Is it just me or is it insane that the GOP are blaming the democrats for the Mark Foley situation. While it’s obvious the democrats have been taking advantage of the situation for political ends (they are after all, politicians), I don’t see how it’s reasonable to blame the dems, the media, or anybody but Foley, and those who failed to investigate his behavior when it was reported to them.

Comments welcome (though it’s unlikely anybody still reads this blog as I haven’t posted in so long).

In President Bush’s weekly radio address he again made clear his support of amending the constitution to insure that discrimination can’t be stopped by “activist judges.”

In his speech, he invoked America’s legacy of freedom to justify this amendment: “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts.” In short, he is saying that “we are a free country, and as such the majority is free to discriminate against whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, provided they are a minority.”

According to Bush, if the courts rule that the Gay people are entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment (you know, the one that ensures everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law), then those judges must be “activist judges.” This logic is fundamentally flawed, as the very nature of a constitutional democracy is that laws are only valid if they are in line with our Constitution. These judges are responsible for making that decision, and while Bush may disagree with them, that doesn’t make them “Activists” unless they are making decisions without any legal basis. The 14th amendment being violated word for word is one heck of a legal basis.

George later in the speech said: “An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice.” So George is saying, “If banning Gay marriage is unconstitutional; let’s change the Constitution so it won’t be.” If this amendment goes through, then it would be the first constitutional amendment to actually limit people’s freedom. How people can come to terms with that is beyond me, but apparently some have.

Imagine what would have happened if this had been done after the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education, which legally ended Segregation on the grounds that it was not equal protection under the law (as guaranteed under the 14th amendment). The Constitution would have just been changed to ensure that Segregation would be stopped. Segregation would still be the law of the land in the south, and anywhere else that could drum up enough votes to pass a statute that could under penalty of law, force other people to live as secondary citizens.

While some may say, “well, segregation is different,” I don’t believe it is from a legal or philosophical perspective. People are not able to live their lives freely because the Government is restricting their rights because they are a minority. As straight people can marry, and homosexuals cannot, they are by definition not receiving equal protection under the law, and that is at its face counter to the ethos that this country was founded on.

America is not a populist country, we are a nation of laws, our highest law is the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law – it guarantees equality; the only way to constitutionally prevent same-sex marriage is to remove that guarantee of equality. Make no mistake, however it is worded, that is exactly what it will be doing, removing the guarantee of equality from our Supreme Law, and at the same time, getting rid of the Constitutional Protection that allowed segregation to end. It is also setting precedent for other prejudices to be tolerated.

As George W. Bush said in this address, “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.” This is true, and the government should not interfere with free people living their lives simply because they are a minority.

Historically, strong nations do not face threats from the outside; they face them from within.

Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin all came into power by scarring their own people with stories of terrorists, be they partisan, communist or Trotskyites lurking in the shadows of their respective civilizations; they all justified their consolidation of power as a move to defend National Security, and they all played on a mix of nationalism and fear in order to get the changes required to give them their ultimately totalitarian position within those countries.

George Bush’s unilateral leadership should concern everyone as it by its very nature consolidates power, and establishes precedent to do so in the future. Regardless of what kind of a man you believe George Bush to be, it leaves the door open for an American Mussolini or Stalin to walk through and ultimately it threatens the one defense our nation has always had from totalitarianism, the separation of powers.

While a small group of people are trying to attack us, they don’t pose much of a threat to our nation’s existence. Though they can bring chaos and tragedy, there is no way they can (on their own) threaten this nation with annihilation. What does pose a threat to our nation’s existence is allowing ourselves to be terrorized to a point that we give up our freedom and justice in the name of safety.

We can win the war on terror without violating our laws, and without turning our back on our nation’s legacy of freedom. I cannot promise that we will be able to stop every attack, however neither can those who are willing to shed our civil liberties in the name of security; even they concede that an attack will most likely get through at some point. What I can say is that violating our supreme law brings us one step closer to calamity, and a step away from being the nation that we aspire to be. In my opinion, that is what loosing the war on terror truly looks like.

It isn’t news that politicians lie, and it isn’t necessarily evidence of wrongdoing when they refuse to comment on something, however when the President of the United States lies to the American people to avoid a potential constitutional conflict, he has ignored his two superiors, those who elected him, and that which the power of the office of the Whitehouse emanates from, and that is by its very nature… well, wrong.

First, president bush said “any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” (From Whitehouse.com, April 20, 2004)

That was 2004, over two years after the NSA Programs were underway, and it was an outright lie to the American people. While it is understandable for Bush to neither confirm nor deny an allegation of the existence of a secret surveillance system, Bush lied to the American people by claiming, absolutely, that they were getting court orders before conducting surveillance.

In late 2005, the New York Times broke a story that directly contradicted Bush’s claim (Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts) The article claimed, among other things that “Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years”

Though the administration initially declined to comment on the article, they later confirmed it insisting numerous times in the following days, weeks and months that they are monitoring a small number of people, and only on international phone calls.

According to Alberto Gonzales, in a speech at the Georgetown University Law Center “This program, described by the President, is focused on international communications where experienced intelligence experts have reason to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda.”

President Bush himself while visiting wounded troops and their families at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, promised that “The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers.”
General Michael V. Hayden, the person in charge of the NSA when the program was initiated and a fierce defender of the program, in a speech at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006 declared that “It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.”

Over the last few months, this story has been knocked from the headlines by a variety of issues, some seem an awful lot like political misdirection, some political legitimate. The GOP has done an effective job of avoiding an investigation into the legality of the wiretapping, the executive branch has also managed to squelch an investigation by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility by not issuing the investigators the proper clearances. President Bush has declared that this program is carefully scrutinized by the executive branch, however blocking an investigation like this makes one question who exactly is scrutinizing it. It seems to me that what it most likely the case is that there is a fairly tightly controlled group of people who are appointed by the President to rubber stamp programs like this, or at the very least, he is picking people who have similar philosophical views of the power of the executive branch.

Now, a story recently published in USA Today declares that “The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans.”

According to their sources, the NSA has been collecting phone call records (not contents of the call) since 2001, in an attempt using data-mining techniques (the same techniques that General Hayden, in his speech at the National Press Club claimed wasn’t being used) in an attempt to find patterns that could theoretically lead to terrorist cells.

Unlike the previous claims of the Bush Administration, these are domestic phone calls, they are indeed a “driftnet” and which numbers are in the database regardless of potential terrorist affiliation. The Bush administration hasn’t confirmed or denied the claims in this article on the grounds of national security, however they are actively trying to stop a lawsuit against AT&T related to the NSA database by asserting the Military and States Secret privilege, and calling for a summary dismissal of the case.

The Bush administration has asked us to put an incredible amount of trust in them in the past 4 years, and they have shown very little credibility in that time. They have hidden behind Presidential Privilege; their party has done what it can to avoid any formal, independent and candid investigation into the actions of the Whitehouse, and they have now declared the intelligence community off-limits from the courts.

It is reasonable to expect state secrets to be kept secret, however when the people’s right to a freedom from illegal search and seizure as well as their guarantee of due process come into direct conflict with the President’s Article II powers, there must be a legal means of resolving that conflict which ensures that the people, who are in fact where the power of the President emanates from are protected. We also should not forget the lessons of history, which have shown us time and time again that ultimately the greatest threat to a nation comes from the leadership growing too powerful, and offsetting the fragile equilibrium that exists in a free society.

Bite my shiny metal ass.

Any self respecting trekkie knows that the most efficient trials in the alpha quadrant are those conducted by the Cardassians. A Cardassian Court starts out with a verdict, and then conducts the trial to show that their sentence is correct. Before the person goes before the court, they are tortured, and often subjected to memory probes, “just to be sure.” Of course, the absence of evidence is not proof that nothing happened; even if no information is obtained from the “interrogation,” that is just proof that the person has been trained in lying and tricking memory probes.

I am reminded of Star Trek: DS9, Season 2 Episode 25 entitled “Tribunal,” where Chief Engineer Miles O’Brien is secretly arrested by the Cardassians, and is not allowed to know exactly what he is charged with, even his “Public Conservator” Kovat refuses to tell him what he is charged with. Eventually, Odo, the security officer for DS9 who worked with the Cardassians under the occupation is able to find out what he is charged with (Ironically, it’s providing material support to Terrorists) and they are, after long difficult investigation able to prove that the evidence against him was indeed fabricated, and that he was innocent of all charges.

The Cardassians are an interesting race, however they are definitely portrayed in DS9 as a totalitarian, militaristic society; while they are occasionally allies with the Federation, they are generally kept out of transporter range (unless there is a boarding party involved) because they have a pretty poor record for civil liberties, and a tendency to kill or disappear innocent people when it’s politically convenient.

So, at this point, any responsible reader would be wondering if this post is anything more than a play by play of one of the best episodes, of one of the best television shows to ever grace the prime-time airwaves, the answer is yes. A court order, brought about by an AP lawsuit forced the Pentagon to release the names of the detainees and the proceedings of their tribunals which according to many shows that “the Bush administration has cast a wide net in its war on terror.”

Among the people who were detained at Guantanamo Bay was an apple seller who claimed to have been conscripted to be a cook for the Taliban, a man who was caught wearing a Casio watch that was similar to one that was used by Terrorists to make timers for bombs, as well as other low level people who were either fighting against the US’s proxy soldiers, the northern alliance long before we got involved, or were conscripted to fight at gun point. There was certainly the occasional high value target, and other true believers, however there are clearly many there that from this information appear to have been low level peons who were locked up and interrogated (or tortured depending on whose definition you use) who were screwed first by the Taliban/Al Qaeda (when they were conscripted), and then a second time by us. In short, many of these people were tantamount to slaves when they were with the Taliban/Al Qaeda, and rather than freeing slaves, we put them into a prison that was a legal black whole (temporarily) and did horrible things to them.

One thing that I find really shocking is that most of the people there haven’t even been accused of a crime. They have been designated enemy combatants based on the opinion of people who have been told that they are terrorists, given no reasonable chance to mount a proper defense as they aren’t allowed to know what evidence is against them, and finally, they are presumed guilty until they can show that they are innocent. The fundamental fallacy of the presumption of guilt is that there is no way to prove without a doubt that nothing happened – you can show that it is highly improbable, however you can never truly show that it didn’t happen with 100% accuracy. If the burden of proof is on the individual who is facing the trial, they are basically screwed.

I don’t have a law degree, however I know a Cardassian Trial when I see one, and while the people conducting these hearings (as with their Cardassian counterparts) no doubt believe what they are doing is right, they are part of a system that is designed to make it nearly impossible to defend oneself. Like Miles O’Brien, these people are being set up to be sentenced in a court that has already found them guilty, and like the Cardassian courts, these tribunals exist solely to make the American people feel like we are giving them a chance. It was clearly wrong when Miles O’Brien was going to be executed without receiving a fair trial; I fail to see how this is different.

End Transmission.

I want this.

I am not suprised that this is happening, but it pisses me off nonetheless.

The Republicans are being evil, and The Democrats are being stupid.

How would you feel about John McCain running in 2008? I think he’s the only politician that I have any respect for, other than Kucinich and Clark, neither of which I see running again.

I personally like Hillary Clinton, however I like her as a senator, I think she is too much of a lightening rod to run for president, and she is completely unelectable.

Scott’s Pick for an exciting presidential election: McCain v. Lieberman. Two people who are somewhat electable by members of the other party. Would that be a wild election year or what? I think you might have republicans voting for democrats in revulsion of the centrist that had been nominated, and hardcore democrats voting for Mickey Mouse because of how much of a hawk Lieberman is.

I say, bring on the insanity. At least it will shake things up a bit.

Because accidents happen (even hunting accidents) and it doesn’t fucking matter. There are many more important things that need to be covered and this isn’t one of them.

In my opinion, the Bush administration has been building a house of cards. The weight of each lie, half-truth, and load of crap has put more pressure on that house of cards and I believe that it is only a matter of time until it comes tumbling down.

Let’s take a look at one week worth of news in the Bush administration:

Scooter Libby seems to have testified that he was authorized by his ’superiors’ to disclose classified information to reporters, which may apparently mean Dick Cheney told him to do it.

Michael Brown is claiming that He told Andy Card about the levee breaks long before Bush claimed to know about them and while I am not inclined to take him at his word, it seems like Republicans charged with investigating the matter felt that executive office shared a significant amount of blame, saying of the President himself “earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response.” The President of course, was at his ranch during the land-fall, and at a V-J day celebration in San Diego, and later speaking about Medicare in Arizona as New Orleans filled with water, and as FEMA tried without success to get Ice in to New Orleans.

Paul Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 (writing in one of my favorite journal, Foreign Affairs) claims that Bush “used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made.” In short, a guy who would be in the know is in essence confirming the main component of the Downing Street Memo”, that “the intelligence and facts [about the Iraqi WMD program] were being fixed around the policy.”

To top it all off, Lobbyist/convicted-felon Jack Abramoff challenges Bush’s claims that he doesn’t know him, saying, among other things, that he was invited to go to Bush’s ranch in Crawford.

Well, I would say that I feel bad for the conservatives who are blindly standing behind Bush in spite of his apparent absence of credibility, but I don’t, so I won’t.

After all, it seems that lies and deceit have a way of catching up with you, regardless of who you are.

I’ve been a bad little blogger lately, and haven’t been online as much as I used to. Well, tough titty. I’ve had allot going on. School is kicking my ass, and I’m loving every second of it.

I wanted to point one thing out about the state of the union address:
It seems that Bush’s Bold New Oil Strategy has already changed. It appears that when he said his Advanced Energy Initiative would help to “replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025,” he wasn’t expecting to be taken literally… what he really meant was that “alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.”

This kicks ass.

That is all.

Twas the night before Christmas
Twas the night before Christmas, when on the O’Reilly Factor
A pundit was yelling at a quiet detractor
“My stockings are hung from my Chimney with care!”
“You disagree with me Stewart?” Cut his mic; he’s out of here!

And Falwell was nestled snug in his bed,
With visions of Chavez, and Liberal judges, all dead,
He dreamt of his buddy Don Weldmon, from the AFA,
Said have a merry Christmas, and boycott away!

When from the ACLU he heard such a clatter,
A banging of gavels, it must be a legal matter
He awoke to the studio, he flew like a flash,
Made insane legal claims, most of them balderdash

He said there’s a war on, you’re with or against,
He talked quite a bit, but had no evidence.
Then he was blinded, by what he though was a light,
Falwell new the lighting in the studio, and none was this bright

With a tired sigh and a stretch of his back,
It was Jesus, all in white, and eating a snack
More rapid than eagles his curses they came,
Between yelling insults and chewing, he yelled out some names

Jerry Falwell, O’Reilly, you too Coulter and Gibson,
Oh, Malkin, DeLay, shut up, your worse than Nixon.
To the back of the studio, near the back wall,
They appeared one after the other, big name and small

As the dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
He took a deep breath and gave them all the stink eye,
Falwell asked what he had done but O’Reilly already knew,
It turns out Jesus was a card carrying member of The ACLU

Jesus said you’re guilty of a fairly serious sin,
You lied to the people, and O’Reilly your zone contains spin,
That crazy guy Falwell, he just had a dream
He had quite a cough, and mixed NyQuil and codeine

The pundits they pondered, they thought really hard,
For years there were many holidays, but Christmas had starred
Jesus said ok, enough is enough, let it be,
It doesn’t matter if it’s called a holiday, or a Christmas tree

The important thing to remember is your celebrating my birth,
So what does it matter if you don’t agree with Woolworth
Next Christmas I’ll be watching down from above,
And instead of focusing on words, let’s try to focus on love.

A limerick.

I went to thanksgiving with the fam,
We ate tofurky, turducken and ham,
I filled my stomach to the top,
But eating, I couldn’t stop,
So until next year I’ll eat mainly bran.

Shameless revisionism – That is what Cheney has accused those who have said that the administration may have misled them with their use of intelligence that was known to be faulty.

The story goes that they had access to the same intelligence as the Whitehouse therefore to now claim that they were misled is “rewriting history.” They would certainly be right, a fact which they are no doubt banking on to give there claim the appearance of credibility, but there is one problem, it isn’t true. The executive branch gets the raw intelligence reports where the legislature gets the polished final product, which I might add the president’s cabinet has signed off on, in some cases emphasizing some aspects of a report, while de-emphasizing other aspects of the same report.

In other cases, they completely fail to mention important information about how information was obtained, as in the case of DITSUM # 044-02, a DIA memo which was received by the Whitehouse in February of 2002 and cautioned that the source providing the primary information on the Al Qaeda – Iraq link was likely to be very unreliable. “It is possible [he] does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers.” While this report made it to the Whitehouse, it isn’t clear that congress was ever made aware of this information, and 8 months later, President Bush used this claim by this individual to make the case for war, an until 2004, continued to do so.

It seems to me that by the administration making this claim of “we all saw the same intelligence”, they are in fact themselves, rewriting history.