Been a while

Real Life's been too busy, and I've been down.

But I did have to tell y'all about this Frank Rich column.

Here's the heart of it, but please go read it all:

By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques have a grotesque provenance: "Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.

Emphasis mine.

I agree. "Bush lies" just doesn't cut it anymore. And Frank, welcome to Moody Loner three years ago.

It's Official: I Live in the Soviet Union.

Those of you who remember the USSR - remember how we'd get on them about the whole "internal passports" thing? How we said that one of the hallmarks of totalitarian Stalinism was having to beg permission from the government to move around within your own country?

Well, take a look at this.

Oh, it gets better. Blue Patriot Woman at the Great Orange has analysis.

In related news, a music scholar had her visa torn up, was groped during a search, threatened with detention in a Santa Clara, CA facility, and kicked out of the country - apparently for being brown. Or Welsh.

And these are just the cases we hear about. How many do we miss? And since when does DHS have a detention facility in Santa Clara?

And why the hell are we hearing O.J. crap when this is going on?

The Deep Shallow

Today's post is written by guest blogger GreyHawk.

This morning, a Republican Congressman gave voice to his concerns regarding the non-binding resolution about the Iraq War that coined a new term for the distinguished men and women of the Hill. It was well spoken, and hit the mark squarely.

He said it was a "deep shallow." (Hat-tip to Roxy of ePluribus Media.)

Representative Bob Bishop of Utah made what I found to be a singularly insightful speech on the House floor regarding the non-binding resolution that Congress is now passing time on:

Yesterday, I had the opportunity of going back to Baltimore and watching a play, "Wicked." And in the play, the main character, the male lead, Fiero, is in love with Elphaba. And she tries to distance herself from him by saying, "Yeah, but you're thoughtless and shallow." And Fiero says, "I know, but I am a deep shallow." This resolution is a deep shallow. It may have words aimed at the White House and the White House action, but regardless of those words, when history is written the finger of accusation will not point to the executive branch, who has been consistent, it is going to point back here to Congress, to our actions.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of the declaration of war. Instead, we passed a resolution approving force. With a war declaration, there is a commitment to action and to ultimate goals. A resolution of force implies something less, and it allows Members of Congress who did that to say, yes, I agreed with force but I didn't expect it to be used this way. Or, I wasn't really that serious. Or I didn't expect it to be anything more than a little war taking place. It is a process that allows you to be deeply shallow.

This resolution may clear the conscience of some people, it may put political distance between others, but it does noting for soldiers, it does nothing towards a U.S. victory, to benefit this country, or to improve the body politic. Our words, our actions, our votes will be looked on in history with contempt, for they are indeed in this issue deeply shallow.

In conclusion, I would like to describe the good that will come from this resolution for our Armed Forces.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Notice the extensive list of good things that will come of this non-binding resolution, situated between the last two sentences of the excerpt.

Heady stuff, eh? Powerful. I can't believe there's even room for debating such goodness.

...the concept of what good may come of the non-binding resolution has been explored here and elsewhere before. I'm not going to delve into the subtleties of the various pros and cons. To quote again from Mr. Bishop's speech, from a section just before the excerpted bit,

By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing, but allows us all to make statements for media consumption and allows some of those who made the original vote to use force the ability to shirk the responsibility of that particular action.

That's all.

Sure, there are benefits to putting one's thoughts down or forcing one's opponents to give voice to words that could come back and haunt them. But our troops are still inadequately supported. Our troops are still dying, their families faced with a sotto voice, a folded flag.

It's all well and good to say that with the Republican majority broken and the GOP stranglehold on Congress loosened, we can forego any thoughts of impeachment and let the Bush Administration serve out the remainder of their term relatively neutered, but that's purely a fantasy. They are not neutered, and they do not intend to be. In fact, they have been actively working to prepare for this very time when Congress might actually attempt to stall their plans.

A somewhat random and eclectic perusal of stories and diaries paints a starkly pessimistic picture of the lengths that the Bush Administration will go to. Let's review a couple, shall we?

1. Trial by Fire? Executive Order on Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by exmearden describes how an executive order sets the stage to bolster the MCA and Patriot Acts in order to denaturalize a citizen -- declare that person's citizenship revoked and thus term that person an alien, enabling the label of "enemy combatant" to apply and effectively remove any and all rights and liberties.


2. US Attorneys Establish Patriot 2 Via Precedent (Repost) by TheFatLadySings -- also cited within the piece by exmearden -- speculates on one possible goal of the Attorney Massacre -- the de facto establishment of Patriot 2 through the creation of precedents that bolster the underlying "adjustments" to law and how they are executed. ePluribus Media has been running a series on other relevant aspects of the Attorney Massacre -- they are posting another one soon that touches on the use of political profiling. (There's a lot more going on with regard to the US Attorney Massacre; check this comment for a list of the various other pieces they've covered so far, and keep an eye open for the profiling piece.)


3. In the piece Things Running in the Background by ABA, several aspects of the Patriot II provisions are explored and extrapolated -- very scary stuff.


4. A diary titled A Government of Men, Not Laws? by Vox Libertas illustrates the manipulation of laws to enhance the Unitary Executive Theory, which in and of itself is a dangerous threat to our nation. Here's a killer excerpt:

   The second action that fits into this pattern of centralized Presidential control is to be found in H.R. 5122, the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", which among a great many other things amended the Insurrection Act, which along with Posse Comitatus controls and limits the President's use of the military within the United States. The changes are worded as a collection of edits which alter a substantial fraction of the wording of section 333 of the Insurrection Act, and so I found it helpful to create a marked-up version of §333, showing the changes. Also helpful is a flow chart in the Wikipedia entry for the insurrection act.
   

   As either of these should make clear, the major change is to expand the circumstances under which the President can deploy the armed forces and take direct control of the National Guard away from the Governors who normally command them. In the past, he could do so only in cases of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy". Under the new wording "natural disasters, public health emergencies and terrorism" are added to the list as is the wildcard "other circumstances". Other changes include specifying that the President can use the armed forces, including the National Guard, in US territories as well as the states, explicitly naming the National Guard rather than referring to "the militia" and what appear to be minor textual changes.
   

   With a broad enough interpretation of "other circumstances" and "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws" or "impedes the course of justice", the President can pretty much deploy the military domestically whenever he feels it necessary and become the sole military commander in the area, federalizing the National Guard. So long as you trust the President, this isn't such a bad thing. But as other nations have learned, elected officials are not always what they seem.
   

   Adjustments that bolster such changes and additions are going to be very hard to erase and resolve back toward a true nation of the people. The capacity for a ruling elite is being reinforced at every turn.

   
   

5. Then there are two that tie directly to immigration and national security in the form of a national ID -- I consider them related, in that they help control "the masses" without having to worry (much) about the distinction between "citizen" and "non-citizen." REAL ID: States Revolt, ID Ghetto Our Future? by lapin and Immigration: Attrition by starvation term by BlueStateLiberal.

How bad must things get before more people begin to wonder if our nation suffers from either Creeping Fascism or Just a Simple Dictatorship? (hat-tip BooMan)

Our nation has been betrayed by those who cover for the current Administration's gross negligence, criminal incompetence and outright unConstitutional behavior. Our people have sent a clear message to Congress and the Executive Branch through last November's election. Elections have consequences. And the November election of 2006 also set some expectations. Congress is on notice.

The Executive Office is manned by people who now clearly meet the definition of "domestic enemies" -- enemies of the State, who seek to undermine the proper workings of government for their own good. Those who adhere to them and give them aid and comfort are committing treason. The White House, with the adherence of these traitorous bastards, is attempting to define any opposition by Congress to their plans as unPatriotic and treasonous, knowing full well that they themselves are the ones truly betraying their nation.

Enough is enough, folks.

It is time for Congress to stop the political games, to step up and call out against the tactics of this Administration and their proponents. The political comfort zone of staying within "the deep shallow" must be forbidden to them.

It is time to act.

Impeach, starting with Vice President Cheney. Set the process in motion for Bush, too, so that he cannot issue pardons and interrupt the process, but pursue Cheney through to the end. Then finish the process on the Unitary Executive and his coterie of malcontents.

We have two years. Even two days is too much, with the cost in both lives and money, as well as a multitude of other resources, burning away in the raging inferno of incompetence that surrounds these criminals and decimates everything in their path.

Crossposted at DailyKos, ePluribus Media, BooMan Tribune, My Left Wing, Never In Our Names (NION), The Impeach Project (TIP) and Progressive Historians

America-Hater

Several people, myself included, wonder why Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney hates America so, and why the Washington Post continues to pay him to do so.

Where the Hell Are These Guys Learning Civics?

Steven Bradbury, as reported in - God help us - Newsweek, seems to think that there are circumstances in which it's perfectly OK for the Chimp to order the military to kill American citizens on American soil. Current and former government officials were quick to justify this by bringing up various "24"ish scenarios, but apparently none of the officials were willing to attach their names to this idiocy.

University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein is only too willing to sign on, however - saying that:

the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda empowered the president to kill 9/11 perpetrators, or people who assisted their plot, whether they were overseas or inside the United States. On the other hand, Sunstein says, the president would be on less solid legal ground were he to order the killing of a terror suspect in the United States who was not actively preparing an attack.

Emphasis mine. Evidently, blatantly violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution merely puts the Chimp on "less solid legal ground". Left undiscussed is what happens to the suspect, or to the legal concept of presumption of innocence.

They're still trotting out this crap.

I Finally Figured it Out

Who Attorney General Alberto "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales reminds me of:



I mean, habeas corpus isn't just Constitutional Law 101 - it's Schoolhouse Rock. Federalist 84? Tenth Amendment? Apparently, neither of these exist in Torturin' Al's Bizarro World - or, like all to many, he considers the Constitution clause by clause and not as a whole, just like anyone trying to get out of a contract does. I mean, the concept that the Constitution doesn't enumerate individual rights but rather limits the Federal government's infringement of them is grade-school civics.

More Fun with Snuff Radio KSFO

Yes, Gentle Reader, another update regarding Spocko's heroic battle against the fascist-wannabes at KSFO. Here's a link to the hate until I can find a way to host the mp3s myself. Here's a video. Here's another video. The more KSFO bawls about people disseminating their hate radio clips, the more I feel compelled to link to them. It's a curse.

Looks like the Chronicle and local TV station CBS 5 have joined the fun - and in a way that will have the cut-rate Limbaughs gnashing their teeth over the liberal media.

Now KSFO's snuff-talkers are claiming that they're the victims in all this - that everyone's picking on them, taking them out of context, and making up lies about what they innocently joke about to their listeners.

To which I respond: Precisely which of the mp3s recorded from KSFO radio shows, in the hosts' own voices, are made-up lies? They were sure as hell willing to stand up to their words when talking to their callers - why are they so reluctant to have their advertisers hear the same shows?

Are they ashamed? Did it occur to them that many companies would be reluctant to have their products mentioned alongside calls to stomp people to death? Maybe someone might wonder about their protestations of innocent humor, when all of their jokes seem to be about killing people.

They want context? How's this for context? Or this?

Yeah, and Spocko's too smart for their candy-ass town-hall setup, as is Mike Stark - as we discover in this press release:

[KSFO Program Director Ken] Barry told me that the show would be call-in only. I expressed my trepidation with regards to that format. After all, having made a name for myself by wallowing in the fetid cesspool that is right wing talk radio, I’m fully aware of disgusting and unfair techniques hosts use to maintain control of the dialogue and marginalize the opposition. Hosts regularly mute microphones, shout over callers, disconnect calls and rant afterwards about the caller that can no longer defend himself or his point of view.

I offered Barry the following proposal. If KSFO is interested in a genuine and reasonable discussion of the important First Amendment issues at play, I would be happy to be a guest on their show for 20 or 30 minutes – or however long they desired. I made clear that I have no interest in a radio cage match; I’m not looking for a shout-fest or name-calling. Put simply, I agree that a free and open exchange of ideas would benefit the San Francisco community and I am willing to advocate for my side with the dignity and decorum decent human beings have come to expect from one another.

Barry sharply dismissed my proposal and told me, like anyone else, I could call in if I wanted to.

They don't give a shit about First Amendment issues unless it's their cushy jobs on the line. They were damned quick to shut down Spocko's blog - but look how they whine when advertisers pull out of their shows, like the world owes them a living sitting indoors threatening, bullying, and spewing hate. They whine that their livelihoods are in danger. Maybe they need to.

If they get too hard up for money - I hear the Army's hiring.

Politically Correct Inclusiveness in our Higher Learning Institutions

Here's the video. Not for children. Pobably not work-safe, especially if you work for UCLA and/or the LAPD - as I'll call them from now on, the Defendants.

Perhaps you are unaware of the effects of being tasered. Let me assure you, Gentle Reader, that unless you're dangerously psychotic or whacked out on PCP the last thing you'd be capable of after being tasered is getting up.

At least people wee willing to confront the police ad tell them to back down. Of course, for their pains, they got threatened with their very own tasering.

All because the guy wouldn't show his papers.

Take a good hard look. Is this what you want our society turning into?

Freedom of the Press.

Something else that, were I not a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald's blog, I wouldn't have known:

Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press photographer who was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq back in April -- almost six months ago. Along with 14,000 other people around the world (at least), he continues to remain in U.S. custody without being charged with any crime. The U.S. military has vaguely claimed that he has close ties with Iraqi insurgents but refuses to specify what it is specifically that he is alleged to have done, refuses to provide any hearing or process of any kind for him to learn of the charges or contest them, and refuses to respond to AP's requests for information about why he is being held.

Apparently what he's guilty of is trying to document the war in Iraq. The bastard. That will teach him to commit photojournalism without spouting the Partei line. How the hell do you think we went from 17th in the world in freedom of the press to a whopping 53rd?

And see that power that the Administration is using on journalists it doesn't like? That's the same power that they, thanks to that obscenity called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, can now use on you.

Points for any seething Bushites reading this:

First, where in the Constitution does it say that only citizens have the right to due process of law? Last I checked, if a foreigner committed a crime in the US, we put him on trial instead of summarily jailing him.

Second, although the Military Commissions Act specifies that it only applies against non-citizens, how would a United States citizen "mistakenly" labelled as an enemy combatant seek redress without habeas corpus? Answers involving the infallibility of the Bush administration will be met with well-deserved derision.

Third, what's with all the hate? Labelling everyone that disagrees with you America-haters that need to be jailed or killed for the good of the country makes you look like a bunch of brown-shirted, jackbooted, seig-heiling fascists.

Because If I Could Let Bullshit Slide, I Wouldn't Be Doing This

Yeah, I was just going to let it slide, but screw it. The biggest perk of running your own blog is the ability to get the last word.

On the off chance that Blog Mad or Blog Explosion inflict my site upon PrivatePigg's delicate sensibilities, my response to his response:

1. No, you and Brian are trying to make the argument about FDR and not Bush, and I won't let you.

2. Again, no you don't get to switch the argument. And no lefty claims that every Muslim in the US is in internment - note that I didn't, either. I merely asserted that the populations of Gitmo and whatever other hellholes we're operating are exclusively Muslim. You could easily rebut this by listing all the inmates that aren't Muslims - not merely non-Arab, because they're not the same thing.

3. Let me enlighten you regarding this little concept we have here called freedom of association:

[While the]United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. The United States Supreme Court jurisprudence names two distinct ways in which the right may be implicated:

1. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected as a fundamental element of personal liberty when choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships are at issue.

2. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected for the purposes of engaging in activities protected by the text of the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. Because the role of these relationships is central to safeguarding individual freedoms, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State. Thus, there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of preserving other individual liberties.

This is not merely a conservative meme, it's a libertarian one.

4. One thing we agree on is that this Administration has made the 4th Amendment irrelevant. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of due process of law either.

And those "I'm smarter than you" quips apparently drew blood, hence your response. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Really read it - then come back here and tell me that ol' Chimpy is merely exercising his Constitutional powers. This would be one of the many reasons why his approval is at 33%.

Oh, and regarding your use of liberal as an insult:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.^[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.^[3]

If this is an insult, remind me to get insulted more often. Of course, I'm casually curious as to when fiscal responsibility, constitutionalism, less intrusive federal government, and personal responsibility became liberal values, but whatever.

Yep, lots of wikipedia this time. Not the source I prefer, but you win arguments with the sources you have, not the ones you want or might wish to have.

PS: Regarding your refusal to patronize my site, PrivatePigg - it's fair enough, as I have yours blocked as well. On the other hand, I read yours first. You should think of doing the same next time, lest you find yourself once again accusing a libertarian whose idea of fine dining is a restaurant with metal silverware of being a liberal elite. Just sayin'.

Once Again, We Get Mail

Yes, for a second time, I'm going to directly address a comment. This comment was posted in response to "That Didn't Take Long":

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.. At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race. The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason. If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. - Brian

Brian, Brian, Brian. Here, let me go through this point by point:

Democrat[sic] icon FDR acted in a much similar way.

Okay, laying aside for the moment what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during a declared war against an alliance of fascist nation-states, this talking point is straight out of the "He did it, so I can do it too" school of jurisprudence so beloved by my five-year-old. While adorable coming from a small child, it's disturbing when a putative adult bases civil liberties and foreign policy decisions on it. I believe the proper response would be, "So, if FDR jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?", save that I doubt a polio-crippled FDR could have managed. We can leave the minutiae regarding FDR's physical limits aside, for my point is made.

At least we don't have internment camps where the only requirement for entrance is being from a specific race.

This is teh funny. In, of course, a bitter and cynical mode of humour. No, we don't have internment camps where the only requirement is race - we have internment camps where the only requirement is religion. Stop me when that starts sounding familiar.

The "enemy-combatants" are in Gitmo for a reason.

Let's explore that, shall we?

From this article on Slate ( and yes, it's the "librul media". You guys think every corporate-owned media outlet save Rush Limbaugh and Fox News is part of the "librul media" - and Rush and Fox don't talk about this):

The data suggests that maybe 80 percent of these detainees were never al-Qaida members, and many were never even Taliban foot soldiers.

So why are they there? Glad you asked:

Most detainees are being held for the crime of having "associated" with the Taliban or al-Qaida—often in the most attenuated way, including having known or lived with people assumed to be Taliban, or worked for charities with some ties to al-Qaida. Some had "combat" experience that seems to have consisted solely of being hit by U.S. bombs. Most were not picked up by U.S. forces but handed over to our military by Afghan warlords in exchange for enormous bounties and political payback.

But weren't they all proved guilty of something at their status review hearings? Calling these proceedings "hearings" does violence to that word. Detainees are assumed guilty until proven innocent, provided no lawyers, and never told what the evidence against them consists of.

Read the full article, with the associated studies, then come back and tell me how hard-core those falafel vendors and taxi drivers we're torturing are.

If you aren't a terrorist, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Okay, then. I suppose you don't mind if the cops start searching every house in your neighborhood looking for drugs. Who needs a warrant? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Be polite when they kick in your door at three AM - they have guns.

Do they not teach civics anymore? Is the bare concept of "rule of law" so alien to you? Do you really want to live in a United States where the powerful can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they wish and your only recourse is that they decide that you're innocent?

And what, precisely, is "conservative" about that vision of America?

Oh, for readers that are interested, Brian can be found at superacidjax.blogspot.com. Enjoy.

That Didn't Take Long

Looks like ol' Chimpy McHauptsturmführer couldn't wait to play with his new toys:

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

The Washington Post goes on to reassure us that these efforts are only valid against non-citizens while conveniently forgetting that if a citizen is labelled an enemy combatant, he won't be able to see a judge to get habeas corpus rights - that's what removing habeas corpus means.

"Conservatives", of course (quoted because real conservatives don't support torture and the removal of habeas corpus) rush to assure us that this is what that blue-ribbon horsefucker Georgie wanted all along - to get those criminal taxi drivers and falafel vendors and find out what they know, dammit! - and he'd never, never abuse this against American citizens. Nuh-uh. No way.

Yeah. Suuuure.

With this Act in place, by the way, Chimpy meets the definition of tyrant. God, how the world laughs at us. We finally give up on the Great Experiment, and our first post-democracy Leader is a chimp.

Sanity and Honesty

From Keith Olbermann's show:

I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, “a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting on this board.

Go read it - it's one big money quote and I'm flirting with fair use violations as it is - but before you do, let me address this point:

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

Let's explore that, shall we?

Sanity:
A discussion regarding Bush hearing voices.
An extensive discussion on ol' Chimpy's mental health, with links.

Honesty:
MSNBC reports on the opinion the American people have of Bush's honesty.
This site attempts to document the reasons Chimpy's thought of as dishonest.
As does this one.
And this one, though he's getting behind.
Oh, look. Someone wrote a book.

So, to sum up, we now have a system of government and what I'll mockingly refer to as "law" that rely, not on due process, judicial review, or even the preponderance of evidence, but solely upon the whim - excuse me, sanity and honesty - of a man who is a proven liar and may possibly be a madman.

And the people that tell you the loudest about how they're for God, apple pie, family values and protecting American freedom? Yeah, they're the ones that support this jackass.

And Yet, Ann Coulter Walks Free

Today's post is about the Secret Service investigating terrorist threats against a public official, only to find a blonde who was just kidding.

And no, sadly I'm not talking about Ann Coulter.

Apparently a 14-year-old girl decorated her anti-Bush MySpace group page with a picture of the Chimpster getting stabbed in the hand with the caption, "Kill Bush". This was considered to be such a dire and imminent threat that agents were sent to pull her out of school and interrogate her for two hours.

Fortunately, she's a cute little blue-eyed blonde. Were she a dark-skinned brunette, she'd be riding the waterboard in whatever hellhole we've replaced Gitmo with.

This story brings up many questions - not the least of which is precisely what reaction did she expect?

But, also, let us return to Ann Coulter and discuss how someone can walk around still free after threatening the lives of public officials, Supreme Court justices, and pretty much anyone who has ever disagreed with her, ever - and yet law enforcement from the SS on down pay her no mind.

The "I was only joking" defense. Learn it and use it, kid. Apparently it's ironclad.

If you're a Republican.

Oh, on a tangent - in case the reason I homeschool isn't clear - let me award the "Thank God This Man Works with Children" award to McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini:

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

"Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don't notify them until it's done," he said.

Can't have those parents interfering with any investigations. All that whining about rights and consent and what we may reasonably expect from minors just throws the interrogators off, and we can't have that. Asshole.

Story in Sacramento Bee.

Google Search to avoid Sacramento Bee's registration.

The Week in Review: Fascism, Torture, and Nukes, Oh My!

This week, we found out what they'd been doing to Jose Padilla during the three and a half years he's been incarcerated. And, once again, we were unsurprised.

Here's Glenn Greenwald's take on it, and the motion to dismiss(pdf) that describes his treatment. Good thing he's an American citizen - they hadn't waterboarded him. Yet.

Why should you care? Here, let Lambert over in the Corrente Building lay out, from the "Military Commissions Act of 2006", the provisions that kill habeas corpus and allow Bush to disappear you.

We have some argument as to The Lancet's figure, via a Johns Hopkins study, of 650,000 Iraqi civilians killed due to the occupation. Most of the arguments, of course, from people who haven't read the paper and wouldn't understand the methodology of the survey if they did pulling competing figures out of their asses.

GENERAL GEORGE CASEY, US COMMANDER IN IRAQ: I have not seen the study; that 650,000 number seems way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000 and so I don't give that much credibility at all.

REPORTER: The 50,000 number, where did you see that from?

GENERAL CASEY: I don't remember, but I have seen it over time.

REPORTER: That is that a US military estimate?

GENERAL CASEY: I don't remember where I saw it.

Let me give you a hint, Gen. Casey. Just before you flushed.

As far as North Korea goes there is more substantiative discussion, which I cannot mock as easily as poor Gen. Casey, as to whether or not North Korea detonated a nuke and if they did, whether or not it worked. The one consensus appears to be that ol' Chimpy screwed up once again - unless of course you're one of his codpiece-worshipers, then it's because Clinton had sex.

Wrapping it up - I've been keeping an eye out for software and equipment in order that I may attempt one of these newfangled "pod-casts", although God only knows where I'd find the time to make one. Probably in 2017.

Update: Thanks for the heads-up on the typos. Dammit.