Nobody for president.

Just say no to saying no.

Just say no to shock and awe.

Just say No to assured mutual destruction.

No habeus Corpus and Martial Law - Welcome to Bush's America

Numbers 1 and 2 from Project Censored's 2008 list of the top 25 non or under reported stories:

#1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”

Sources: Consortium, October 19, 2006
Title: “Who Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?”Author: Robert Parry http://consortiumnews.com/2006/101906.html

Consortium, February 3, 2007
Title: “Still No Habeas Rights for You”Author: Robert Parry http://consortiumnews.com/2007/020307.html

Common Dreams, February 2, 2007
Title: “Repeal the Military Commissions Act and Restore the Most American Human Right”Author: Thom Hartmann http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm

Student Researchers: Bryce Cook and Julie Bickel Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act—such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections—Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush. The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge governmental power of arrest and detention through the use of habeas corpus laws, considered to be the most critical parts of the Magna Carta which was signed by King John in 1215. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84 in August of 1788:

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British eighteenth-century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
“To bereave a man of life” says he, “or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners.Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.”1Section 950v. “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” (26) of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”1“Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

Section 950j of the law further states that once a person is detained, “ not withstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision) no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”1 Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail, and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.

Parry warns that, “In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel ‘star chamber’ system for the prosecution, imprisonment, and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.

“Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’—American citizen or otherwise—who crosses some ill-defined line.”

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales opined at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, 2007, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended.” More important than its sophomoric nature, Parry warns, is that Gonzales’s statement suggests he is still searching for arguments to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to the President’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “time of war.”


#2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Sources: Toward Freedom , October 25, 2006Title: “Bush Moves Toward Martial Law”Author: Frank Moraleswww.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911

Student Researchers: Phillip Parfitt and Julie Bickel

Faculty Evaluator: Andy Merrifield, Ph.D.

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which was quietly signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, the very same day that he signed the Military Commissions Act, allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law in effect repeals the Posse Comitatus Act, which placed strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The 1878 Act reads, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” As the only US criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people, it has been our best protection against tyranny enforced by martial law—the harsh system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice. Historically martial law has been imposed by various governments during times of war or occupation to intensify control of populations in spite of heightened unrest. In modern times it is most commonly used by authoritarian governments to enforce unpopular rule.1

Section 333 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, entitled “Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law,” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service—to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (or “refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order—in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

Thus an Act of Congress, superceding the Posse Comitatus Act, has paved the way toward a police state by granting the president unfettered legal authority to order federal troops onto the streets of America, directing military operations against the American people under the cover of “law enforcement.”

The massive Defense Authorization Act grants the Pentagon $532.8 billion to include implementation of the new law which furthermore facilitates militarized police round-ups of protesters, so-called illegal aliens, potential terrorists, and other undesirables for detention in facilities already contracted and under construction, (see Censored 2007, Story #14) and transferring from the Pentagon to local police units the latest technology and weaponry designed to suppress dissent.

Author Frank Morales notes that despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007’s Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order without the consent of the nation’s governors.”

A few weeks later, on September 29, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had “grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report,” the language of which, he said, “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.” This had been “slipped in,” Leahy said, “as a rider with little study,” while “other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”

Leahy noted “the implications of changing the [Posse Comitatus] Act are enormous.” “There is good reason,” he said, “for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.” Morales further asserts that “with the president’s polls at a historic low and Democrats taking back the Congress it is particularly worrisome that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.”

Read more here: Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008

Walk to d'feet ALS

In December of 2005 (as some of you out there may remember), my mother was claimed by ALS just about a year after being diagnosed with the terrible, degenerative, fatal disease.

This September I plan to walk (along with my sister and my wife) in the ALS Association's annual Walk to D'Feet ALS - a fundraising endeavor to provide money for ALS research and services for ALS patients. After watching my mother's body shut down around her until, just before her death, she was breathing with one lung, my heart is very much invested in doing what I can to help ensure that nobody else suffers with this ghastly affliction.

If you are financially able to make a donation to my walking team (any amount helps), please look below for instructions. It is simplicity itself to donate on-line or via check. If you are in The SF Bay Area and would like to join the walk, that is also an option.

Our team for the walk is named LJW05 - my mother's initials and the year in which she died.

Click here to donate

Now, here is some information from The ALS Association web site, followed by a repeat of the donation link above and a link to a page where you can register to join the walk as a real or virtual walker.

This year, I will be proudly walking with over 65,000 patients, men, women, and children in order to raise funds in support of nationally driven cutting-edge ALS research and community-based patient services programs. This year marks the eighth year that The ALS Association has been working to fight ALS through their Walk to D’Feet ALS® program. Since this program began, over $50 million has been raised.

Why We Need Your Help

Every 90 minutes a person in this country is diagnosed with ALS and every 90 minutes another person will lose their battle against this disease. ALS occurs throughout the world with no racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic boundaries. If you choose to walk with me, you will be a part of an exciting, empowering event for patients, family members, friends, companies and organizations across the country; all of whom are walking to support comprehensive patient service programs and leading-edge ALS research.

Whether or not you can walk with me, you can play an essential role by sponsoring me. Both walkers and donors directly impact the lives of those affected by ALS by providing the means to raise awareness and to offer the services needed to treat and defeat this disease. Last year, the Greater Bay Area Chapter Walks raised over $580,000 proving to be our most successful Walk season to date! This year, we hope to surpass this amount by raising $650,000 for continued programs and services on a local and national level.

Not only do proceeds from the Walk go to services that improve the day-to-day lives of ALS patients and their loved ones, but the money we fundraise is directed toward programs that look to the future. Promising research indicates that we are getting closer to finding treatment options and scientists are hopeful that a cure will one day be discovered.

Please consider walking with me or sponsoring me. With your help, we will be able to make a difference in the lives of people affected by ALS.

Click here to donate

Click here to join our team as a walker or virtual walker

RIP RAW

I discovered rather late that Robert Anton Wilson left this planet on January 11, 2007 (after a long struggle with post polio syndrome).

I must say that I am rather shocked that I picked this news up from the blogosphere and have seen no mention of his passing in the mainstream press. I mean, this was a man who was not only a great writer, but one of the greatest philosophers (or mind fucker as he would say) of our time. But then, I don't watch TV and the only newspaper I scan with any regularity is the SF Chronicle (and there is nary an obit there).

Oh well, we live (and die) in a society that never could get its priorities straight.

Adios, Bob. Thanks for everything.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Anybody interested in an answer to the question above needs to see the film of the same name:

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Available at Netflix and Amazon.

Also recommended to those who care about the air we breathe, the grip that the oil and automotive industries have on our political process, and of course, the continuing evils of The Bush Administration.

The ponies of my youth were vulgar and uncouth.

1. Report: SoCal voters switched to GOP without their knowledge

- From the associated Press, via SF Gate -

Snip:

Dozens of voters were registered as Republicans without their knowledge in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, The Press-Enterprise of Riverside reported Thursday.

The newspaper analyzed voter registration cards collected in late 2005 and early 2006 and found at least 37 that appeared to involve unauthorized changes of a voter's party. Only 19 of 60 people contacted by the newspaper said they were aware their party registration had been changed to Republican.

The newspaper said it appeared many of the unauthorized changes were made by signature gatherers who received a bonus for each new GOP registration.

2. EPA ignores advice for annual limits on tiny soot - Science panel had urged tighter rules, citing health effects - SF Gate, Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

Snip:

Ignoring the advice of its own science panel and several health and environmental groups, the Bush administration issued new limits Thursday on lethal soot particles billowing from sources such as power plants, trucks and ships.

. . . the EPA's science panel had wanted a rule that would go further in cutting pollution made up of microscopic flecks of dirt, soot and vapor. Fine particles have been linked to thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks and other health problems.

In his decision, Johnson (EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson) failed to tighten limits of the amount of fine particulate pollution that may be emitted in a year.

Medical experts, including some EPA staff members, say that annual standard must be strong to safeguard public health, particularly in urban areas.

The new standard was attacked by such industry groups as Edison Electric Institute, an industry group of power companies, and National Home Builders. They don't like the EPA reducing the daily standard, arguing there is uncertainty over the health benefits of reducing fine particles and that it's costly.

1. Voting irregularities which strangely favor the GOP are nothing new. Anybody remember the 2000 and 2004 elections?

2. No surprise that the Bush EPA is catering to industry and big business at the expense of human and environmental health. This, after all, is the administration that has denied the effects of global warming even as the flood waters rise around them. Apparently EPA no longer stands for Environmental Protection Agency but Expendable Planet Agency.

Here we go again

U.N. inspectors challenge House nuclear report on Iran 'Outrageous and dishonest' claims, officials complain - Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, via SFGate

Snips:

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained Wednesday to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) openly clashed with the Bush administration on prewar assessments of alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra (Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) said his intent was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." His spokesman Jamal Ware said Wednesday that Hoekstra would respond to the IAEA letter.

They lied and fabricated evidence in an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq and, since that worked so well, they're using the same game plan on Iran. How does the old saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well, not all of us were fooled the first time - in fact, how anybody with even two working brain cells could have bought the Bush Regime's crap regarding the so called Iraqi threat is beyond me. Fear, I know, is a great selling point. In fact, let's run Peter Hoekstra's comment snipped above through the double talk translator, shall we?

Here, again, is is the Hoekstra quote regarding his intent in releasing the House Committee report on Iran: "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat."

Now, the double talk translation: to help increase the American public's fear of Iran as a threat.

Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer, via SF Gate

Snips in red

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence. . .

Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

end snips

Well, Snow and his masters at The White House are certainly correct that there is "nothing new" in the senate report. It is old news that Saddam was in no way connected with the events of 9/11. Just as it is old news that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the Bush Administration had Iraq on its agenda long before the invasion began. Which brings us to even more old news - that pesky little Downing Street Memo, which clearly illustrates that war was not a last but a first option for Bush. Snip from The Downing Street Memo:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

Until Bush responds (or perhaps I should say, until we get the truth) to the Congressional letter submitted to him on the subject of The Downing Street Memo (which he has failed to do for more than a year now), the lack of WMDs in Iraq, the lack of a connection between The Iraqi Government and al-Qaida, and the complete fabrication of the case for war will remain the freshest and most relevant of "old news".

Fear and Man's Destruction of Himself

view large or even larger and read if you care. If you dare.

Liner notes from the ultra classic 1971 psychedelic funk rock album, Maggot Brain by Funkadelic

The GOP proves once again that it has your best interests at heart. At least if you happen to be a large corporation or Agri-Business:


House eyes national toxics law GOP lawmakers would forbid states from passing tougher pesticide bills

House Republicans are pushing new legislation that could wipe out the ability of California and other states to ban or strictly limit the use of pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals that can jeopardize human health.

The measure, approved by a House committee Wednesday on a mostly party line vote, is the latest effort by the Republican-led Congress to block states from enacting environmental, public health or consumer protections that are more stringent than federal standards.

***

On a party line vote Wednesday, the committee defeated an effort to replace the cost-benefit standard with a standard that focused solely on human health risks.

- Snipped from: House eyes national toxics law GOP lawmakers would forbid states from passing tougher pesticide bills - Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Bureau -

2 Cents

Coulter lambastes 9/11 widows in new book

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief “to make a political point.”

- Snipped from AP story (my italics) -


Ms. Coulter certainly has big balls for a woman. I mean, the audacity of claiming these widows have used 9/11 and the horrible deaths of their husbands to make a political point! If we're goling to make claims like that let's start right at the top with George W. and his entire creepy/sleazy/corrupt administration. They used and are still using the tragedy and terror of 9/11 to propagate a climate of fear, to push an extreme right wing agenda and, of course, to rush the U.S. into a war of corporate greed and empire. Not to mention that Ms. Coulter herself is using the widows' grief to make a political point by claiming that the widows are trying to score political points.

Huge

Ugly

Machine

Milking

Earth's

Resources

Baldy Modules

Gilded Twit

Whispering Biscuits

Fernado Poo

over the fence

Bongo Nodules

Mullioned Poot

Golden Hoot

Poop Deck