I Don't Get It

If Major League Baseball is a private organization, why is Congress involved in trying to figure out who used performance enhancing drugs?

Is this a criminal investigation with people on trial for illegal drug use? Doesn't seem like it. Can someone explain this to me?

Your Vote Counts

Amazing how close the Democratic vote was yesterday:

Clinton: 7,350,238
Obama: 7,295,400

Love Hope Fear

Great post from Seth Godin on motivations that marketers use.

Google, amazingly quickly, became a beloved brand, something many people see as bigger than themselves, something bigger than hope. Apple lives in this arena as well. I think if you deliver hope for a long time (and deliver on it sometimes) you can graduate to love. Ronald Reagan was beloved, even when he was making significant long-term errors. So was JFK. Hillary may be respected, but Obama is loved.

Hope

This gives me a feeling of hope that I haven't felt in the last 7 years.

Dick Cheney Boggles Me

Dick Cheney on why it was a bad idea to take out Saddam back in the Gulf War. It's fascinating how prophetic and ironic it is.

Olbermann on the Libby Commutation

All Life is Sacred Except When it's Not

sa·cred /ˈseɪkrɪd/
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

"All life is Sacred." - George W. Bush, June 21st, 2007

Yesterday Bush used the premise "all life is sacred" to justify why he vetoed the stem-cell research bill. His argument goes something like this:

1. All life is sacred
2. Embryos are "life"
3. Stem-cell research violates embryos
4. By definition, sacred things should not be violated
5. Therefore, stem-cell research should not take place

In order to agree with his argument, you have to accept his premise that "all life is sacred". Let's take a closer look at it. The first thing to notice is the word "all". "All" means the whole amount. By "life" does he mean human life? With the word "all" there he either means "all human life" or "all living things". Since I'm skeptical that he doesn't mean "all living things" we'll go with "all human life". And the definitions of "sacred" are above. Which one does he mean? I would guess he means it something like "secured against violation, infringement" with some religious overtones.

So premise #1 is probably "All human life is secured against violation because it is sacred".

I believe bush uses the phrase "all life" to really mean that embryos are human beings and that he would use the same argument to say that abortion is wrong. My point here isn't to debate the status of embryos. My point is that by saying "all life" to make a very specific point (viz., that embryos are human beings") he steps into a huge logistical trap. If anyone has followed the words of G.W. Bush closely you'll know that logic really has no meaning for him and I hold no illusions about this. However, I want to spring the trap anyway.

If we hold Bush to his premise that "all (human) life is sacred" then we can make the following argument:

1. All life is sacred
2. The invasion/occupation of Iraq violates human life (many humans have been killed because of Bush's decision to invade and occupy so this premise is clearly true)
3. By definition, sacred things should not be violated
4. Therefore, the Iraq invasion/occupation should not take place

We could take it a step further if we thought he literally meant all life and not just human life:

1. All life is sacred
2. Factory farming violates animal lives
3. By definition, sacred things should not be violated
4. Therefore, factory farming should not take place

Or how about:

1. All life is sacred
2. The death penalty violates human life
3. By definition, sacred things should not be violated
4. Therefore, the death penalty should not take place

Wow, "all life is sacred" sure is a handy premise.

Does Bush really mean "all life?" Or is it "all life, except Iraqis, convicted murderers, terrorists, animals or ...?" Or is it "all life is sacred except when it's not?"

Global Climate Change: An Interesting Argument

I love this kind of philosophy. He asks not whether global warming is true, but what action should we take. Thanks to Shawn for sending me this video.


Interesting Argument About Global Warming - Watch more free videos

Vegan is the New Prius

Search the web for information about the new UN report regarding global warming and you'll see that it says the meat industry contributes more to the problem than transportation. There are plenty of articles on the subject but of course none seem to be in the mainstream media. If the research is correct then the single most effective thing anyone can do to help fix global warning is to become a vegan. What follows is one of the articles which is entitled "Vegetarian is the New Prius" and I've highlighted some of it in bold for my own emphasis.

Vegetarian is the New Prius
by Kathy Freston


President Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." With warnings about global warming reaching feverish levels, many are having second thoughts about all those cars. It seems they should instead be worrying about the chickens.

Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

That's right, global warming. You've probably heard the story: emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are changing our climate, and scientists warn of more extreme weather, coastal flooding, spreading disease, and mass extinctions. It seems that when you step outside and wonder what happened to winter, you might want to think about what you had for dinner last night. The U.N. report says almost a fifth of global warming emissions come from livestock (i.e., those chickens Hoover was talking about, plus pigs, cattle, and others)--that's more emissions than from all of the world's transportation combined.

For a decade now, the image of Leonardo DiCaprio cruising in his hybrid Toyota Prius has defined the gold standard for environmentalism. These gas-sipping vehicles became a veritable symbol of the consumers' power to strike a blow against global warming. Just think: a car that could cut your vehicle emissions in half - in a country responsible for 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. Federal fuel economy standards languished in Congress, and average vehicle mileage dropped to its lowest level in decades, but the Prius showed people that another way is possible. Toyota could not import the cars fast enough to meet demand.

Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas guzzling consumer purchase. They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world's forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. These forests serve as "sinks," absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, and burning these forests releases all the stored carbon dioxide, quantities that exceed by far the fossil fuel emission of animal agriculture.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide--gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals' digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.

It's a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.

What we're seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.

It sounds like a lot of bad news, but in fact it's quite the opposite. It means we have a powerful new weapon to use in addressing the most serious environmental crisis ever to face humanity. The Prius was an important step forward, but how often are people in the market for a new car? Now that we know a greener diet is even more effective than a greener car, we can make a difference at every single meal, simply by leaving the animals off of our plates. Who would have thought: what's good for our health is also good for the health of the planet!

Going veg provides more bang for your buck than driving a Prius. Plus, that bang comes a lot faster. The Prius cuts emissions of carbon dioxide, which spreads its warming effect slowly over a century. A big chunk of the problem with farmed animals, on the other hand, is methane, a gas which cycles out of the atmosphere in just a decade. That means less meat consumption quickly translates into a cooler planet.

Not just a cooler planet, also a cleaner one. Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world's acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world's largest source of water pollution--killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger.

Doing so has never been easier. Recent years have seen an explosion of environmentally-friendly vegetarian foods. Even chains like Ruby Tuesday, Johnny Rockets, and Burger King offer delicious veggie burgers and supermarket refrigerators are lined with heart-healthy creamy soymilk and tasty veggie deli slices. Vegetarian foods have become staples at environmental gatherings, and garnered celebrity advocates like Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Paul McCartney, and of course Leonardo DiCaprio. Just as the Prius showed us that we each have in our hands the power to make a difference against a problem that endangers the future of humanity, going vegetarian gives us a new way to dramatically reduce our dangerous emissions that is even more effective, easier to do, more accessible to everyone and certainly goes better with french fries.

Ever-rising temperatures, melting ice caps, spreading tropical diseases, stronger hurricanes... So, what are you do doing for dinner tonight? Check out www.VegCooking.com for great ideas, free recipes, meal plans, and more! Check out the environmental section of www.GoVeg.com for a lot more information about the harmful effect of meat-eating on the environment.

Kathy Freston is a self-help author and personal growth and spirituality counselor. She is the author of Expect a Miracle: Seven Spiritual Steps to Finding the Right Relationship. Her CDs offering guided meditation have been featured in W, Self, and Mode. Kathy and her husband, Tom Freston, divide their time between New York and Los Angeles.

Alex Jones

I guess even when Bush was a Governor it was "illegal" to speak to him. For more on Alex Jones, do a search on youtube.com and you'll see some of his "rants". He also has a radio show.

The Surge

After the elections overwhelmingly showed that Americans want to end the occupation of Iraq, Bush is going to propose INCREASING troops. I hope the Congress smacks down on this.

Why must he always do the opposite of the will of the people? Everyone knows that the problem Bush created in Iraq cannot be solved with military might. He's believed that was the solution from the beginning and has never let go of that idea.

Update: Two-thirds of Americans oppose this plan. Congress didn't get a say in it. Unpopular dictator.

What does "victory" mean in Iraq?

I just read that Bush still thinks the only option in Iraq is "victory". He's claims to be looking at different options for what to do with the (finally admitted) completely messed up situation over there. If he is (and he seems to be) approaching this as looking for different options for "victory" against "extremists" then he will surely continue to lose. Talk about clueless.

The situation in Iraq is about a civil war. When Bush took Saddam out of power he created a power vacuum in a highly sectarian country and now we see the results. This isn't about terrorism and much as Bush would like to think it is.

Hopefully when we get the new Senate and House we will see some movement towards pulling out. I don't trust the James Baker lead Iraq Study Group for a second. James Baker is not an elected official and he is as partisan as they come. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

FYI: Bush's approval rating on his handling of Iraq is at an all time low of 21%.

The Elections

This is just a quick post to say I'm thrilled with the results so far of the elections. At this point the Republicans have lost control of the House and the Senate lies in the balance. It is such a relief to get some balance back into our government. The people have finally spoken that they are not happy with what the Republicans have been doing.

More on this later as results are finalized.

Update: Bush admitted the election results say that the people want a new direction in the Iraq and therefore Rumsfeld is resigning. Things are looking good in the Senate as it has now come down to the election in Virginia and the Democrat is leading although it's close enough that it might go to recount.

This is truly amazing. We got our Democracy back.

Peace Candidates

My friend Paul was recently featured in an article at The Nation. The article is about only supporting "Peace Candidates" and here is an excerpt explaining what this means:

"In general, ‘peace candidate' means wanting to bring our troops home from Iraq," says Peace Action's Organizing and Policy Director, Paul Kawika Martin. "Although some also believe in cutting military spending, diplomacy for Iran, nuclear disarmament and other important peace issues."

This is a good policy to keep in mind when you vote on Tuesday.

Barack Obama

Here is a video clip of Senator Barack Obama on the Daily Show. He's considering a run for President in 2008 and he looks to be an exciting candidate.

My favorite part from this clip is when he says the invasion of Iraq is like a situation where you have a guy who drove the bus into a ditch. You have to get the bus out of the ditch and that's not easy to do, but you should probably fire the driver.

"A Dunk in the Water"

In a recent interview with Dick Cheney, this was said in regards to the Military Commissions Act and interrogation (bold sections are my emphasis):

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.

The Congress recently voted on this question of military commissions and our authority to continue the interrogation program. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House -- or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators -- Democratic senators voted against it. We wouldn't have that authority today if they were in charge. That's a very important issue in this campaign.

Are we going to allow the executive branch to have the authority granted and authorized by the Congress to be able to continue to collect the intelligence we need to defend the nation.

Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

And thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.

When I read that I immediately thought he was referring to waterboarding since that particular technique has been a high profile part of this issue. What else could that mean? Later that day, many articles appeared around the globe stating that Cheney endorses waterboarding.

One day later and the spin begins. Now the White House is denying that he was referring to waterboarding in this discussion. Spokesman Tony Snow(job) was asked what then does a "dunk in the water" mean? His answer: "a dunk in the water."

Update: Here is an article documenting some of the follow dodging and weaving and spinning by the White House regarding this.

Bush "Cuts and runs" on "Stay the Course"

The Bush administration is fond of saying their opponents "cut and run" or "flip flop" when they change their mind on something. These terms are manipulative and only hold value in terms of sound bite framing. "Stay the course" has been a Bush favorite in describing what he thinks we should do in Iraq. First of all, flexibility is a good trait to have and secondly he never defined the "course" to begin with. Anyway.

It is with great pleasure that I can now say that Bush has "cut and run" on "stay the course". They have decided to not use that phrase anymore because "conditions on the ground are dynamic". What they are saying is that they are willing to change their military tactics but nothing else. What they are missing is that the problem is not tactics; the problem is overall strategy. The goals they have set are absurd. They have no strategy to achieve those goals. And they think that changing tactics will somehow achieve the goal?

The missing component is strategy. I would love to hear from anyone who can tell me what the Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq is.

Update: Today Bush gave a press conference and essentially said we're not leaving Iraq. Greenwald wrote an article on this that is well worth reading. Here is a small quote from it:

Second, the President's remarks illustrated more vividly than ever before the towering incoherence at the heart of this whole project. According to the President, the reason that it is so important that we "win" -- meaning creating a stable Iraqi government -- is because American security depends upon the creation of an Iraq that is a "partner of the U.S. in the war on terror." But there is a complete disconnect -- and there always has been -- between stabilizing the Iraqi government and having a "partner of the U.S. in the war on terror."

Update 2:

|Digg This|

A Joke

I got this joke from the Marc Perkel Blog ("The Most Dangerous Mind on the Internet"). It's funny, yet not so funny.

What's the difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam? George W. Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

Speaking of Slogans

"Slogans" is one of my favorite Bob Marley songs and here are the apropos lyrics:

Can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more.

Wipe out the paintings of slogans
all over the streets (ooh, ooh, ooh),
confusing the people
while your asphalt burns our tired feet.
I see borders and barriers,
segregation, demonstration and riots (ooh, ooh, ooh),
a-sufferation of the refugees,
oh-oh, when, when will we be free?

Oh-oh-oh, we can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
no more sweet talk from-a pulpit,
no more sweet talk from the hypocrites.

So we know we can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
can't take your slogans no more,
no more sweet talk from-a pulpit,
no more sweet talk from the pulpit.

No more sweet talk from-a pulpit,
no more sweet talk from the hypocrites (oh, no hypocrites!),
no more sweet talk from-a pulpit (wo-ah yeah),
no more sweet talk (no-no-no-no sweet talk) from the hypocrites (hey!),
no more sweet talk from-a pulpit,
no more sweet talk (no-no-no-no sweet talk) from the hypocrites (no-no-no-no hey!)

Iraq is not Improving

The Bush administration is constantly saying that things are improving in Iraq. They use empty slogans like "Stay the Course", "Freedom is on the March" and "Mission Accomplished". Here are some numbers released today:

*10 U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday
*67 U.S. soldiers have been killed so far in October
*54000 Iraqi families have been displaced (100,000 children are affected by this)

I've yet to hear Bush give a comprehensive strategy for making things better. The current "course" is clearly not working and he falsely claims the only other option is to "cut and run". He is fond of false dilemmas and straw man arguments. I'd love to hear from some Bush supporters what they think the strategy is; what does "staying the course" consist of doing to make things better in Iraq?

A plan is needed, not slogans.

Update: Bush recently defined what victory means in Iraq and he says it's "vital to our national security" to achieve this.

"Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: a country that can sustain itself; a country that can govern itself; a country that can defend itself; and a country that will be an ally in the war against these extremists."

What is interesting is that before the invasion, Iraq had all those qualities except for the part about being an ally in the war against extremists. Iraq wasn't an ally or an enemy in this regard and it was never shown why it was so important to get it to be an ally. And invasion was probably the worst possible choice for trying to achieve this. To the contrary, Invasion has created the need for Bush's so called "unchanging" goals in Iraq.

I also think he needs to get more clear on the definition of the following four words: Goal, Strategy, Plan and Tactic.

A Moment of Silence ...

Today, Bush signed the Torture Bill into law. I would like to take a moment to mourn this loss.

Now, let's make something happen next month.

"The Day We Took Over The Senate"

This article describes the recent Iraq war protest that took place at the Senate offices. It is a really interesting read because it provides insight into how protests work. The first time my friend Paul told that they negotiate with the Police I found that a bit strange but after reading this article I understand it much better. I still don't really understand "unlawful assembly" but it's sad that they got arrested for peacefully going to their government offices to remind our representatives that the people dying in Iraq are real (yes, they do actually need reminding).

Given the bad news yesterday of the Senate passing the torture bill, it's nice to read something like this. I'm really thankful that there are people in Washington practicing Democracy and trying to make a better country.

Senator Feingold on the Torture Bill

Here is some good analysis cutting through the complex legalese of the bill. It's long but I thought it was well worth posting.

Another good article on this topic.

Will Wheaton's thoughts on it.

Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.

Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us.

And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime—the ability to challenge their detention in court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling—that the legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.

But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy – ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”

Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Mr. President, why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our nation’s commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good reason to do so? We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And this provision will only serve to harm others’ perception of our system of government.

Mr. President, a group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said: “To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary governmental detention will not serve our interests in the larger world.”

Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations about this particular provision of the bill.

They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because they don’t understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate who support the Specter amendment, are concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that American presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

Mr. President, we must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ. We must not jeopardize our nation’s proud traditions and principles by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about.


Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem with this legislation, nor is it the only instance where the legislation goes beyond establishing military commissions to include unnecessary provisions with deeply troubling results.

The Administration has spoken about the need for this legislation to bring clarity to the War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It has proposed that we specifically list the actions that would be considered crimes under that law. On the face of it, that certainly sounds sensible. But when you look at this legislation, you realize that the modification it makes only muddies the waters. Not only that, it does so retroactively.

The key problem is in the definition of “cruel or inhuman” treatment. This is a critical definition because it is the provision that determines which coercive interrogation techniques amount to crimes under U.S. law. But because of the complex structure of this section, it is very difficult to understand what the new definition would criminalize, and I am concerned that any ambiguity may be interpreted too narrowly by some. The definition incorporates several terms that in turn have their own separate definitions, and it even has one new definition that doesn’t go into effect until the date of enactment, even though the rest of the amendments to the War Crimes Act are made retroactive to 1997. Frankly, Mr. President, the new prohibition is extremely unclear. And we have already heard different interpretations of it from Senators and Administration officials who negotiated the language. If our goal is to give unambiguous guidance to our personnel, and the courts, this does not do it.


The way the provision is drafted, it even seems designed to grant immunity to senior officials who authorized coercive interrogation techniques.

Mr. President, we should just follow the approach originally endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have applied the language of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant that is included in this legislation, and about the corresponding issue of the jurisdiction of the military commissions.

Mr. President, this legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities” against the United States or its allies.

This is extremely broad, and key terms go undefined. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the bill allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States.

Not only that, but the bill would also define as an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who “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.” This essentially grants a blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military commission.

If we are going to establish military commissions outside of our traditional military and civilian justice systems, at a minimum we should explicitly limit their application to the worst of the worst, those who pose a serious threat to our country. We shouldn’t leave it up to just one branch of government to make these incredibly important decisions.

Mr. President, the bulk of this legislation concerns the structure and process of military commissions. Although we heard from many witnesses at congressional hearings this summer that we should hew as closely as possible to the long-established military system of justice, this bill instead essentially starts from scratch and creates a whole new structure. It does so despite Justice Kennedy’s wise advice in his concurrence in Hamdan, where he said: “The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment.”

For example, this legislation creates a presumption for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Now, it is true that because of the exigencies of war and active combat situations, hearsay rules may need to be structured differently than they are in our criminal courts, but the rules laid out in the UCMJ are drafted to handle these same exigencies. While there may need to be some adjustments to the UCMJ hearsay rules, we need not discard them altogether.

The presumption against hearsay is a fundamental protection built into our existing legal structures to ensure that proceedings yield a just and fair result. Yet in this provision and elsewhere, the legislation erodes such protections—going far beyond what is allowed in the military system—and without justification.

Even more disturbing is that the bill appears to permit individuals to be convicted, and even sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced testimony. According to the legislation, statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as long as it was obtained prior to December 2005 when the McCain amendment become law, would apparently be admissible in many instances in these military commissions.

Now, it is true that the bill would require the commission to find these statements have sufficient reliability and probative value. But why would we go down this road of trying to convict people based on statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques? Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for the rule of law, or we are not. We can’t have it both ways.

The idea that coerced statements can be used as long as they were obtained long enough ago is appalling. It seems to assume that there was a lack of clarity in the law prior to December 2005. In fact, there was great clarity, until this Administration decided to invent a narrow definition of torture that had never been used or accepted anywhere in the civilized world. The McCain amendment was needed to get this Administration to return to the law. It was a repudiation of the legal theories of the infamous Bybee memo, which the Administration even said it was withdrawing once it was publicly revealed. Its enactment should not now be used as a dividing point before which evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment can be used in court.

At times of great adversity, the strength of a nation’s convictions is tested and its true character revealed. If we sacrifice or qualify our principles in the face of the tremendous challenge we face from terrorists who want to destroy America, we will be making a terrible mistake. If we cloak cruel or degrading interrogations done in the name of American safety with euphemisms like “alternative techniques,” if we create arbitrary dates for when differing degrees of morality will apply, we will have betrayed our principles and ourselves.

Statements obtained through such techniques should not be admissible, even against the most vicious killers in the world, in proceedings held by the government of the United States of America. Period.

Mr. President, in sum, this legislation is very troubling and in many respects legally suspect. I fear the end result of this legislation will only be more delay. It will surely be subject to further legal challenge, and may squander another four or five years while cases work their way through the courts again.

We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without compromising fundamental American values. We must remember what the Army Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers will be treated.

Mr. President, in closing let me do something I don’t do very often – and that is quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: “Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.” How sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same cannot be said.

Torture Bill Passes the House

The House has passed the torture bill and the Senate will vote on it today and is expected to pass it. It passed by 80 votes in the House and it should be noted that 34 Democrats voted for it. There is really is no opposition party in Congress at the moment. I'm trying to to find the vote roll call so I can see which Representatives voted for torture - when I do find it I will post it here. This is a sad sad day in American history.

Update: Rhino has posted a list of the offending Democrats and what State they are from.

Clinton Takes Fox "News" to the Cleaners

Update: Looks like Youtube has taken these videos down and they are also not available on Fox anymore. I'll look around and see where I can find them.

In the meantime you can watch Keith Olbermann talk about it. He is THE man!

Update 2: Here is the Clinton video. And here is a transcript (thanks M@).

Update 3: The John Stewart take on it. His focus on how Fox news spun the interview after the fact.

Rep. Tim Ryan is Awesome

This is what we need from the Democrats:

What universe am I living in?

The political situation just keeps on getting more and more surreal. You have the President trying to legalize torture and some Republican "rebels" who apparently oppose this but in the end the "compromise" they came to gives Bush what he wanted: legal torture. The media played up the GOP opposition that really didn't exist. Talk about misdirection.

Then you've got the Democrats who are nowhere to be heard on the issue. They should be outraged and active to make sure that torture is not legalized in our name but not a peep. On the same day as the "compromise" what was in the news about Democrats? How they took a stand against Chavez the name caller and supported Bush. For a time this story trumped the torture compromise on the front page on CNN! The Chavez thing had nothing to do with them but it appears they felt it was a good political move to comment and spend time on this piece of nothingness name calling rather than focusing on the all important issue that torture is on it's way to being legal. What an awful "opposition" party.

Remember in Back To The Future (I think it was the second one) when Biff went into the past and cheated on gambling and this set off a chain of events to recreate the future as a dark and miserable place? Doc makes a chart showing two reality time lines with dark reality starting at the point in time when Biff goes back and cheats. The solution is to go back in time before that event and prevent Biff from doing this. Why am I talking about this? Well when Bush stole (yes, I truly believe that) the 2000 election I felt like I had started to live in an alternate dark reality. I predicted bad things (a recession and a war with in a year) but I wasn't even close to how bad things were going to get. As things have become more bizarre I increasingly feel like I'm in the Back To The Future alternative dark reality. Either that or a nightmare that I can't seem to wake up out of. It's just too strange for my mind to accept. Think of it: we're about to say that torture is okay. What has happened?

|Digg This|

"It is unacceptable to think"

Keith Olbermann is my new hero. His latest piece is about how Bush said it was unacceptable to think in response to Powell's recent letter questioning the moral basis of the "war on terror". This video is well worth watching. It is so good to have someone calling this stuff out in an eloquent and strong way. Thank you Keith!

This video below is similar but doesn't include Olbermann's full speech. It shows some footage from Bush's Rose Garden press conference last week. Surreal.

Powell Opposes Bush's Tribunal Plan

Powell wrote a letter to John McCain which said:

Dear Senator McCain,

I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one my [sic] distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and fact his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It was written after all the horrors of World War II and General George C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those in our custody.

Sincerely,

Colin Powell

It's good to see that Powell and other Republicans are opposing Bush's push for even more executive power. I really feel a turn-about happening.

Bush argues he needs this legislation in order to "do his duty to protect the American people". I straight up don't believe him which begs the question: what is the true purpose of him pushing for so much executive power and the right to torture? Is it power for power sake?

Oh and what's on the front page of cnn.com? Picture of the guy who shot up the Montreal College yesterday.

The Abuse of the Question Mark

John Stewart is so good:

Matt Lauer Stands Up To Bush

This video is an example of how the media are finally gaining courage to stand up to this administration and ask the tough questions and to not back down when the usual pat answers come. When other journalists see how much this is appreciated by the public they too will start doing it. This video is really encouraging. Thanks Matt Lauer!

As for Bush he seems like a desperate caged animal. Notice how he sticks his chest and points at Matt and closes in on his personal space. Makes me uncomfortable to watch and I love how calm Matt stays. The key point Bush makes here is that the "alternative techniques" are within in the law and we're just going to have to trust him on that because he can't talk specifics. I wonder: if the citizens or the media can't check on the government how we can ever know if these techniques are legal or not? Where is the check?

Bush's "I can't tell you for security reasons" if all too convenient. I don't see how stating the specific techniques would help the "enemy". As if a person can prepare for their waterboarding session.

Update: Thanks to Rhino for mentioning this video in the comments. Another example of the changing posture of the media.

Update 2: I was just watching this again and I think it should be noted that when Matt asked Bush about the secret prisons, Bush's answer was "So what?". He's not even pretending to offer rational explanations.

John Stewart on Crossfire

This is two years old but it doesn't get old if you've seen it before and if you haven't it is a treat. John Stewart rocks! So refreshing to see someone being ... real.

Cheney: Forget WMDs, Iraq invasion correct

In an interview with Tim Russert, Cheney said that even if the intelligence would have shown that Iraq didn't have WMDs, he would have still invaded.

This is a stunning thing to say because the public justification for invading was WMDs. Notice too that he says they would have invaded anyway "because it was the right thing to do". He doesn't provide much evidence to support this statement. Why was it the right thing to do? As usual with the Bush administration, we are required to just believe them. The only support he gives is that Saddam had WMDs in 1991. Saddam's capabilities in 1991 have nothing to do with his capabalities in 2003. The justification for invasion was that Saddam was a threat to the United States and it has now been shown beyond a shadow of doubt that was not true. Yet Cheney would still invade. On what grounds? I can only conclude it was on the grounds that it was in the plans from day 1 so the reason didn't matter.

"Alternative Set of Procedures"

"Alternative set of procedures" is what Bushed called torture. He was describing how the CIA has secret prisons for terrorists (not suspected, because Bush already knows they're guilty - it's good to be king) abroad and when "normal" interrogation techniques don't yield enough information, these alternative set of procedures are used.

I have two things to say about this:

1. When you use the word "alternative" it means something other than what is normally done. I strongly suspect that what is normally done is within the law and when that doesn't work, they need to go outside the law. You wouldn't need to call them "alternative" if they all fit within the law, now would you? They would all exist in the same subset. "Alternative set of procedures" reeks of political spin. Kind of like one of the times when Bush updated the reasons why he invaded Iraq by saying that "weapons of mass destruction related program activities" had been found.

2. Then he goes 1984 on us and says he can't describe these alternative techniques because then the bad guys would be able to learn to resist them. Right. As if anyone can resist the effects of weeks without sleep chained to a cement floor. With the recent story of a Judge declaring that Bush's wiretapping is illegal, I don't think our nation can afford to let him continue doing things in secret. He essentially wants us to blindly trust him that he's not doing anything illegal and not allowing anyone to check. Today he said, "I've said to the people that we don't torture, and we don't." Tough to swallow from an administration with a track record of lying. Unchecked power is not a hallmark of democracy.

On a side note, every now and then the truth will slip out:

"I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy, and will provide the enemy more opportunity, to train, plan to attack us, that's what I mean. One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror," Mr. Bush said.

|Digg This|

Nonsensical

Bush recently said that history will judge if the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. By this I think he means that when this mess is looked back upon from the future with 20/20 hindsight it will be clear that it was the right thing to do. I disagree with this notion because it's just a way of delaying responsibility and accountability. It's clear now (with 5 years of failed policy) that it was a mistake so we should act now to fix it rather than expending many more lives only to come to the same conclusion in the future.

Today Bush said that history would condemn a retreat from Iraq.

He's still saying that history will be the judge but now he knows how history will judge it! Which really means he's judged it now rather than waiting for history to judge it? You following this? It's a bit convoluted because his logic is so twisted an nonsensical.

To sum what he's saying: if he judges whether or not invading Iraq was the right thing to do then he can judge it now and it was correct. If anyone else judges now and says it was a bad idea, well then they can't say that because only history can judge.

I think the strategy here is to use bizarre logic because no one can follow what he's trying to say. Or maybe they are relying on the masses having such a short attention span that massive gaps in logic and consistency will go unnoticed. Sadly, I think they are right.

There is no such thing as the "war on terror"

Yesterday Bush said: "The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

Sounds like the effort to control by fear is getting more and more desperate.

Let's deconstruct this:

"The war we fight today...": His so called "war on terror" is absurd. You can't fight a war against a technique. There have always been terrorists and they have always been dealt with as a criminal issue. Turning it into a war and dropping bombs clearly will never reduce the amount of terrorism - actually, it will only increase it as innocent people get killed.

"..is more than a military conflict.": Very tricky. The hidden assumption here is that people who disagree with him think it is just a military conflict. Therefore, the fact this this IS a war is not in question. You can see that if you think there really is no such thing as the "war on terror" then the rest of this argument falls apart but the assumption in his speech leaves no room to question this. It all relies on believing in this war. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has been repeating this phrase over and over until it has become an unquestioned fact. Since everything he stands for relies on this assumption, this is where he should be attacked by the media and the opposing political parties. Sadly Democrats like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton accept the validity of the war on terror - they differ with Bush on how to go about fighting it. They've lost already because Bush framed the argument and they accepted the frame.

"It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.": First let's define "ideology":

A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Bush goes on to define it specifically:

"On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation, the right of all people to speak and worship and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism, the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest."

They might as well put this quote in the fallacy book next to False Dilemma. Bush never provided any evidence to show that this dichotomy exists. The real world is clearly not black and white as he tries to portray it. The irony is that the "other side" more accurately describes his own administration than some nebulous "terrorists" out there.

There is no war on terror. There is no ideological struggle. These are the words of desperate people to maintain power they have built through lies, exaggeration and fear. Slowly more and more people are seeing through this charade and so their reaction is to ratchet it up. The more they ratchet it up, the more absurd it gets, the more people see through it. The end of these dark years may just be in sight...one can hope.

|Digg This|

Bush Admits that Saddam Had Nothing to do With 9/11

This is from today:



Of course he tries to get off on the technicality that he never said that Saddam "ordered the attacks".

This video is painful. There have been so many lies and revisions about the reasons for invading Iraq and it shows. You can see the "lie" wheels turning as he stumbles about.

Update: This is a really good article on this press conference. I especially like that part about how Bush doesn't really seem to understand what "strategy" means. He confuses strategy with objectives. Here is an excerpt:

"As for Iraq, it's no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come as news—and, really, a bit of a shocker—is that he doesn't seem to know what "strategy" means.

Asked if it might be time for a new strategy in Iraq, given the unceasing rise in casualties and chaos, Bush replied, "The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. … Either you say, 'It's important we stay there and get it done,' or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president."

The reporter followed up, "Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy—"

Bush interrupted, "Sounded like the question to me."

First, it's not clear that the Iraqi people want a "democratic society" in the Western sense. Second, and more to the point, "helping Iraqis achieve a democratic society" may be a strategic objective, but it's not a strategy—any more than "ending poverty" or "going to the moon" is a strategy.

Strategy involves how to achieve one's objectives—or, as the great British strategist B.H. Liddell Hart put it, "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy." These are the issues that Bush refuses to address publicly—what means and resources are to be applied, in what way, at what risk, and to what end, in pursuing his policy. Instead, he reduces everything to two options: "Cut and run" or, "Stay the course." It's as if there's nothing in between, no alternative way of applying military means. Could it be that he doesn't grasp the distinction between an "objective" and a "strategy," and so doesn't see that there might be alternatives? Might our situation be that grim?"

Pres.ide.nt 2.0

I found this list of web 2.0 parody logos. Very entertaining. Below is an example:

My Friend Paul

Paul is life long activist who lives in Washington DC. He's there mixing it up with the Federal Government to help make the world a better place. In this picture he's giving a speech in Japan at a Hiroshima Workshop. He was in Japan for the 61st anniversary of the nuclear bomb being dropped giving speeches and workshops. What a star!

You can follow what Paul is up to by subscribing to The Peace Blog.

Update: Here is a post on The Peace Blog that has Paul's Hiroshima speech. You'll see Paul in the picture at the front of the march. These are the last words of the speech:

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. There are fewer countries than ever before seeking nuclear weapons. Let’s continue to work together as a world community towards nuclear abolition.

I am Japanese, you are American, we are one for peace.

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

A Federal judged has ruled the NSA eavesdropping program unconstitutional and ordered it to be ended immediately.

From the article:

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III." She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

I don't yet understand the implications of this. Does her ruling stand or will there be appeals? How much authority does she have to end this program? We'll see as time goes on. Either way, it's a win for civil liberties.

Update: Great article by an attorney detailing the ruling. He makes a good point that when this very important ruling went down, the "breaking" news on CNN was about the Ramsey murder. He also goes step by step through each part of the ruling and provides a PDF download of it.

And of course the Bush administration denies it.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed.

"We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

Generally, believing you didn't break the law doesn't hold up when a judge rules you did. You have to provide proof, not belief.

Stem Cell: The Veto

Bush