The "Christian" Right

From an interesting article in The Raw Story:

Larisa Alexandrovna: What is it that is driving the Christian right to such extremes? Is it fear? If so, fear of what? Is it something else?

Frank Schaeffer: It is fear of facts. Look, if you believe in the earth being 6000 years old, that gays chose to be gay and can "change," that Jesus will come back soon, that war in the Middle East is good... what you fear is the real world, the reality-based Americans who know you are dumb, crazy or both. It is resentment that drives the right.

John Conyers Responds to David Broder

UPDATED WITH EXCERPTS
UPDATE II

I'm grateful to see this response by Representative John Conyers to David Broder's shameful column, Why Holder is Wrong, appearing in today's Washington Post. Rep. Conyers makes some very good points. Yes, it's too little, too late--but at least a start. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. Please turn up the heat!

UPDATE
Here are a few of the highlights of Mr. Conyers' article. These show how people who care about upholding the Constitution and the Rule of Law should have been controlling the "debate" all along.

…the decision whether to investigate possible crimes connected to our interrogation programs is simply not a political one.

I do not know if Mr. Cheney broke the law, but I do know that, in my America, the law applies to him as it does to everyone else.

As the acknowledged "dean" of the Washington Press corps, David Broder is no mere observer of these events. He is an actor in the national debate, whose pronouncements help define what views are considered "reasonable." If he believes, as he claims, that accountability "should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings," he should reject those who would turn a fundamental issue of law into a "major, bitter partisan battle," not validate them as a fixed and appropriate part of the political landscape.

UPDATE II--Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Investigations
In this article in The National Law Journal, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) clearly lays out the legal rationale and logic behind investigations from the perspective of a former U.S. Attorney.

The only exceptional thing is the parties involved: the former vice president of the United States, his counsel David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer John Yoo and their private contractors Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, psychologists who designed the torture program. But in America, high office does not put one outside the law. Indeed, it borders on unethical for a prosecutor to refuse to investigate the corpus delicti of a crime because of concern as to where the evidence may lead.

Kreepy Kay

OK, call me slow. I've been wondering all day why every website I've visited was adorned with a "Kay for Governor" ad. Then I noticed it was a Google ad, and it dawned on me that it's one of those ads placed by their very Orwellian monitor-every-site-I-visit-to-see-what-targeted-marketing-I-might-like thingy. Well, I've got two news flashes for you, Google:

1) I think that thingy sucks and should be outlawed (if, indeed, it isn't already) and

2) If that thingy told you I might like an ad promoting Kay Bailey Hutchison for anything (after posting things like this and this), IT DOESN'T WORK!

Torture and Hypocrisy Revisited

Back on May 12, 2009 in I posted this article, Torture and Hypocrisy, in which I concluded:

Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!

Along the same lines, this article, My Mom Is a Torture Loving, Italian/Catholic, Fascist and Fox News Viewer, by Robert Corsini appears in today's The Public Record. It describes disturbingly well the deep disconnect in the philosophical outlook of the "Religious Right." The entire article should be read, but this paragraph is the heart of it:

People cannot support torture while claiming to be Christian—they are mutually exclusive. Just like fascism and democracy. Sorry Mom, I love you and your pasta, but you and masses of other right-wingers out there and not the Beatles, homosexuals, Muslims, hippies or rappers, have undermined the footing of American democracy.

My Letter to AG Holder

Attorney General Holder,

I am pleased to read that you are considering appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the activities of the Bush Administration--particularly in regard to torture. I am, however, amazed that there is anything still to be considered; the information already in the public domain--including numerous, public, recorded admissions by Bush, Cheney, and others--clearly indicts these individuals of serious criminal wrongdoing including war crimes. Our laws and treaty obligations require that you investigate these matters. Every day that goes by further implicates you, the Department of Justice, the Obama Administration, and Congress in complicity in these crimes.

We, The People, have been waiting for you to fulfill your obligation in this matter. We have grown weary of waiting and are losing confidence that any shred remains intact of the constitutional democracy so carefully crafted by our nation's founders.

It has been reported that you remarked not so long ago that our nation would be proud of our government again. I urge you to begin to make it so.

Holder May Probe Torture

This Newsweek article (release today from the pending July 20 publication) proclaims in its subheading, “Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway.” In the article the author, Daniel Klaidman, says, “For a new administration to reach back and investigate its predecessor is rare, if not unprecedented.” When compared with the “unprecedented” lawlessness which was the hallmark of the Bush Administration, that ridiculous excuse holds no water.

On the release of the “torture memos,” Klaidman writes:

Holder and his team celebrated quietly, and waited for national outrage to build. But they'd miscalculated. The memos had already received such public notoriety that the new details in them did not shock many people. (Even the revelation, a few days later, that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and another detainee had been waterboarded hundreds of times did not drastically alter the contours of the story.)

It is truly dishonest to make such a claim when the mainstream media—in the few instances in which the memos were mentioned at all—uniformly derailed the debate by using highly political (in MSM terms, “non-judgmental”) terminology to frame the issue (e.g. “enhanced interrogation techniques” and methods “which some call torture”) and quickly changed the debate to “did it work?” This was immediately followed by the obscene Cheney Torture Media Tour in which the former Vice Torturer repeatedly claimed that these “techniques” had “saved thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of lives.” A few public statements by President Obama and Attorney General Holder would have gone a long way toward refocusing the conversation.

If AG Holder hasn’t yet heard the voices of outrage, let’s help him out. He can be contacted at:

Office of the Attorney General
Phone: 202-514-2001
Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Fax:202-307-6777

Torture Must Be Punished

This article by Susan Goering appearing in today's Baltimore Sun is a must read. This excerpt very succinctly counters those who decry "looking back" as political:

The effect of these remedial steps [investigations and prosecutions] would not be, as some have suggested, to criminalize politics. On the contrary, to attempt to "move on" while standing on a foundation of unacknowledged criminality would be to politicize criminal conduct.

Are We Becoming (or Are We Already) a Police State?

Why I (Still) Hate Kay Bailey Hutchison

Updated 7/9/2009
Update II 7/26/2009
Update III 7/30/2009

Below is an email dated July 1 from Kay Bailey Hutchison’s office. It’s really quite disconcerting to see how freely and blatantly our elected officials lie to us. While Republicans have by no means cornered the market on self-serving deceit, under the eight-year “leadership” of liar-in-chief W, they’ve certainly perfected it.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing me regarding the implications of President Obama’s Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On September 11, 2001, the United States peered into the face of evil when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of Islamic extremism onto our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. That day changed the course of history, delineating the post-9/11 era from the days that came before. In the eight years since, America and its allies have boldly waged the Global War on Terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching America’s shores again and to protect free nations across the world. This conflict has presented our nation with unique operational challenges for which there is no wartime precedent, such as where and how to detain captured terrorists, including the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Since shortly after 9/11, enemy combatants have been detained at a prisoner facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Now, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has become a point of contention. Just two days after President Obama’s Inauguration, he issued an Executive Order to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility within a year. I believe this action is premature, and I am extremely concerned about the fast-looming deadline, particularly when no viable alternative for housing these dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants has been outlined.

President Barack Obama’s Executive Order states that the closure, which would require the release or transfer of nearly 300 detainees, should be practicable and consistent with national security interests. This cannot happen without a full discussion and thorough plan for the detainment of these enemy combatants. The policy contemplates five scenarios for handling current detainees: hand them over to their home countries for incarceration; transfer them to a neutral country; transfer them to prisons on U.S. soil; send them to U.S. facilities abroad; or release them outright. Unfortunately, all of these alternatives heighten the threat to the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Without question, the worst of these options is to send Guantanamo prisoners to domestic prisons in the United States. By taking this action, we would essentially place terrorists in the neighborhoods and communities of American citizens. In 2007, the U.S. Senate expressed its firm opposition to any plans to release Guantanamo detainees into American society or to house them in U.S. facilities, by a vote of 94-3. Vice President Biden (then-Senator of Delaware) was among the 94 Senators opposing transfer of the prisoners to the U.S; President Obama (then-Senator of Illinois) was not present for the vote.

Alternatively, transferring enemy combatants to prisons in foreign states or releasing them to their home countries is also a dangerous proposition. In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he is al-Qaeda’s deputy leader in Yemen and is charged with planning and executing acts of violence against the U.S. and its allies. And al-Shihri is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former prisoners came from the group of 500 that were deemed less dangerous and were thus released. That means that the approximately 270 detainees currently in Guantanamo represent the most violent and nefarious prisoners.

Clearly, a viable alternative to Guantanamo has not yet been identified. Expediting closure of this detention facility without absolutely ensuring American lives won’t be endangered would place misguided foreign policy goals above the protection of our homeland.

Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the pre-9/11 mindset.

On February 11, 2009, I sent a letter to the President, urging him to reconsider his Executive Order and to reject any option that could land terrorists in Texas or anywhere else on American soil. Before setting a deadline to close the detainment camp at Guantanamo Bay, the American people must first be assured that the transfer or release of detainees will not increase the risk of harm to American citizens at home or abroad. As it stands, the administration cannot give that assurance today.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue, and please feel free to write or call me in the future with your opinions.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States
Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov

I believe I made it pretty clear in this post that I possess no deep and abiding affection for Senator KBH. But, once again, let me try to begin deconstructing the web of falsehoods in this reply.

Dear Friend:
OK, right off the bat—I’m not even sure Senator Hutchison is capable of friendship (at least outside of the “what-can-you-do-for-me?” Tom “Hammer” Delay kind). Besides, I really don’t want her to be my friend; I want her to be my representative—a concept with which she seems to be blissfully unfamiliar.

Thank you for writing me regarding the implications of President Obama’s Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On September 11, 2001, the United States peered into the face of evil when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of Islamic extremism onto our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. That day changed the course of history, delineating the post-9/11 era from the days that came before. In the eight years since, America and its allies have boldly waged the Global War on Terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching America’s shores again and to protect free nations across the world. This conflict has presented our nation with unique operational challenges for which there is no wartime precedent, such as where and how to detain captured terrorists, including the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Tell me she didn’t!* KBH and her ilk would have us believe that when we “peered into the face of evil” on 9/11, life as we knew it was vaporized into thin air! “That day changed the course of history, delineating the post-9/11 era from the days that came before.” Well, yes, I guess that day did “change the course of history”—not because of what happened (which, admittedly changed history, but not so much the course of history), but because of the way in which the Bush administration exploited the event to further its already-determined, course-of-history-changing agenda.

“In the eight years since, America and its allies have boldly waged the Global War on Terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching America’s shores again and to protect free nations across the world.” That sentence is frothing with manipulative, fact-free, emotional and propagandistic language. I’ll just take that last part, “and to protect free nations across the world.” Well, if by “protect” you mean “bomb the hell out of them with ‘Shock and Awe’.” If by “free nations across the world” you mean “Christian nations”—and—even then—if you make exception for those cases in which citizens of Canada, Great Brittan, Australia, Italy, and the U.S. have been kidnapped, disappeared, tortured, indefinitely imprisoned, and in some cases murdered.

This conflict has presented our nation with unique operational challenges for which there is no wartime precedent.
Really? We have dealt with issues “such as where and how to detain captured terrorists” numerous times in our nation’s history, “including the self-confessed mastermind[s]” of terrorist actions. And we did so without torturing spurious “confessions” out of them.

I believe this action [issuing an Executive Order to close the Guantanamo Bay ‘terrorist detention facility’ within a year] is premature, and I am extremely concerned about the fast-looming deadline, particularly when no viable alternative for housing these dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants has been outlined.
Again, fraught with lies. First, continuing to label the detainees as “these dangerous terrorists”—when none has been proven guilty of anything and many have been known for years to be completely innocent—is utterly fraudulent. Then the assertion that “no viable alternative for housing these dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants has been outlined” here in a country teeming with high-security prison systems, with a vast prison industry, and with the highest rate of incarceration in the industrialized world is simply laughable.

[President Obama’s] policy contemplates five scenarios for handling current detainees: hand them over to their home countries for incarceration; transfer them to a neutral country; transfer them to prisons on U.S. soil; send them to U.S. facilities abroad; or release them outright. Unfortunately, all of these alternatives heighten the threat to the lives of Americans at home and abroad.
Yet, had KBH the slightest shred of integrity, she would have to admit that any of these options makes us more safe than our current policies of indefinite detention without trial (or with sham commissions), torture, and murder (not to mention indiscriminate bombing and disregard for civilian life).

In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he is al-Qaeda’s deputy leader in Yemen and is charged with planning and executing acts of violence against the U.S. and its allies. And al-Shihri is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former prisoners came from the group of 500 that were deemed less dangerous and were thus released. That means that the approximately 270 detainees currently in Guantanamo represent the most violent and nefarious prisoners.

We continue to hear the “returned to the battlefield” mantra regurgitated by Darth Cheney and the lap-dog MSM, but—for anyone with a miniscule functioning portion of a brain, that claim has been repudiated time and time and time again. A May 21, 2009 article by Shayana Kadidal appearing in the Huffington Post said:

Two Saudi guys who appeared in a video wearing tight camouflage t-shirts and claiming to be the new leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen: Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and Sa'eed Ali al-Shihri. However, al-Oufi turned himself in to Saudi authorities after the Saudis made an appeal to their families and the families apparently called out for their kids to return, raising the question: how dangerous can a momma's boy really be?

Note that all of these men were released not by a court order, but by the Bush administration's own haphazard internal process. Perhaps if that administration had shown a commitment to charging and trying detainees, some of these men might be serving sentences for conduct prior to their detention. But instead, the Bush admin showed a mindless commitment to expanding executive power—deciding to hold men as long as they could to prove a point about presidential power, not to make us safer.

Might it be that we need to admit the possibility that what is most to blame for the potential of terrorism here is not the release of these detainees, but their indefinite detention and torture?

Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the pre-9/11 mindset.
Ah, we could only be so lucky as to return to a pre-9/11 mindset! Alas, that seems impossible now in light of the many systematic (and systemic) aberrations the Bush Administration perpetrated against our Constitution (and which, to date, the Obama Administration continues).

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue, and please feel free to write or call me in the future with your opinions.
Yeah, right.

So. . . I still hate Kay Bailey Hutchison.

*Since 9/11 there have been few evocations of this exploitation (outside of the Bush Whitehouse) more obscene than this from Rudolf Giuliani’s speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City:

At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

What a truckload of absolute bullshit! And we (OK, not me, but as a nation) ate it up. (The mixed metaphors seem appropriate here).

UPDATE:
Yet another example (of the few to which we've been allowed access) of the depravity of the unsubstantiated claims of released detainees "returning to the 'battlefield'" appeared in today's news.

UPDATE II:
As is we needed any more proof that our would-be governor is an incompetent hypocrite.

UPDATE III:
Watch this slideshow from the Texas Democratic Party about KBH's disingenuous opposition to the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor .

The Daily Show Defense

I was completely flabbergasted to hear that the Obama Justice Department (once again following in the bloody footsteps of the Bush Administration) actually argued to block the release of transcripts of Cheney’s testimony before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame treasonous-outing-for-political-gain case. Their argument? That it would inhibit future vice presidents from cooperating in investigations out of fear that their testimony will end up as fodder for The Daily Show. You can’t make shit like this up, you know.

Never mind that all politicians have figured out by now that they will never be prosecuted for anything they do in office, up to and including torture and murder.* That would be “looking backward, not forward;” being “partisan” and “vindictive”! Now they’re actually suggesting that politicians should be exempt from ridicule. . . by comedians?!?!?!

Pooow widduw Wichud Cheney! He might git his widduw feewings huwt!

Perhaps he should have thought of the remote possibility that he would be subject to public scrutiny—possibly even ridicule—before he went into politics. Or before he agreed to be a presidential running mate. Or before he became an international war criminal. Or before he WENT ON NETWORK TELEVISION time after time after time admitting his war crimes for the world to see and hear.

Thank goodness and reason that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called bullshit on that defense! (At least sort of. At least for now.)

Stay tuned for the next episode of As the World Turns. . . Totally Bonkers.

*obviously, blow jobs and gay sex are not protected by this unwritten Beltway rule

Does the Right Want a Civil War?

This terrific article by Sara Robinson lays it all out there. It's truly a question which demands an answer (though, actually, I believe the question is largely rhetorical).

Why I Hate Kay Bailey Hutchison

Well, because she's a lying, disingenuous, partisan hack—and always has been.

While I must admit that Senator Hutchison’s office is one of the best I’ve ever dealt with as far as consistently responding to my communications, the response is usually something akin to: “Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding ‘Issue X.’ I think your position is utterly asinine, and you are obviously a stupid democrat asshole, but I appreciate hearing from you. You can be assured that I will do exactly the opposite of everything you suggest. Suck on that. Sincerely, KBH.”

I just received this response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding interrogation methods employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information from terrorist suspects. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

President Barack Obama and other Congressional and Administration officials have left open the possibility of prosecuting past Bush Administration officials in the Office of Legal Counsel and other offices that were involved in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” While I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country, I deem their use secondary to the larger issue.

I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent. The prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

First of all, we all know by now—pretty much beyond any doubt—that “interrogation methods” (read: “torture”) were never “employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information.” Torture was used to elicit false confessions to give Bush/Cheney, their Neocon base, and Congressional enablers political cover for their imperialistic war of aggression in Iraq. It never had anything to do with national security. KBH knows that and knows everyone else knows it.

Next, she goes on to say, “I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country. . . .” This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have always maintained: KBH is evil, sadistic, hateful, and ignorant. Besides the fact that it is widely accepted by true experts in interrogation methods and in national security that “these techniques” neither yield reliable information nor serve to protect our country, this is an odd view for a someone who claims that her religious faith is very important to her role as a U.S. Senator (see this 2002 interview by Toby Druin in the Baptist Standard). As I wrote here, “Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!”

Third, her assertion that “I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent” is utterly absurd and patently false. Obviously, anyone who truly believes that criminal wrongdoing, violation of federal and international laws, and evisceration of the Constitution are “policy differences” has absolutely no business in the U.S. Senate. And anyone who’s under the impression that “prosecution of officials of any previous Administration” is “counter to historical precedent” must have failed history, civics, and political science courses and needs to give back those degrees from the University of Texas (maybe she was too busy practicing her cheers).

Finally, she certainly didn’t learn that “the prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition” in her law classes—even if she could whitewash the contorted opinions of Yoo, Bybee, Addington, et. al. as “legitimate legal counsel.”

I’m sorry, Kay. You’re obviously much more stupid than you think your constituents are. Your time pretending to represent me is up. Get the hell out of Washington!

Exploring the (shallow) Recesses of the Conservative Mind

I just spent the weekend with scads of family members who are very religiously and politically conservative (not necessarily in that order of importance). I’m always amazed (sometimes even doubtful) that we actually share any DNA.

Before one even has a conversation with them, the script can pretty much be written by surveying the cars they drive. Suburbans, minivans, and Ford F150s rule the day—every one of them adorned with bumper stickers reading “W,” “Support the Troops,” “I’ll keep my Guns, Freedom, and Money. You Can Keep the ‘Change’,” and, of course, “Gig’em Aggies.” The one that really got me this time was a sticker bearing the words, “Annoy a Liberal; Read the Constitution.” My head started spinning like Linda Blair in The Exorcist; I had to stop and take deep, slow breaths, convinced that projectile vomiting was close behind.

To be sure, my family is made up of otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. Certainly they know HOW to read. But this was such a blatant, textbook case of Freudian Projection, I scarcely knew where to begin deconstructing the disconnect. I’m confident there are some conservatives who have actually read the Constitution. Some may even be able to quote a sentence or two. But these folks—the same ones who read the pornographically violent comic-book fiction of “Left Behind” as if it were a how-to manual, must think of the Constitution as historical fiction.

When I was growing up, preachers in my fundamentalist church were fond of decrying the “librul” christians for practicing what they called “cafeteria-style religion.” In other words, these semi-heathen, bound-for-hell, pseudo Christians, went through the bible picking and choosing the parts they like and passing over the rest, a la Sunday lunch at Luby’s. You’d think the fundamentalists might have seen a bit of selective literalism in their own practices. (These are, after all the folks who are militantly “Pro Life,” meaning, of course, pro UNBORN life. Anyone whose head has already popped out of the womb is deprived of such compassion—particularly Muslims and abortion doctors).

After witnessing eight years of the travesties of the Bush/Cheney Administration, endlessly cheered on by the radical “religious” right, it’s hard to imagine these folks as the defenders of the Constitution. In fact, I think the right is guilty of “cafeteria-style constitutional democracy.” I can just imagine that lunch line: “No that ‘right to a trial by a jury of peers’ bit, that’s a bit like brussel sprouts—leave that off my plate. That ‘illegal search and seizure’ thing, I’ll pass. Oh, give me a double helping of that ‘right to bear arms’ casserole; those guns are just so yummy! No, no, don’t want any of that ‘due process’ crap.”

Then, it really is hard to take seriously a group whose spokespeople are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly (who are so obviously and deeply unhinged that they must be one missed dose of Prozac—or would that be OxyContin?—away from being fitted for one of those lovely backward white jackets and locked away). And they think “24” and Fox News are for real while evolution is “only a theory.”

OK, let’s review the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America—the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We’ll give them credit for the “right to bear arms” in spite of the fact that they take it totally out of the context of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The rest… not so much (but, hey, one out of ten ain’t bad).

So, conservatives, if you want to have a discussion about the Constitution, I say, “bring it on!” (oh, wait, maybe that phrase elicits some extra-constitutional references, like maybe Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have the power to… declare war….”) I think my new bumper sticker will say, “Note to Conservatives: You go ahead and read it; we’re pretty busy protecting and defending it!”

A New Beginning--Obama's Speech at Cairo University

This is rather remarkable. Five months into his presidency, Obama has challenged Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, all the Muslim world, and the United States in ways that surpass all the efforts of the last four presidents combined.

I have not been silent in my criticisms of Obama’s embrace—and in many cases, expansion—of the abuses of power of the Bush administration. I caucused for Obama in my district and voted for him. It is our duty to support our elected leaders when they lead honorably. And to hope that a president fails (and to continually work to effect that failure) is nothing short of treason. However, I believe that We The People must constantly challenge our president and all our elected leaders and demand that they uphold our Constitution and represent us. That goes for a president of any party, no matter how eloquent and polished his or her demeanor or oratory. (And it is certainly refreshing to once again have a president—the “leader of the free world”—who can communicate with skills surpassing that of a kindergartener.)

This speech has its holes and incongruities. But it is extraordinarily bold and deserves much praise.

Obama Launches Review of Secrecy Policy

UPDATED: June 4, 2009
UPDATED: June 6, 2009

This article in today's Washington Post seems to bear very good news. Only time will tell whether it goes beyond more pretty words and soundbytes.

In predictable Washington Post fashion, many of the comments exhibit a very anti-Obama, pro-W regime bias (in fact total dumbass archfixxxer actually says, “sometimes ignorance is bliss”).

UPDATE: In retrospect, I realize I unfairly charactized the Washington Post. While the MSM has almost universally failed miserably in offering any real journalism or critical thinking in quite some time, I can hardly be this harsh toward the Post when compared with the other Capital paper, the Moonie/Wingnut Washington Times.

UPDATE 2: For a fresh view of the utter wingnutery of the Washington Times, see this article by Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus. For all Pruden's railing about Obama's apologizing for America's "manifold sins against civilization," an apology was the largest glaring omission from Obama's speech (even as Secretary Clinton had the nerve to criticize China for human rights violations of the past). Mr. Pruden's example of the mote versus the beam seems terribly misdirected.

Like Lemmings to the Sea--Deadly Complacency

Led by Pied Piper Obama, encouraged almost universally by Congress, and endlessly cheered on by the MSM, we as a nation are becoming more and more intrinsically complicit in the atrocities of the Bush Administration. This excellent cartoon by Tom Tomorrow reminded me of several warnings which have been voiced over the past months and years.

In July of 2008, I wrote this article, The Precipice of Congressional Complicity.

For me, one of the truly disheartening things about witnessing the FISA debacle in both the House and Senate was seeing the sheer enormity of apparent complicity among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

I also revisited this May 2008 article by the ever-prescient Glenn Greenwald, Growing Responsibility for the Bush Torture Regime.

The more time that goes by and the more we learn — particularly if we do nothing meaningful to stop it — the more the responsibility for these policies shifts from the administration to all of us collectively.

If that observation were true months ago (it was), then several torture memos, leaked photographs, interviews with numerous CIA, government, and legal sources, and quite a few nationally televised confessions by war criminal (and utterly creepy guy) Dick Cheney later, its truth is even more compelling.

We Are All Torturers Now By Mark Danner was published in the New York Times way back in January of 2005. In that article, Danner said:

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Americans began torturing prisoners, and they have never really stopped. However much these words have about them the ring of accusation, they must by now be accepted as fact. From Red Cross reports, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's inquiry, James R. Schlesinger's Pentagon-sanctioned commission and other government and independent investigations, we have in our possession hundreds of accounts of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment - to use a phrase of the Red Cross - "tantamount to torture."

Danner goes on to say, “By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us.”

Over four years later, with a Democratic president, Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and an undeniable mandate from the American electorate, we—as a nation—have still done essentially nothing (except to further entrench the extra-legal circumstances which led to these abuses). We don’t need any more debates. We don’t need any truth commissions. What we need is the immediate commencement of trials and prosecutions of those who committed these heinous war crimes in our names. Until we correct the egregious wrong turn in our national direction, “looking forward” will only serve to keep leading us down that same path—right over the cliff.

Talking out of Both Sides of Their Mouths

(Or is that “Buttering Both Sides of Their Bread”?. . . well, they have been doing a lot of teabagging lately!)

UPDATED 5-19-2009

The Republicans have stooped to new lows in the latest incarnation of the torture “debate.” Their current inconsistencies are so muddled, moronic, and absurd that it’s hard to believe they’re getting any play time in the media (OK, not too hard to believe considering the intellectual dishonesty of the MSM).

They want to insist that the United States has never tortured. Yet, not only did the torture work, if we don’t continue to torture the ubiquitous Scary Terrorists will annihilate us.

The Bush Administration broke no laws, but if they did, it was only to protect us, and they should absolutely not be investigated (and certainly not prosecuted). Yet, we definitely MUST investigate what Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and when she knew it.

Only the radical “Left” advocates investigations (though almost 75% of Americans are in favor—an awfully skewed left), and only for highly partisan reasons. Yet most of those calling for investigations believe in equal application of the law and want everyone who might have played a role in conspiring to create a system of torture—Republicans and Democrats alike—to be subject to investigation (many of us radical lefties have been calling for investigations of Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, et. al. for over two years).

The Republicans are the real Patriots, supporters of the troops, and true Americans. But they’re also the ones who are advocating total disregard for the defining characteristics of American Democracy: the Constitution and the Rule of Law. (Some, like the f*cking brilliant governor of my home state, are even suggesting secession, stupid asswipe!).

Those of us who think sending our troops into harm’s way based on brazen lies, violating their contracts with stop-loss, and bringing them home to inadequate health care and benefits is anything BUT supporting our troops (but as long as you put a bumper sticker on your car, it doesn’t really matter); those of us who think suspending habeas corpus, torturing and murdering prisoners (many of whom we know are completely innocent) expressly for the purpose of eliciting false confessions to justify our illegal wars of aggression, feloniously spying on our own citizens, ignoring Congressional subpoenas and court orders, and otherwise eviscerating the Constitution (that “god dammed piece of paper”) are things we should not be doing are labeled as “UnAmuhrkan.”

The cognitive dissonance of the right is astounding! Maybe any health care reform needs to include automatic psychotherapy for all registered Republicans?

Related to this post, it seemed appropriate to dredge up this lyric, posted quite some time ago.

UPDATE
This article by Matthew Yglesias on The Daily Beast, GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire, adds more perspective on this topic.

Torture and Hypocrisy

UPDATE BELOW
UPDATE II--July 26, 2009

The unlikely and incestuous relationship between the extreme right in American politics and fundamentalist/evangelical “Christianity” has been evident for several decades now. This alliance has led to full-throttled support by the “religious right” of political ideologies such as the favoring of CEOs and mega-corporations over the individual; plundering our air, water, and land for profit; cutting aid to the poor and the most vulnerable in our society; rampant colonialism, etc. This unholy marriage reached its peak during the Bush Jr. years. No matter how many times Dubya stood in front of the nation telling bald-faced lies; no matter how many times he negated legitimately drafted and ratified legislation with signing statements; no matter how egregiously he broke laws, violating the most basic civil rights; no matter how many soldiers died; no matter how many men, women, and children were killed by our bullets and bombs; no matter how often or how overtly he unilaterally set aside the Constitution; church-goers across the nation unblinkingly supported him—even going so far as to say he was doing “God’s work.”

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Family Life confirmed what most of us already suspected: the “religious right” is full of charlatans and hypocrites. A large percentage (62%) of those who identify as white, evangelical Protestants believe torture is either “sometimes” or “often” justifiable. How someone who purports to be “Christian” can espouse that belief is completely beyond my comprehension.

Luke 6:31
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

1 John 2:4
The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Matthew 5:39b
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I seem to miss the part where Jesus said, “Blessed are the torturers.”

Prisoners, many of whom the government knew to be innocent, have been punched, kicked, and pummeled; had their bodies and heads slammed repeatedly against walls; been kept awake for days, even weeks, at a time; had their genitals sliced; been hung by their arms for prolonged periods; been electrocuted; been sexually molested and sodomized; endured forced nudity, humiliation, and degradation; been kept in cramped boxes, been made to experience near-drowning—one detainee an astounding 183 times; etc.

Read some of these descriptions of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” employed by our government:

. . . One detainee . . . alleged that: “I was punched and slapped in the face and on the back to the extent that I was bleeding. While having a rope around my neck and being tied to a pillar my head was banged against the pillar repeatedly.”
International Committee of the Red Cross

Another,

“I would be placed against a wall and subjected to punches and slaps in the body, head and face.”
International Committee of the Red Cross

These torture methods are identical to—in fact, were patterned after—those which have been used by despotic regimes against American soldiers. Those regimes without exception have been roundly condemned, tried, and prosecuted for these war crimes.

Dozens (we may never know how many more) of those tortured in our name have died—that is, have been murdered.

The killings, at least some of them, have hardly been kept secret. As early as May-June 2003, The New York Times and Washington Post reported on deaths of detainees in Afghanistan. Two detainees at Bagram air base died after extensive beatings by U.S. troops in December 2002—a case reported by The New York Times and that was also the subject of the Oscar-winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. Another death involved a man beaten to death by a CIA contractor at a base in Asadabad, in eastern Afghanistan, in June 2003.

In September 2004, the Crimes of War Project, working with investigative journalist Craig Pyes, uncovered a torture murder in Gardez, Afghanistan, in March 2003. Jamal Naseer, a soldier in the Afghan Army, died after he and seven other soldiers were mistakenly arrested. Those arrested with Naseer later said that during interrogations U.S. personnel punched and kicked them, hung them upside down, and hit them with sticks or cables. Some said they were doused with cold water and forced to lie in the snow. Nasser collapsed about two weeks after the arrest, complaining of stomach pain, probably an internal hemorrhage.
John Sifton, The Daily Beast

Anyone who still thinks torture has a place in civilized society needs to look at these photos and imagine the subjects are your sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, or parents.

Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!

UPDATE
This disgusting account by Jeremy Scahill of ongoing (and allegedly escalating) abuses by U.S. personnel should be required reading for every U.S. citizen. Everyone who has done this in our names--from the IRF goons to the guards and "medical" personnel who watched to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, and Gonzales, to the members of the "news" media who have withheld information or openly cheered on these demented and depraved actions, and now to Holder and Obama and all their c0-conspirators in Congress--should be tried and locked away for life.

Fuzzy the Conciliation Caterpillar by Mark Fiore

This is a great animated cartoon at SFGate.com which shows how ludicrous the "I want to look forward, not backward" mantra is.

Deception and Lies: A Tragic Tale in Limerick Form (2009 Version)

A neocon think tank called P-NAC
Smokin’ stogies and sippin’ on cognac.
Laid out their fixation,
with world domination,
and said, “we’ll need bases in I-raq.”

They waited with much agitation
For pretense of justification.
Eleven September—That day we remember—
They used for their own exploitation.

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

“The terrorists,” it was made plain—
as Dubya and Dickie explain—
“were led by Bin Laden.”
But while still jihadin’
Bin Laden morped into Hussein.

“Sadaam is an imminent threat;
he’s got nuk-u-ler weapons, I’d bet.
Though some may dislike
Pre-emptive Strike.
Such doubt we could live to regret!”

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

And so we began a new era;
Dubya called it “The Great War on Terra.”
With Shock and with Awe,
We savored it all.
Watching CNN, drinking Madeira.

“The fighting will soon be completed.
As heroes we’re sure to be treated.
They’ll forget all the mortars.
Democratic importers!—
as Lib’rators we will be greeted!”

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

“Mission Accomplished” it read,
The banner that hung overhead.
O’er the crowd Dubya glanced,
In his costume he pranced.
“The battle is over,” he said.

IEDs, though, just kept on exploding.
For our soldiers a sense of foreboding.
From safe on his lawn
Dubya said, “Bring ‘Em On!”
And, alas, they just kept on reloading.

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

Now six years have passed since that day
On the Lincoln one evening in May.
While I hate to sound crass,
“Accomplished” my ass!
Start bringing our troops home today!

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

With their spying and lying and fable,
and torture—whatever the label,
It's become very clear,
Ms. Pelosi, my dear:
Impeachment belonged ON THE TABLE!

Their “high crimes” and “treason” aren’t vague.
Their contempt for the law is a plague.
If they dare leave this nation
to take a vacation,
their journey might end at The Hague!

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
The Bushies keep pushing their vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

Now Bush and his cronies are done—
Obama quite handily won.
But we feel so naive when
the “Change we believe in”
hasn’t yet really begun.

We’ve been told, “Looking back’s no solution.—
Never mind that old quaint Constitution."
Surely he understands
Now the blood’s on his hands—
“Moving Forward” demands prosecution!

(Refrain)
Lies, lies, deception and lies!
Still Washington pushes this vile enterprise.
The longer we dwell in a state so Orwellian
The closer democracy comes to demise.

Copyright 2009