Keith Olberman – Habeas Corpus

Keith Olberman breaks down the government's stripping away of the Bill of Rights and explains what the recent doing–away with Habeus Corpus means to us all.

White House: Cheney did not back simluated drowning

President Bush said on Friday the United States does not condone torture after Vice President Dick Cheney agreed with a questioner this week that a “dunk in water” for terrorism suspects might be useful.

Cheney was asked on Tuesday by a conservative radio host from Fargo, North Dakota: “Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?”

“Well, it’s a no-brainer for me,” Cheney replied.

If Cheney says that “a dunk in the water is a no-brainer if it can save lives,” then how can he not support “simulated drowning,” more commonly called waterboarding?

His comment prompted complaints from human rights advocates that he was endorsing a technique called “waterboarding” that simulates drowning and is considered torture by some critics.

Now for my favorite part: quoting Wikipedia.

Waterboarding is a method of torture used in coercive interrogations or for punishment. In modern practice it simulates drowning and produces a gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage.

If you’re convinced that your interrogators are intent on drowning you, and they practically are, you’re what the CIA calls “intimidated.” You’re afraid for your life. You’re not merely being questioned; you’re being tortured.

“If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American’s head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives,“ said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

Perhaps neocon citizens—not the politicians—really do need the tables figuratively reversed in order to see the problem with their methods.

“This country doesn't torture. We’re not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they’ve got information that will be helpful to protect the country,” Bush said.

The United States doesn’t torture, and yet it does. Sheer brilliance: Tell the people that torture isn’t torture, and voila!—you aren’t torturing anymore.

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified.

“The vice president didn’t make any comments about waterboarding,” Snow said at a contentious morning briefing.

Come on, Mr. Snow. What else is a “dunk in the water” but waterboarding?

He shrugged off Cheney’s answer to what Snow dismissed as a “loosely worded question.”

“Loosely worded,” eh? Like I said immediately above, what else is a “dunk in the water” but waterboarding? Going for a midsummer swim with CIA agents?

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.

U.S. official: Britain sees one more year in Iraq

The British military hopes to withdraw troops from Iraq within about 12 months, according to a U.S. defense official who said the UK government wants to focus its force on the war in Afghanistan.

What makes the UK so special? Why can’t U.S. troops be withdrawn as well?

British officials have told their U.S. counterparts the UK military was “near the breaking point” given long deployments in Iraq and weak retention of personnel, the American official said on Tuesday.

The official’s comments, made on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, come as diplomats and military leaders publicly debate strategy in Iraq.

Britain’s army chief said earlier this month troops should withdraw soon because their presence was making security worse. But the U.S. official’s comments offer the first hint Britain's military may have a timetable in mind.

“It’s about a year, give or take a few months,” the official said.

“Give or take a few months,” eh? I thought that UK troops were “near the breaking point.” If that’s true—and it probably is morale-wise—why not pull the troops out now, or three or four months from now?

Oh, right, because looking like you’re doing what the people want is much better than actually doing what the people want.

Another U.S. defense official downplayed the British discussions of troop levels as regular, internal military reviews and said the British government had not approached senior U.S. officials with adjustment plans or timetables.

Trust me, it’s much better to at least pretend to be planning to withdraw troops “soon” rather than blatantly denying that you’re doing so. Then again, very few in government actually trust the people they’re ruling.

“The Brits are very conscious of public opinion and things there are maybe worse than here,” a third U.S. official said.

It’s such a same we aren’t “very conscious” of public opinion. Actually, most Americans are, but the government isn’t—which means that it’s such a shame that American leaders are “rather opposed” to American public opinion.

Britain’s withdrawal could put more stress on U.S. forces, already facing equipment and funding shortfalls and the possibility of repeat tours in Iraq.

Of course, if we weren’t in Iraq in the first place, we wouldn’t have to worry about such things—and we wouldn’t have to mourn the death of family and friends. The same goes for any (and every) other country aiding the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.

Bush resists major course change in Iraq

President Bush said on Friday he will resist election-year pressure for a major shift in strategy in Iraq, despite growing doubts among Americans and anxiety over the war among Republican lawmakers.

And why should he listen to the people? What was it he said back in April?

I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.

Methinks he doth not counsel the people.

“Our goal in Iraq is clear, and it’s unchanging,” Bush told Republican loyalists, denouncing Democrats who want a course correction as supporting a “doubt-and-defeat” approach.

Mr. Bush, what is our goal in Iraq, exactly? You’ve changed it so many times—obviously it’s not “unchanging”—that I can’t remember anymore. I remember something about weapons of mass destruction, but there were none. I also remember something about Saddam’s being involved in 9/11, but there were no connections. I think the latest I’ve heard is “democracy and freedom for Iraq,” but with our own Gestapo-like prisons in Iraq, that’s definitely not the goal.

But less than three weeks before November 7 elections, pressure is growing in the U.S. Congress for a major shift in a war that has cost the lives of at least 73 Americans in October alone.

“I don’t believe we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence,” Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was quoted as saying in The Washington Post.

“I don't think there’s any question about that—that there will be a change” in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after the November 7 congressional elections, she added.

“Vote for us in November, and we promise we’ll change our Iraq strategy! How? We’ll never tell!”

I’m sick of all this crap about the Iraq Occupation. Get the U.S. the hell out of there—and anyone else there with us.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.

Poll: approval of Republicans at record low

With congressional elections less than three weeks away, the Republican Party’s approval ratings are at an all-time low, with approval of the Republican-led Congress at its lowest point in fourteen years, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Forty-seven percent of respondents said they were less in favor of keeping Republicans in control of Congress, compared to fourteen percent who were more in favor of maintaining the current congressional makeup, according to the poll.

Perhaps it’s because those who were promised “limited government!” fourteen years ago are finally realizing that the “limited government!” they’ve been given isn’t quite so limited. With approval for whatever Bush proposes; support for a president who ignores the law with “signing statements”; a record deficit; and out-of-control spending, it’s no wonder those who were promised limited government aren’t happy.

The only feasible alternative is the Democratic Party. When I say feasible, of course, I mean in terms of numbers, not in terms of politics. The Democrats are the only other major party in the U.S.—the only other party with any chance of winning anything big—but they are also just as liberal and big-government as the Republicans.

This is what happens with a two-party system: The two parties eventually become one. Their views and policies become virtually the same, and third parties are kept out of the game because supporters of either of the Big Parties are afraid that the Other Party will win the election, so even though they don’t support “their” party’s politics, they’ll vote for “their” party’s candidates simply so that the Other Party won’t win.

“We the people” indeed.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.

Victory in Iraq!

One man still locked up from 9/11 sweeps

In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.

Constitutionally he cannot be held without being charged. Don’t believe me? Read the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger....

Has the man been indicted? No. Has he been charged with a crime, infamous or otherwise? No.

But he has been in custody for five years.

I’m pretty sure that that’s illegal. I’m also pretty sure that it’s unconstitutional, and that since it’s unconstitutional, no one will give a damn except “extremists” like myself who give a damn about preserving our rights.

His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

If Mr. Partovi is not even suspected of a crime, then how can he still be in custody five years later? It boggles the mind.

There has been no full accounting of all of these individuals. Nor has a promised federal policy to protect against unrestricted sweeps been produced.

All very reassuring, I assure you! We don’t need silly things such as guarantees against tyranny; we’re just fine the way we are.

Just this summer, it was reported that an Algerian man, Benemar “Ben” Benatta, was the last detainee, and that his transfer to Canada had closed the book on the post-9/11 sweeps.

But now The Associated Press has learned that at least one person—Partovi—is still being held. The Department of Homeland Security insists he really is the last one in custody.

Of course Mr. Partovi is the last one in custody due to post-9/11 sweeps! After all, the DHS was so sure that Mr. Benatta was, and he turned out to be the last—oh.

“Certainly it’s not our goal as an agency to keep anyone detained indefinitely,” said DHS spokesman Dean Boyd.

Then why is Mr. Partovi still in DHS custody, Mr. Boyd?

Boyd said the department would like to remove Partovi from the United States but that he refuses to return to his homeland of Iran.

The article later says that he came in on a fake passport, so I can see why they wouldn’t free him inside the U.S. But if he doesn’t want to return to Iran, why not Britain? Why not France? Germany? Spain? Italy? I’m sure the boys at the Department of Homeland Security could make arrangements for Mr. Partovi in one of those countries.

That’s beside the point. Here legally or not, Mr. Partovi is still entitled to Constitutional protections: The Constitution is not limited to U.S. citizens; rather, it applies to anyone inside the United States. Find for me where it says otherwise and I’ll shave my head in mid-May 2007.

Boyd stressed that guidelines were set up in 2004 to make sure detainees’ rights are being protected on a case-by-case basis.

I had no idea that people had different rights than others! Thank you for enforcing what I could not see in the Constitution.

“We learned from the past,” he said. “We evaluate each situation to make sure it’s being handled fairly.”

Here’s what you “evaluate each situation” with: the text of the Constitution.

I just realized something, folks. Throughout the entirety of this post I have made the mistake of assuming that the Constitution is something to be followed; however, it is, in reality, just a damned piece of paper. I refuse to erase my words, however, so that I may look at past follies and prevent repeating them in the future.

After all, knowing the past is the key to not repeat it in the future.

It appears that that in and of itself is a folly, too. Knowing the past is not necessary; all it does is chain you down to the limitations of past generations. Ignoring the past is the key to a peaceful future. Why, if you paid any attention to the past, you might start a war over something ancestors did 300 years ago, or you might lead people to mistakenly believe that Lincoln was racist or that FDR knew that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.

Bush to sign law authorizing harsh interrogation

Come on, Reuters. Call it what it is. It’s not merely “harsh interrogation,” it’s torture.

President Bush, keeping his election-year focus on national security, is to sign a bill into law on Tuesday that allows tough interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects.

And now it’s “tough interrogation,” eh? You know, if you’d stuck with “torture,” you wouldn’t have had to change your wording.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 sets standards for interrogating suspects, but through a complex set of rules that human rights groups say could allow harsh techniques bordering on torture, such as sleep deprivation and induced hypothermia.

With Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales looking on, Bush is to sign the bill which was negotiated in September after senior Republicans rebelled against the president's plan and forced concessions from him.

Because compromise is such a good thing for keeping everything in check.

The new law means Bush can continue a secret CIA program for interrogating terrorism suspects whom he believes have vital information that could thwart a plot against America.

No worries, then. So long as we can torture those terr’ists—and only those terr’ists—in secret prisons, we and our liberties are safe! Of course, “terrorist” is so loosely defined that anyone who opposes a government anything qualifies as a terrorist.

It establishes military tribunals that would allow some use of evidence obtained by coercion, but would give defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them.

What good does access to evidence do you if you’re guilty in the tribunal’s eyes, anyway?

“The president will mark a historic day in which he will sign a bill that he knows will help prevent terrorist attacks,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Why is it that you have to push major items through by claiming it’s to protect us from the terr’ists? Because it wouldn’t work any other way. And maybe I don’t want to be protected from terr’ism. Maybe I like my rights and liberties just the way they used to be.

Bush is expected to speak briefly at the ceremony. He is trying to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Congress by contending they are stronger on national security, a stance with which Democrats vehemently disagree.

There you have it, folks. This bill wasn’t really to protect us from the terr’ists and their terr’ism. It was to maintain Republican control of the Congress. Not that I want the Democrats in.

[…] Read the original article, sans commentary.
[+] Add to your del.icio.us.

N. Korea: Sanctions are war declaration

North Korea on Tuesday blasted U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the country for its nuclear test, saying the measures amount to a declaration of war and that the nation wouldn't cave in to such pressure now that it’s a nuclear weapons power.

Somehow I get the feeling that the United States would say the same thing if there were sanctions against it or one of its allies.

The bellicose remarks—the central government's first response to the U.N. measures imposed last weekend—came as China warned the North against stoking tensions and the American nuclear envoy arrived in South Korea for talks.

The North broke two days of silence about the U.N. resolution adopted after its October 9 nuclear test, issuing a Foreign Ministry statement on its official Korean Central News Agency.

“The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war” against the North, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Two things:

1. I can imagine Bush using that exact line—“The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of war.” I think he said something similar to Iraq in 2003: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.” I love the phrase he used: “military conflict.” Why not just say “war”?
2. Any time you see a country that has “People’s Republic” or “of the People” or something similar in its name, you know for sure that it’s not free at all.

I’m sick of this whole thing, so I’ll leave the rest of the article for your browsing.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add to your del.icio.us.

(PHOTO) Moored rope

I love the water. I love lakes. I love the ocean. I know it sounds “so 1700s,” but being on big bodies of water gives me a sense of freedom—from worry, from government, from all landly troubles.

Perhaps it’s not that water + boat = freedom sounds like it’s straight out of the 1700s, but rather that it’s practically hackneyed: Everyone during the past 3000 years has said something to this effect.

Maybe I love the ocean so much because I found the Phoenicians so interesting to study in fifth grade.

[+] Add to your del.icio.us.
[+] Add photo to your del.icio.us.

The “situation” with North Korea

Before you get even more nervous over North Korea’s nuclear test—which probably hasn’t occured, or maybe it has; who knows?—take comfort in the thought of the day, week, month, or year, whichever you prefer: The United States is the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons on another nation. In fact, we nuked Japan twice—and both times, we nuked civilians.

And now, I see from Reuters that the United States is confident that China will support sanctions against North Korea. Answer me this: Whom do sanctions affect? I’ll give you three guesses. “The government!” No. “But that’s what sanctions are for! It has to be the government!” Wrong again. One more shot, smart guy. “I’m sticking with the government. Sanctions affect the government.” Hey, since the answer was wrong the previous two times, guess what? It’s still wrong.

Sanctions affect the people. Any trade that might have benefitted them is now cut off, and they are wholly at the mercy of their government, which will still rape and pillage and plunder and destroy and—well, you get the idea.

The United States is somehow known for taking the moral high ground, but when your country has nuked civilians twice; is the only country to have used nuclear weapons; and is supporting restrictions that harm even moreso an already oppressed people, it’s hard to see how moral we really are.

[+] Add to your del.icio.us.

Three in four Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq

From Think Progress:

A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted October 10-11 finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home.

I’m amazed that Faux News released a story like this—or any other Big Media Organization, for that matter.

The Fox News poll asked Americans if they agreed or disagreed with this statement: “The United States has sacrificed enough for the people of Iraq, and now it is time that they take on most of the burden of their security in their country and let U.S. troops to start to come home.”

I prefer this statement: “Iraq never posed an immediate or looming threat to the United States, and thus the United States should not have invaded Iraq.” Sadly, most people would disagree with it.

A strong majority of Americans of all ideological stripes agree with this statement—which is similar to the argument the Center for American Progress makes in the Strategic Redeployment plan released last September—that American troops have done their share, and it is time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own affairs.

The Iraqis would only be too happy to take responsibility for their own affairs. We must hand control over to them first, however.

The Fox News poll (PDF). The question mentioned in Think Progress’s post is question #28. If you’d rather not view a PDF, take a look at the GIF version. Question #28 is on page seven.

[+] Add to your del.icio.us.