Mr. President, you’re a fascist and a liar!
A recent CBS News title says it all: “Bush Spy Bill Called Fear-Mongering,…”
I thought the title of this article was really interesting. The media has generally tried to stay out of the fray when it comes to the very heated political issues. They generally give an analysis and then follow up with opinion, but headlines matter and it looks like the media is starting push them to a new level.
President Bush, in remarks meant to spur House Democrats into accepting a controversial new bill that would expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans, warned that the country faced terror strikes that would make September 11 “pale by comparison.” In response, critics of the new bill accused Mr. Bush of “fear mongering,” and of trying to deflect attention from the bill itself. Its most controversial provision would prevent Americans from suing phone companies that helped the administration spy on them since the White House surveillance program was instituted in 2001.
I believe critics are right, but I’d even go a step further. What President doing isn’t just fear-mongering. The President is partaking in the very kind of terrorism that he says is a threat to our nation. The media of course will stop short of calling President Bush a tyrant or terrorist, but the people are starting to scream out in frustration over privacy rights and FISA legislation that dismisses our constitution.
Mr. Bush claims that unless the telecoms received assurance that they will not be sued for breaking the law (and therefore be liable for damages), those companies will not agree to enact future wiretaps, therefore undercutting the government’s intelligence capabilities:
“If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate; they won’t help us; they won’t help protect America.”
It sounds like President Bush doesn’t care about our security, so much as he does protecting the precisious coporations that may have helped him break the law by spying on millions of American civilians. That does not stop him from invoking fear and terrorism to get his point across.
“At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.”
Scared yet? BOO. The President won’t take responsibility for the failed legislation, however.
Mr. Bush said, “There is really no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire,” despite his refusal to sign an extension to the current law while negotiations continue.
Lies, Lies and more Lies. What else can you expect from a politician? Nancy Pelosi spoke out against the President, but she’s just as bad when it comes to looking after American interests. (recall: “Impeachment is off the table”)
“The president and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national security consequences result,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Then there’s Harry Reid:
“The president could have taken the simple step of requesting new authority from Congress … but whether out of convenience, incompetence, or outright disdain for the rule of law, the administration chose to ignore Congress and ignore the Constitution”
Finally, a word from the specialists when it comes to protecting freedom, privacy rights and the Constitution.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative office in Washington
“The House should stand up to the bullying from the president and reject the administration’s lies and fear mongering,” she said. “This administration has abused its power over and over again and it is time for the House to reject any attempts to consider the unconstitutional Senate Intelligence Committee FISA bill. [...] Let the American system of justice decide this case,” Frederickson said.
“Do not give the phone companies a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If the companies really ‘did the right thing’ as the president said, then they have nothing to fear from going to court. [...] Terrorism is a threat. But ignoring the Constitution is also a threat.”
The video below has the potential to devastate Hillary’s chances at cracking the youth vote, recall Howard Dean’s yelp heard ’round the world? This is much worse!
How NOT to attack Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign:
The following is a political opinion, so relax!
Hillary Clinton needs a solution to Barack Obama’s avalanche of support
It’s no secret, Barack Obama’s campaign is inspirational and moving America like no other since JFK and MLK Jr. Barack Obama is the greatest news to happen to the Democratic party since the nation was prospering (socially and economically) under Bill Clinton’s leadership. Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem with liberals and independents is (or was) her stance on the war. Couple her conservative streak with the twinkle in Barack Obama’s eye and it is easy to see where this race is headed.
Just to be sure, let’s look at Barack Obama’s video that reaches out to youth
Barack Obama Will Win The DNC Nomination: Clinton needs a Miracle
Suffice to say that super delegates would send America into a further state of disarray if they decide the election for “the party of the people.”
War kills, it’s a fact.
Our soldiers are dying, our loved ones are hurting, corporations are profiting.
It’s simple, really. A terrorist is a label that we use for extremists who use tactics that don’t sit well within our culture. As Americans, we tend to forget that “the War on terror” is a war against a tactic. Unless the alleged criminals have been convicted of crimes against the United States, they should not be denied the right to a fair trial and adequate defense. The U.S. military and our leadership is setting a bad precedent as we move forward with our war on terror because if the tables were turned and our soldiers or federal agents were captured, it would be unacceptable for a military tribunal belonging to ‘ the enemy ‘ to use their system to impose justice on our soldiers.
Why bring up this issue now, what’s the point?
Six men being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will go before military commissions and could face the death penalty if it is judged they were involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks, a general said Monday.
Take the case of Iran for example. Our government has gone so far as to label the Iranian National Guard as terrorists. By doing that, of course it legitimizes any action taken against the guard (to an extent) and makes it more difficult for anti-war and ‘justice’ advocates to operate.
The men will be treated like members of the U.S. military during their judicial proceedings, he said.
Why are we treating alleged criminals / terrorists as military? Military tribunals don’t afford anywhere near the amount of rights needed to provide an adequate defense for these people. Our system of justice and our national history suggests that we always err on the side of caution when it comes to human and legal rights. A military that would try alleged criminals who were tortured and provided information as a result of the assault is difficult to justify as impartial. I’d like to see these men sent to prison or put to death just like any person who felt the shock of 9/11 would, but there’s a right and wrong way to get this done.
There is another problem with using the military route to impose justice on the alleged terrorists. Amidst speculation of water-boarding, torture, and other illegal war crimes this is the surest way to dispose of any testimony that could be made to incriminate the men accountable for these actions. This reminds me of the destruction of the water-boarding videos, it seems like destroying evidence is more important than seeking justice and answering the questions that remain after 9/11.
The proceedings will be dictated by the Military Commissions Act, which Congress passed to handle arrestees in the war on terror. The act requires that the detainees have access to lawyers as well as to any evidence presented against them. They also will have the right to appeal a guilty verdict, potentially through a civilian appeals court and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the act. The government plans to make the proceedings as public as possible, said Brig Gen. Thomas Hartmann.
This is the only hint of positive news that comes of the latest news regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees. However, if a military trial is used there is a chance that the civilian courts will still not be used to obtain the proper ruling based on all of the evidence. What this does is seals off the public to the actions that took place before, on and after September 11th. It forever closes the door to understanding what went on and the mistakes that may or may not have been made in carrying out our law enforcement.
Further, it’s problematic that a verdict might be had with a potential for appeals or Supreme Court access at a later date. This could not only taint the evidence or seal off use of specific types of evidence, but it’ll also taint future decisions by civilian appeals courts. Bias and prejudice is a problem that occurs when a decision has been rendered by the military and I guarantee you that the U.S. will vigorously defend the military decision and possibly attempt to use procedural issues to get around the cases being heard on the merits.
What is murkier, however, is whether a military prosecutor will be able to use any information or confessions gleaned through controversial tactics like waterboarding, an interrogation technique designed to simulate drowning. That will be up to a judge to decide, Hartmann said. “It’s our obligation to move the process forward to give these people their rights,” he said. “We are going to give them rights that are virtually identical to the rights we provide to our military members.”
Not all connected with the military are convinced, however.
Despite Hartmann’s guarantees, Charles Swift, a former U.S. Navy attorney, said the process will not afford detainees an adequate defense. He also raised concerns that trying and executing the men unfairly could make them martyrs in the eyes of extremists.
“The losers will be the American public unless some fundamental changes are made very quickly,” he said.
Which brings up an interesting point, again. Part of the disconnect between our understanding of the middle east and our role in the Iraq War has to do with our lack of public insight into American history and actions over seas. A lot of the criminals (like Saddam Hussein) that we’ve sought to prosecute are products of the CIA or United States foreign policy. Do we want to further create conflict and give extremists another excuse to attack our people or bases?
Finally, we’ve lost our sight on the most important aspect of this trial. The attack of 9/11 is one that belongs to the American people. This is our country and the military attempting to hijack justice on this matter will only create additional conflict and distrust between the people and government. It’ll give these men a martyr status and the Osama Bin Ladens of the world will use this as yet another reason that the U.S. is evil and must be ‘dealt with’. As this process takes place, we need to be weary of losing our identity to pushers of nationalist ideals and political agendas.
President Bush has committed a number of acts as president that could be listed as reasons for impeachment. The Iraq War is the biggest issue that has plagued his administration and one that he’ll take to his grave. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have heard the chants, they are aware of the noise. By now, you’d expect that the Democratic party would do something about the illegal war or the war crimes that have arisen under President Bush’s watch. Now, instead of fighting the injustice, we’ve decide that it is OK to look the other way on justice because doing otherwise would allow the terrorists to win.
From Dissident Voice : “Is Dennis Kucinich being McKinney’d?”
There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.
Kucinich has aggressively challenged the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail on the issues of war, civil liberties, impeachment and big business control of government. He’s even refused to pledge to endorse the party’s presidential nominee.
Dennis Kucinich is an American hero in my book. It’s not his politics or his agenda that has me fired up, it’s his will to fight and resist the power of men in charge who are up to no good. Kucinich is brave for fighting this fight against corporatism and fascism that we’ve allowed to creep into our government. The problem he’ll face moving forward is a big one. Millions of dollars are going into the campaign of his opposition, he’s being outspent 5 to 1 and his voice seems to have no place in our government. Instead of taking bribes and ‘deals’ to let the issue go, he’s stood up for principle and the American people and I hope that he is an inspiration to more government officials as this fight goes forward.
We can’t allow this country to be guided by the hands of evil, it already is in very bad shape. If you have the time, visit his website and donate or do whatever you can so that he isn’t ousted from his position in Congress.
Someone at Afterdowningstreet spoke directly with Congressman Dennis Kucinich over the rumor noted above.
“Before the Nevada primary, Dennis was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — AIPAC. They told Dennis that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.”
The commentary still stands, as this piece is about Dennis Kucinich’s threat to the President and the opposition that seeks to derail his reelection campaign.
Senator Barack Obama gave a victory speech in Virgina after his clean sweep this weekend. In addition to winning all three states, he picked up the Virgin Islands. Hillary’s campaign is rumored to be in panic-mode. We’ll see how they respond, but chances are that if either candidate sweeps Texas and Ohio, that could be the deciding factor for the Democratic nomination.
Awkward exchange between Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and a Military legal adviser.
We know that General Mukasey won’t answer the question about water-boarding. Our CIA has pretty much admitted to the fact that the public was already aware of: the United States used water-boarding techniques against terrorists. They’ve admitted to three water-boardings so far, so the question seems like a legitimate question. Why is it just “simulated drowning” or “liberals getting worked up over water in the nose” when Americans use this against the enemy, but when pressed on whether it would be ‘legal’ for Iran to use it on our soldiers — suddenly the question is taboo?
Essentially, we’ve given not only ‘terrorists’ but any foreign enemy the right to water-board our soldiers without repercussions since we ourselves refuse to recognize that this is torture. The fact that we prosecuted war crimes fully (of which water-boarding was one) during the Nuremberg trials is going to come back to haunt us. Something has to give, this question isn’t going away. The “noise” from human rights activists and civil liberty advocates won’t be silenced.