows that the Iranian government doesn't need to learn to enrich [uranium]," Bush said.

So where is Bush getting this delusion that Iran has said it wants a nuke? Look no further than the influential neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which has constantly banged the drum for war with Iran. Over at National Review's "Corner" blog today, Michael Rubin - a resident scholar in foreign and defense policy studies at AEI - cites....Michael Rubin...as a source for such claims.

On examination, too, one of Rubin's key sources in his self-referenced article for the AIE turns out to be an Iranian Hezboullah hardliner arguing against then-President Rafsanjani, telling him what he should be doing but isn't. Another is by the Daily Telegraph's neocon serial fabulist Phil Sherwell and although Rubin says the cleric involved later "backtracked", what actually happened is that the cleric said he'd been outrageously misquoted and denied ever making the statement Sherwell claimed.

Self-reference and the misuse of sources can be bad blogging - but coming from a highly influential warmonger like Rubin who's scholarship has been questioned in the past - for not revealing his involvement in Bush administration propaganda efforts in Iraq - they are positively dangerous. With such organisations as the AIE and the Heritage Foundation feeding him their highly-spun version of events and issues, Bush is living in a reality of their making. Thus comes the source of his delusion.

The Deep End Of The Republican Cesspool

By Cernig

Time for a dip in the Republican cesspool, as typified by B-list conservative website MitchNews. There you will find such gems of black helicopter crowd wisdom as this:

At the risk of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, it is plausible to me that the NAFTA Superhighway is only one link in the chain to draw Canada, Mexico and the United States together. If that is the intention, imagine what it will mean to have one entity that includes the corruption and poverty of Mexico and the socialist-inclined Canada. If you disagree with this description of Canada, consider that Canada has:

Banned the death penalty,
Imposed draconian restrictions on gun rights,
Adopted a national socialized medicine program,
Received military deserters and provided a safe haven for them, and
Legalized homosexual marriage.

If the Security and Prosperity Partnership program (SPP) and the NAFTA Superhighway come to pass, we will see multi-national corporations with government support seize large portions of American property, adversely affect our national security and damage our environment, all for the purpose of making their businesses more efficient and to enhance profits.

Do you wonder as I do why the president and so many members of congress, the media and business seem to be unconcerned about this unpublicized effort toward harmonization of infrastructure, laws and regulations of Canada, Mexico and the United States? Is the failure to protect our borders by the administration and members of congress a reflection of the expectation that one day we won’t have either borders or “illegal immigration” because anyone crossing our borders will be authorized to do so and borders will become unnecessary?

and this:

Barack Obama wants to be President of the World, starting with Africa, his home territory.

That also is where Kenyan cousin just lost his bid for that nation’s presidency. However, in the process, cousin had Obama’s cheerleading support from America.

That is so even though cousin was promising Kenya the wipe out of Christianity for Islam. It was the strict, legalistic Muslim version abiding by sharia.

Yes, Obama still has a warm spot in his black heart for Africa, then the entire world—poor nations bowing before his throne.

And who will pay The Boy’s bill for aiding the globe’s poor? Why American taxpayers, naturally.

Obama then yearns for his black groupies and white-know-nothing-about-issues whites to vote him to the Big House.

This really is the deep end of the conservative cesspit - the part where folk like Hagee hang out. Hate filled and conspiracy-minded, they're the ultimate representation of the Republican base, the very models of the 20-something-per-centers, the ultimate expression of the conservative id. And John McCain, like other conservative power-seekers before him, is actively courting them. Ugh.

As Apocalypse Tom at Liberal Radio says of this conservative id: "it is damn well not going to skulk in the shadows in this campaign. Make the genie – the fetid rot at the heart of today’s GOP – stand front and center and put on its show."

McCain As Ignorant As Dubya

By Cernig

George Bush declared today that he has not a single regret over the invasion and occupation of Iraq despite there being, by any objective tally, plenty of mistakes made and plenty of regret to go around. But John McCain seems to be competing to show that he's just the McSame when it comes to willful ignorance and pig-headed intransigence about the facts surrounding the War on (Some) terror. Josh Marshall nails him down today and speaks for me when he says that McCain is "Unfit for Duty":

Let me follow up on this McCain gaffe in which he got confused and claimed that al Qaeda was getting trained and equipped by Iran before doing mischief in Iraq, before being corrected by his senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

Let's start by stipulating that if Barack Obama had had this slip up it would be everywhere on the news for the next week. Pretty much the same if it had been Hillary Clinton.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg with McCain. In almost every discussion of foreign policy, not just today but in previous years, what stands out is McCain's inability to see beyond the immediate issues of military tactics to any firm grasp of strategy or America's real vital interests. His free willingness to commit to a decades long occupation of Iraq is an example, his push for ground troops to be introduced during the Kosovo War is another. His refusal, almost inability, to grapple with the political failure of the surge is the most telling one if people will sift through its deeper implications.

The idea that fighting jihadists in Iraq or policing the country's sectarian and ethnic disputes is the calling of this century is one that is belied in virtually everything we see in flux in today's world and which seems certain to affect us through the rest of our lifetimes and our children's.

Josh notes McCain's willingness to continue Dubya's failed policies of spending money like a drunken sailor, fuelling the deficit at a time of recession, and his myopic concentration on short-term military solutions to long-term complex problems. Let's call it the Bigger Hammer Doctrine. He ends with:

[McCain] record actually shows he's one of the most dangerous people we could have in the Oval Office in coming years -- not just because he's a hothead in using the military, but more because he seems genuinely clueless about the real challenges and dangers the country is facing. He's too busy living in the fantasy world where our future as a great power and our very safety are all bound up in Iraq.

I wholeheartedly agree with Josh here - what America and a world in which America is the biggest kid on the block needs most is definitely NOT more short-termist paranoic banging of the military hammer.

Cheney - Running Over The Same Old Ground

By Cernig

Dick Cheney is in Iraq and has announced that he has a gut feeling that the Iraqi invasion and occupation has been a "successful endevour" which was "well worth the effort".

"I was last in Baghdad 10 months ago and I sense that, as a result of the progress that has been made since then, phenomenal changes in terms of the overall situation," Cheney said after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Cheney said there had been a "remarkable turnaround" in security after 30,000 extra troops were sent to Iraq last year to help reduce sectarian violence that threatened civil war.

Despite the improved security, however, some 4 million Iraqis are still displaced, and the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a report on Monday that millions were still deprived of clean water and medical care.

(In fact, that Red Cross report said that some families spend a third of their average monthly wage of $150 just buying clean water and that healthcare in Iraq was "now in worse shape than ever.")

So there you have it - more faith-based victory metrics from the Bush administration.

And while we're on the subject, does anyone seriously believe that the sitting Republican VP arriving in Iraq at the same time as the Republican heir-presumptive, John McCain is just a coincidence, even if the two have no plans to meet up there? me neither. The Republican party is calculating that most American voters are small-c conservatives in that they will prefer the Devil they know to some amorphous "change" and so intend painting McCain's candidacy as a continuation of the last eight years in policy terms even while saying loudly they're doing no such thing. It's all about the framing.

So to help them along in that endevour I've a campaign song for John McSame, seeing as I'm such a kind and helpful soul.

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here

Bear Stearns Gets Fed Bail-Out

By Cernig

Fester certainly called it earlier this morning when he wrote: "we could have a situation where a really nasty private sector debt crisis transforms itself into a really nasty public-private debt crisis".

He means like this:

JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Friday agreed to provide emergency financing to Bear Stearns (BSC.N) after the investment bank said its cash position had deteriorated sharply, sending its shares into freefall.

Stock of the fifth-largest U.S. investment bank dropped as much as 50 percent in morning trading after the news, the latest in the Fed's efforts to soothe financial markets in response to a widening credit crisis spurred by rising mortgage defaults.

"Our liquidity position in the last 24 hours had significantly deteriorated. We took this important step to restore confidence in us in the marketplace, strengthen our liquidity and allow us to continue normal operations," said Bear Stearns Chief Executive Alan Schwartz, in a statement.

...Bear Stearns has more exposure to the U.S. bond markets than its competitors, and has a large mortgage-backed securities business. It was among the first to disclose the impact of the subprime mortgage market meltdown when two of its leveraged hedge funds collapsed last summer, losing $1.6 billion.

"With the market's reaction, I'd say stick a fork in them, they're done," said James Ellman, portfolio manager at Seacliff Capital, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. "The company clearly has to choose from a set of unpalatable choices: sell a large amount of equity, sell the company outright or sell assets and try to hold on and hope for the best."

..."The situation is very much that Bear Stearns was very close to the edge and it was much worse than we all thought," said Michael Klawitter, currency strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort, Frankfurt.

"It raises severe concerns over other banks. (Bear Stearns) wasn't a small bank, it was the second largest underwriter of mortgages last year. For the situation to deteriorate in that way is not good news and it will add further to jitters," he added.

Now I'm not an economist, I don't even play one on the internet, but it seems to me that Bear Stearns has just been helped to a hefty chunk of corporate welfare on the taxpayer's dollar (that's you) as reward for a whole slew of bad investments. Bad investments that were, according to Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, encouraged by the Bush administration in a vain attempt to keep the U.S. economy afloat on deficit spending while three trillion bucks was poured into the Iraqi sandpit. Where's the "credit card act" for these people?

And since the Federal piggy-bank (that's you again) is empty, the only place the Fed can get the money for bail-outs like this is overseas (more deficit) - which Fester points out will only come with strings attached. I've written before that George Bush has the soul of an assett-stripper. This is the endgame, after all the good bits have been sold out from under the shareholders and employees (guess what, you again) to Dubya's own backers and just before the remaining shell of what was USA Inc. is declared non-viable and sold to some foreign buyer.

Restating the Obvious

A secular dictator who is in the bullseye of a major power whose internal political dynamics encourage foreign adventures and the same secular dictator sitting atop large oil reserves and a restive mixed sect population will ally itself with a group of sectarian fanactics whose strategic analysis and objectives is to strike the major power in order to topple secular dictators and authoritarian monarachies who sit atop large oil reserves. That is basically the strategic dynamic that would have to underline any active collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda. Somewhat absurd but it was one of the main points of argument to invade Iraq as President Bush and other senior administration officials who knew or should have known better.

This claim due to the previous discussed incentive structure was farcical to anyone paying attention in 2002/2003, and believable only to the idiots at the American Enterprise Institute led by Laurie Mylroie. It is still a siren song on the dead-ender right that Al Queada has a long and established history in Iraq and will take over the place as soon as either the US stops showing resolve (@ $12 billion a month, and several hundred US casualties,) elects Democrats, or withdraws heavy combat formations.

The Pentagon disagrees on this assessment on several fronts. Al-Queada and other foreign fighters had never been a large component of the Sunni-Arab insurgencies, never more than 5% to 10% of the total fighters and they were often seen as useful idiots at best, and usually idiots (which is one of the prompts for the Awakening... the idiots overstayed their welcome and tried to collect smuggling taxes), and the only Al-Queada linked group in Iraq pre-invasion was Ansar al Islam which operated in the Kurdish zone that existed under American air cover.

Today, the DOD reports that after looking at over half a million documents, several thousand hours of interviews and interogations, that a secular dictatorship sitting atop of a bunch of oil was not actively collaborating with a bunch of religious nuts who want to topple secular dictatorships....

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were confiscated after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network....

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were confiscated after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network.

No shit

McCain Still Flip-Flopping On Torture

By Cernig

It's the Monday after the weekend that George Bush vetoed a bill because it included a ban on torture - and the man who received his effusive endorsement (and certainty that he wouldn't change Bush's policies) - John McCain - is still flip-flopping on the same issue.

John McCain added a ban on torture to a defense spending bill in 2005 but voted against a bill tie the CIA and other civilain intelligence agencies to techniques allowed by the Army Field Manual - the very bill Bush just vetoed. That manual clearly prohibits waterboarding and other techniques used by the CIA.

Yet last night, 60 minutes aired an interview with McCain in which he flipped again:

McCain replied, "Sure, yes, without a doubt" when asked if waterboarding is torture.

"We prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II," McCain went on, "and one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they waterboarded Americans."

Asked "how did we lose our way," McCain answered, "I don't know the answer to that. I think one of the failures maybe was not to listen more to our military leadership, including people like general Colin Powell on this issue."

Raw Story has the clip.

The Straight Talk Express needs to decide which track it wants to run on. Is John trying to be McSame and pander to the hardline Republican base who love torture and only wish for more and harsher methods, or does he want to refect the opinions of the majority of Americans who believe torture is not what America should be about? You cannot have America the lover of liberty and human rights at the same time as you have America the waterboarder. Only the psychopaths and dupes of the hard Right believe otherwise.

Bush Asserts Right To Open Your Mail

By Cernig

Mostly un-noticed, Bush has claimed for himself powers to open domestic mail without a warrant in a 2006 signing statement which directly contradicted the bill it was appended to.

Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 [2006]after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.

Still, the move, one year after The New York Times' disclosure of a secret program that allowed warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mail, caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

"Despite the president's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

"You have to be concerned," a senior U.S. official agreed. "It takes executive-branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

...Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane changes. But the legislation also explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet, in his statement, Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

Note that "exigent circumstances" doesn't just refer to some "ticking bomb" mythical scenario but also to any longstanding declared emergency - like the general 'war on terror". The administration could already ask for a FISA warrant to open any suspect mail - and the Postal Service already has the rigfht to delay delivery. But that's not good enough for power-hungry Dubya.

The same Congress who are now being so tame on telecom immunity promised to look into it back then. I hope you didn't hold your breath because we've not heard a damn thing about hearings on the matter.

Via Larisa, who asserts:

I left the Soviet Union only to find myself back where I came from. The label might say America, but it is clear that America is a long forgotten dream

That's soft totalitarianism for you, Larisa.

Update Post edited to show that the signing statement and bill date to December 2006, as does the Congressional promise to look into the matter. Hands up those who knew about that signing statement or who've heard anything about that promised oversight.

Stretching The Evidence To Fit

By Cernig

Eric Umansky emailed to point out his latest piece at MoJo, an examination of how the rules of evidence as commonly understood in civilized jurisprudence are being stretched all out of shape by the Bush administration as they try to secure minor terrorism convictions on chages of "aiding" terrorists.

The laws on material support provisions are far broader than commonly appreciated and the administration has used them as the basis for many of its controversial terrorism cases. It turns out you can aid terrorists in the criminal sense, and end up in jail, by just thinking. (Emphasis below is mine)

Material-support laws are not like other laws. Central to what the Department of Justice has described as an approach of "strategic overinclusiveness," they have underpinned many of the government's most controversial criminal terrorism cases, from the so-called Lackawanna Six—young men from upstate New York who trained at, and later fled from, a militant camp in Afghanistan—to José Padilla, the man once accused of being a "dirty bomber."

Indeed, look at the heavily criticized "foiled plot" cases over the past few years—the ones with an informant at the center offering encouragement and often much more—and you'll find material support charges underlying nearly all of them. Material-support statutes have been cited to deny thousands of immigrants—some on the run from actual terrorists (see file of "Kumar the Fisherman," above)—entrance into the country and are offered by the Pentagon as justification for detaining hundreds of people at Guantanamo, many of whom have provided little more "support" than being, for example, conscripted to cook for the Taliban.

There's a reason material support has become such a popular charge, a reason it's central to many of the government's most questionable cases: The laws are a prosecutor's dream. They don't require evidence of a plot or even of a desire to help terrorists. They give the government a shot at convictions traditional criminal laws could never provide. "The administration adopted the preventive paradigm, i.e. 'We've got to stop people before they've done something wrong,'" says David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who's the author of several books about the effect of anti-terror laws on the justice system. "There's tremendous pressure to expand grounds of criminal activity, to prosecute people who might represent a threat. The material-support provisions have been the principal vehicle for pushing that envelope."

...The core concept behind the criminal material-support laws—there are two—seems, at first glance, to be straightforward. The first law, passed in 1994 after the first World Trade Center bombing, bans almost any support of terrorist activity. The second law, passed in 1996 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, criminalizes knowingly giving support, financial or otherwise, to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, even if the money is supposedly earmarked to support peaceful activities—say, a hospital for Hamas.

Think of the laws as "aiding and abetting"—only on steroids. It has always been illegal to support criminal activity. If a man drives a getaway car for bank robbers, then he can be charged for the robbery, too. Prosecutors have simply had to show that there was an intent to further the crime and some meaningful connection between the help and the crime itself.

What the material-support laws did was roll back those requirements. A taxi driver hired for a short drive by a Hezbollah politician—a driver who had no intention of engaging in terrorist activity—would, so long as he knew the politician was with Hezbollah, be guilty of providing material support. That's because the laws that define "material support" contain a long list of often nebulous activities, such as providing "property, tangible or intangible" or "service," and are applied whether or not those activities truly helped advance the cause of a terrorist group, and regardless of the suspect's intentions. The laws make little distinction between the taxi driver and, say, an arms merchant who sells detonators to Hezbollah. The Patriot Act extended the concept further, making it illegal to attempt or conspire to provide material support. Before, prosecutors had to prove you gave support. Now they just have to show you wanted to.

That change, along with other newly exploited vagueness in the existing material-support laws, opened up a whole new path for prosecutors. In the Padilla case and others, the government has argued successfully that a suspect is guilty of attempting to provide material support even if the plot he allegedly supported was purely a government concoction or, just as curious, even if the government hadn't said what group or plot the accused might have been supporting.

Prosecutors have only had to show that the accused expressed interest in helping—as the government puts it—the "global jihad movement." "Under our system you have to show a defendant has done something specific," says Peter Margulies, a national security scholar at Roger Williams law school in Rhode Island. "These charges are really a departure from the usual way of our doing justice."

Go read the whole thing, including the case studies Eric has appended to the main piece.

Between torture, the roll-back of the centuries-old practise of universal habeas corpus and now this, America under Bush has ceased to acknowledge the universal rule of law as understood by the rest of Western civilization.

Vote McCain for a Third Bush Term!

By Cernig

Dubya hi-jacked the Straight Talk Express today as he endorsed McCain for the White House.

In a press conference after a private lunch, a reporter asked the duo how McCain would “make the case that you’re going to provide the change that the voters seem to want.”

Bush quickly cut in, declaring that McCain is “not going to change”:

BUSH: And the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he’s not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world.

Following up on the press conference, Rich Lowry of the National Review said on Fox News that Bush is framing McCain as embracing his old platforms, “someone determined absolutely to take on our enemy and someone with a big heart who cares for those who hurt.” Lowry said McCain was shaping up to be Bush’s “successor”.

So there you have it. The would-be moderate, "maverick" McCain has now been entirely co-opted by the wingnut base of the GOP, who insist that there be no change. Just another ventroloquist's dummy in an expensive suit.

Almost Every Telephone Customer In North America

By Cernig

Reading Michael Goldfarb's gloating yesterday over the imminent Dem capitulation on FISA, I was struck by a curious phrase:

...the industry now faces as much as $7.243 trillion in liability, as practically every telephone customer in North America is to be considered a victim...

He goes on to call any lawsuits that established such a liability both "frivolous" and a "threat to national security." It seems to me that they can't be both, though. If they're frivilous then the only liability is the cost of litigation, swiftly halted by the invocation of state secrecy, and the threat to national security is nil.

But what about that throwaway claim that almost every telephone user in North America - not just the U.S. - would have not just a chance at litigation but a real chance at establishing liability, in amounts sufficient to challenge health care or the Iraq occupation as a driver of the national debt? We're talking about a $20 million award per person here. Awards of that scale would have to follow some serious infringements of personal rights and would explain entirely why the Bush administration doesn't want to indemnify the telecoms.

Is Goldfarb talking out his ass here or has he just inadvertently spilled some insider beans? Well - he's a pretty well connected insider himself, isn't he? That's meant to be where he derives his authority for his smirking pose.

And then there's this, from Kevin Drum, who points to a WaPo quote of assistant attorney general for national security Kenneth Wainstein:

At the breakfast yesterday, Wainstein highlighted a different problem with the current FISA law than other administration officials have emphasized....In response to a question at the meeting by David Kris, a former federal prosecutor and a FISA expert, Wainstein said FISA's current strictures did not cover strictly foreign wire and radio communications, even if acquired in the United States. The real concern, he said, is primarily e-mail, because "essentially you don't know where the recipient is going to be" and so you would not know in advance whether the communication is entirely outside the United States.

Kevin writes:

But if there's no way to know in advance where the recipient of an email is going to be, then the Bush administration is basically asking for the ability to monitor all email communications that pass through a U.S. switch. And they interpret the text of PAA as giving them that authority. Right?

If that's what has been happening all along, then that entirely explains Goldfarb's claim.

The future for Mark Penn

by shamanic

If Hillary Clinton manages to pull out the nomination and wins the White House, might I suggest that her first act as president be to have Mark Penn shipped off to Gitmo for some "enhanced vacationing"?

Even for the notoriously slimy business of politics, Penn is really something else entirely. Do it, Hillary. No one will mind. Quite the contrary, you would have the thanks of a grateful nation.

Two Dead In Florida Restaurant Shooting

By Cernig

Yet another mass shooting, with two dead and five injured, this time at a Wendy's restaurant in Palm Beach, Florida.

A gunman burst into a Wendy's restaurant at lunchtime in Florida today, killing one person and injuring five others before killing himself, officials said.

...The mayhem unfolded just after noon during the lunch hour rush. Palm Beach County sheriff's spokesman Paul Miller said the shooter entered the restaurant and went to a restroom before coming out brandishing what appeared to be a 9 mm handgun.

The gunman went to the counter, Miller said, shooting a customer before slowly turning to his left and firing on others before shooting himself.

About 10 to 15 people were believed to be in the restaurant at the time of the shooting, Miller said.

Florida has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, and one in 45 people in Palm Beach has a concealed-carry permit. Wendy's doesn't serve alchohol and so I believe that under Florida's current laws it would be OK for diners there to have been carrying their own guns, although I may be mistaken.

One local Republican has been campaigning to relax the laws even further to allow guns at "restaurants that serve alcohol, youth athletic events that are not held at schools (think Little League games), airport parking lots, churches and any government building not considered "offices," including libraries and recreation centers." Cops however, want tighter laws.

I usually say I won't make political points after such indidents, out of respect for the victims - but it's getting to the point where by the time I've let a reasonable time go by there's been another of these incidents. Isn't it about time that America admitted that guns don't kill people - but they certainly help people kill people. Last year Scotland was branded the most violent nation in Europe and murders jumped by 20%, leading to outcry and outrage. Yet San Antonio had one more murder than the whole of Scotland during 2007, with a population a third the size. The difference is that it's simply easier, psychologically, to pull a trigger from feet away than to get up close and personal. Stop making it easier to get a hold of these easier killing tools.

Mukasey Jaunts To Gitmo

By Cernig

Attorney General Michael Mukasey had an afternoon jaunt to Gitmo on Wednesday, presumably to make sure prosecutors there would toe the administration line in the wake of several embarassing resignations. There are no reports that he tried waterboarding himself to see if he thought it was torture.

Amazingly, military tribunals are only expected to hear charges against some 80 detainees - out of the 275 still held at Gitmo and over 800 who have passed through Gitmo's gates in total. Even a ten per cent charge rate seems...inadequate recompense...for such a loss of American prestige and such a trampling on the rule of law.

Thirty four international law organisations, including Britain's Law Society, have signed a joint letter to Bush to express their condemnation of the situation in Guantanamo Bay. "We feel that it is inherently unfair to have one justice system for American citizens and another for so-called 'enemy combatants', particularly when such a system has no basis in international law.", UK Law Society president Andrew Holroyd said.

The larger point on Hagee

by shamanic

Okay, what's crazy isn't that anti-Semite, anti-Catholic John Hagee has endorsed John McCain (what, was he going to endorse Obama?). What's crazy is that a mainstream candidate for President of the United States would stand beside a person like John Hagee as that endorsement is issued.

What's crazy is that a guy like John Hagee is someone who warrants a candidate's visit. What's crazy is that a guy like John Hagee is a person of some importance in America.

Let's be clear about this: What's crazy is that John Hagee isn't living in a trailer in West Virginia, alone and unshaven. What's crazy is that a guy like John Hagee is anyone at all.

Thanks, Religious Right.

Why I tend to stay out of comment threads

by shamanic

This is absolutely despicable.

Better HURRY UP and DIE, Tony Snow, your CANCER has metastasized into your PEA-BRAIN and is making you say such RIDICULOUS PRATTLE!!!!!
Comment by raymundohpl

Just wanted to mention it. I hate seeing stuff like this on the Internet, especially from my own side. I'd really rather see us all joyously mocking the incredibly stupid ideas of the other side, rather than shouting shameful and personal attacks at individuals. We can't demand a better discourse until we begin one.

Wow, 256 letters at Salon? Dude, go outside. Get yourself laid. Something. That rage isn't good for you.

Things that will rapidly improve America

by shamanic

Soon we'll have a government that's focused more on providing solutions to difficult problems than it is on annoying "the other side" (that "other side" being, you know, Americans). America will be better for it, and morons like Jack Kingston will happily be marginalized.

Jack Kingston utterly misses the point of the whole government thing. Wonder why my neighbors keep electing him?