Saturday, July 23, 2005omplete and utter douchebags.
Bush Administration Files 11th Hour Papers Blocking the Release of Darby CD Photos and Video Of Abu Ghraib Torture
On July 22, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) denounced the latest efforts of the Bush Administration to block the release of the Darby photos and videos depicting torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison facility. On June 2, 2004, CCR, along with the ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace filed papers with the U.S. District Court, charging the Department of Defense and other government agencies with illegally withholding records concerning the abuse of detainees in American military custody. Since then, the organizations have been repeatedly rebuffed in their efforts to investigate what happened at the prison.
In June, the government requested and received an extension from the judge stating that they needed time in order to redact the faces of the men, women and children believed to be shown in the photographs and videos. They were given until today to produce the images, but at the eleventh hour filed a motion to oppose the release of the photos and videos, based on an entirely new argument: they are now requesting a 7(F) exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold law enforcement-related information in order to protect the physical safety of individuals. Today’s move is the latest in a series of attempts by the government to keep the images from being made public and to cover up the torture of detainees in U.S. custody around the world.
Right. So to protect the physical safety of individuals they're suppressing photos which show...violations of the...physical safety of individuals. I'm not even trying to joke about it anymore, the jokes write themselves. The stupidest thing about all this is that, by trying to cover it up, you make it look even worse than it does, as if you're condoning what was done. But that's not all! Now the White House is holding the veto over Congress as a threat to let them continue to do whatever the hell they want, making them look like even bigger douchebags.
White House threatens veto on detainee policies
By Vicki Allen
Thu Jul 21, 7:45 PM ET
The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere
The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.
In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."
"If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.
They were working with Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia on amendments intended to prevent further abuses in the wake of the scandal over sexual abuse and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and harsh, degrading interrogations at Guantanamo.
Possible measures included barring the holding of "ghost" detainees whose names are not disclosed, codifying a ban against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and using the Army manual as a basis for all interrogations.
Democrats on Thursday said they would push an amendment to establish an independent national commission to investigate policies that led to abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee's top Democrat, said the commission on detainee abuses was needed because "the most serious scandal in recent military history needs an objective investigation."
Levin said the commission should be modeled on the bipartisan commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the Pentagon's own investigations into detainee abuses left "huge gaps. ... The military reviewing itself, that's not good enough."
Pentagon "talking points" against the special detainee commission circulating around the Capitol said the issue had been "thoroughly investigated" and "a new open-ended investigation" would add "nothing but political theater."
The talking points said reforms were under way, and the Pentagon "has the matter well in hand. The department and the services are doing everything possible to address this challenge."
At this point, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What is wrong with the people who voted for this administration? How can you condone this behavior? I just don't get it. God bless America, we fucking need it.
Friday, July 22, 2005list of scumsuckers who voted for the thing. Thanks Democrats who voted for it. It could have at least been closer, but thanks to you noble guardians of the American People, we won't have to hate America anymore.
Thursday, July 21, 2005removed/overwritten from the White House web site. The relevant comment, from that site:
The July 9, 2003, gaggle link that scott1121 posted does not, at the moment, lead to the gaggle of that date but rather to "The Rights and the Aspirations of the People of Afghanistan." It has the look of something which was just overwritten on the file for July 9 (20030709-1.html).
There is no reference to a gaggle for July 9 or July 10 in the White House Press Briefing archive.
On searching further I find the following: the form of the file naming in the folder whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ is 2003/07/20030709-x.html where x is issued sequentially. The largest numbered file for July 9 is -11. What is interesting is that the -1 file appears to have been overwritten by the -4 file and the -2 file is missing giving only a 404 error message. The -11 file has also been overwritten with a prewar message from October 3, 2002.
If these deletions and overwrites are recent, and it appears that the disappearance of the July 9, 2003, gaggle is recent, there must be some scrambling going on for some reason or other.
Is that a rat I smell?
One of them shows that Ari has seen not only the INR memo, but also the CIA summary of Wilson's trip to Niger. Hmm, could there have been more than one copy on Air Force 1?
I can only hope that the people start to see all this pushing - this relentless cascade effect that seems to be increasing monthly - and want to push back. I just don't know if we can motivate them when they're not just apathetic, they're often downright hostile to us. I don't know where things are going to go from here, but I'm in a dim mood here.
Okay, fuck you ignorant, self-deluding shit. Tee-hee, tee-ho! Here's the goddamned article, which I saw thanks to Mandals on the Something Awful Forums (his comment is extant in this article, because, well, lol).
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives, ignoring protests from civil liberties groups and some conservatives, moved on Thursday to renew the USA Patriot Act giving the government unprecedented powers to investigate suspected terrorists.
Sixteen provisions of the 2001 law, hastily enacted in response to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, are due to expire at the end of this year unless renewed by Congress. President Bush has repeatedly called on lawmakers to make the entire law permanent.
The House was poised to reauthorize the act with some minor changes designed to increase judicial and political oversight of some of its most controversial provisions. Republicans said the latest explosions in London showed how urgent and important it was to renew the law.
The act allowed expanded surveillance of terror suspects and gave the government the ability to go to a secret court to seize the personal records of suspects from bookstores, libraries, businesses, hospitals and other organizations -- the so-called "library clause."
House Republicans agreed last week that this clause and another allowing so-called roving wiretaps, which permits the government to eavesdrop on suspects as they switch from phone to phone, would be renewed for only 10 years instead of being made permanent.
The Senate judiciary committee was working on its own version of the act on Thursday, which included only four-year renewals of these two clauses.
"Since its enactment, there have been zero, and I repeat zero verified instances of civil liberty abuses," said Georgia Republican Phil Gingrey, opening debate in the House. (Bolded for lol).
But New York Democrat Louise Slaughter said many provisions of the act had resulted in many abuses, although she gave no examples. She and other Democrats complained that the Republican leadership refused to allow debate on several of their key amendments and seemed determined to ram the law through on a party-line vote.
"This is an abuse of power by the Republican majority which has deliberately and purposely chosen to stifle a full debate," said Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.
A coalition of liberal and conservative civil liberties groups, formed to oppose reauthorization of the law in its current form, this week called on lawmakers not to rush to reauthorize the bill without further debate.
"Certain sections of the law extend far beyond the mission of protecting Americans from terrorism and violate ordinary citizens' constitutional rights, especially the right to privacy," said former Republican Rep. Bob Barr.
Leading opposition from the left, the American Civil Liberties Union said the bill gave the FBI extraordinary power to obtain personal records, search individuals' homes or offices without their knowledge and to use a secret court to obtain personal date on ordinary Americans.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005gay!
What does Santorum have to say about it?
"It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs' personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign," Santorum's statement continued.
Well that's an interes... wait...yes, yes, I'm quite sure I'm bleeding out of my ears fuck my eyes now help (this is the part where we talk about what he's said before)
"If you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this 'right to privacy,' then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home?
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Set sail for dissonance! Aye aye, cap'n!
HAH NO FUCKING WAY
In the area of freedom of speech, Roberts co-authored a brief arguing that the 1989 Flag Act did not violate the First Amendment.28 Two Americans had been prosecuted for burning the U.S. flag in violation of the Act, but both charges were dismissed on the grounds that the law violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The government’s brief argued for the Court to treat flag burning like “obscene words” and “defamatory statements” and allow the government to ban it for the common good,29 but the Supreme Court disagreed 5-4, holding the statute unconstitutional.
Roberts also served as the attorney for Fox Television, the network owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, in its challenge of governmental regulations. In Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fox won its challenge to the federal government’s ownership and cross-ownership rules.31 The D.C. Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the use of the rule in this case, given the lack of proof of a potential for monopoly on Fox’s part and the federal government’s imprecise definition of the term “diversity” to justify its need for the rule.
When asked in 2000 for his opinion of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, which has been characterized by many legal scholars as the most right-wing and activist in decades,45 Roberts stated, “I don't know how you can call [the Rehnquist] court conservative . . . .”46 And when asked specifically about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a term in which the Court rendered numerous highly controversial decisions,47 Roberts said that “[t]aking this term as a whole, the most important thing it did was make a compelling case that we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court . . .
Roberts co-authored two briefs arguing for an expanded role for religion in public schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court, in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program, a position rejected by the Supreme Court.
I won't get fooled again...
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
That's right, stare into the fucking eyes of Satan, my friends:
That's right, instead of choosing a Moderate, George "The W is for FUCKING MORONG" Bush chose John "Baal" Roberts for the Supreme Court nomination.
Why is this bad? Oh, something like this:
As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
John Roberts’ legal career and professional writings reveal that he is out of the
mainstream in his legal views in a number of areas, most prominently civil rights and the right to choose. His record as a member of the Bush and Reagan administrations reflects opposition to the rights of women and minorities, as well as a restrictive view of the proper role of federal courts in protecting the environment and the rights of criminal defendants. His comments about the Rehnquist Court reveal Roberts’ extremist ideology, a view confirmed by his membership in and connections to ultra-conservative legal groups.
He seems to hate First Amendment, both in speech and the recent decisions on seperation of church and state. Civil liberties, freedom, no invasion of the government into private lives... going going gone.
And I'm such a sap. Given the Bush rhetoric about this and his meetings with the Senate, I thought he might actually pull his head out of his ass and appoint a moderate. Of course I was wrong; he doesn't give a fuck about anyone but the hardcore right. What is it, 68% don't want Roe v. Wade overturned?
Oh, and here's a nice little tip to why he was chose:
Mr. Roberts is the head of Hogan & Hartson’s Appellate Practice Group
Hogan & Hartson was a big help to Bush in the Bush v. Gore 2000 debacle.
So, let's get this straight, lawyer helps fuck over an election to get a president into office, said president then puts lawyer on the Supreme Court.
The best part? He's 50, so we have at least 25-30 years of continous fucked-up decisions to look forward to. Thanks, Ms. O'Connor. Fuck you very much.
Of course, this is all to take the heat off of Rove. Hats off, fuckhead. I swear, Bush gets us down and just keeps kicking. What respect does he have for America? None, I answer.
A brief moment of silence and reflection on the times when "conservative" meant "light on spending and heavy on small government."
I only hope that this means that people will start to realize that they're being messed with, like they have been for five years, and start to mobilize. If they even pretend to make a move to strike down Roe, there will be political action the likes of which this country hasn't seen lately.
Jesus tittyfucking Christ, I need a Scotch.