February 23, 2010 by mike.

We may have hoped for a better result, but this is what we get.

Bybee and Yoo should be disbarred for their professional misconduct. The Justice Department has punted. Now there is only the unlikely disbarment process from the State Bar Associations.

We get terrible public policy if there is no accountability. These people provided legal cover for the US government to violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture.

One other option for accountability exists through prosecution through the International Criminal Court. That path would test the concept of American exceptionalism.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com How to keep future John Yoos under control During the long years that the Justice Department was investigating Jay S. Bybee and John C. Yoo, it was tempting to view the torture memos as if they were momentary aberrations in the life of the modern presidency. But in clearing the Bush administration lawyers who authored the memos of all charges of unprofessional conduct, the department invites future John Yoos to rubber-stamp future presidential abuses at moments of (real or imagined) crisis. The torture memos are an entirely predictable product of an institutional set-up that puts the meaning of national security law at the mercy of a politicized Office of Legal Counsel and a super-politicized legal staff in the White House. There is a compelling need to reform that structure. Forty years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel was dominated by career lawyers. But by the time George W. Bush was elected, the office had only a handful of seasoned professionals, and all the leading positions were held by political appointees who, like Bybee and Yoo, were predisposed to support their president. Given this political transformation, the exoneration of Bybee and Yoo creates a dangerous precedent. Consider the department’s discussion of the torture memo’s claim that the president, as commander in chief, can defy Congress’s statutory prohibition on torture and order the military or CIA to engage in any and all forms of abuse. The department concedes that Bybee and Yoo presented an “incomplete and one-sided” argument in support of this remarkable legal conclusion and that the next head of the OLC, Jack Goldsmith, found that this claim had “no foundation in prior OLC opinions, or in judicial decisions, or in any other source of law.”

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »

January 9, 2010 by mike.

The well-dressed man and the man in orange.

Who are they? Is anyone in the media talking about the other players in this crime or are we too busy arguing over how to prosecute the delusional patsy?

clipped from www.opednews.com The Underwear Bomber: More to the story. Kurt Haskell describes The Well Dressed Man and the Man in Orange. As we all know, on Christmas Day Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Mutallab) boarded a plane in Amsterdam with a makeshift bomb hidden in his underwear. Thanks to an alert passenger and the technical difficulty involved, the bomb did not detonate, the bomber caught himself on fire, the plane landed safely and the young man, Mutallab , is in custody. Michigan attorney Kurt Haskel witnessed two important events, neither of which has been widely reported although his testimony and collaborating testimony is available via You Tube videos of local news coverage including Mlive (Michigan live), NPR interviews,Fox News, Antiwar radio, and Alex Jones Prison Planet. Mr. Haskel reports that he and his wife were sitting on the floor in a crowed room playing cards when he witnessed the so called “sharp dressed man.” Haskel, who speaks carefully as an attorney, states that “While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit”. He says the suited “Indian” man asked ticket agents whether a supposed “Sudanese refugee” (the terrorist, Mutallab) could board without a passport”. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’” Mr.. Haskel makes clear that this does not mean that Mutallab did not have a passport, only that the well dressed man attempted and evidently succeeded in getting him on a plane with out displaying a passport. Haskel has clarified that the Indian looking man could have been Pakistani or other, that he would not been able to discern nationality. Mr.. Haskel has confirmed that normal surveillance video would have been taken in this crowed departure area. This is the essence of Haskel’s testimony, until the flight landed in Detroit. According to Haskell, upon landing the FBI prevented passengers from leaving the plane for 2 to 3 hours, and then they were moved to a crowded customs room. Haskel’s states that “During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called “Sharp Dressed” man. I will refer to this man as “The man in orange”. The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away. At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out.” The story takes on importance when Haskel notes that “The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for “immigration reasons.” Notice that this man was “being held” and not “arrested”, which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie. Then, Customs agent Ron Smith went further, denying that the man arrested was on flight 253 at all.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | No Comments »

January 9, 2010 by mike.

The underwear bomber is an interesting story. Here is the first thing that ought to be asked about this incident: how did this happen?

There is a lot of misdirection and political use of this incident for political gain, but the primary question should be how did this happen. A guy with no luggage, no passport, and paying cash for his ticket gets on an international flight. How does this happen? Who let this happen? Who worked to have this happen?

An effective approach to this mess would be to conduct the basic criminal investigation. Identify the conspirators, trace the crime back up the chain to the people who planned and facilitated this crime, then prosecute them, whoever they are.

clipped from www.opednews.com The Real Terror Is at Home By Dean Hartwell (about the author) Passengers flying without luggage across continents should be laughed at. Passengers paying for a plane ticket over $2,000 in CASH should have their backgrounds checked. Passengers flying internationally without a passport should not be allowed on the plane. The passenger who tried to set off a bomb on the Christmas Day flight achieved an amazing feat to get a seat on the plane and the most logical question should be asked and answered: WHO HELPED THIS MAN? It wasn’t the customer service representative at the counter. They would get fired for allowing someone like this onboard. It wasn’t the airline. They don’t need the bad publicity that scares people from wanting to fly. It wasn’t the Obama Administration. They needed this incident like they needed a hole in their heads. It provides mud for Fox News to sling at them. So who benefits? The companies that make the machines that can detect the kind of underwear bomb this person used stand to make a profit. But they did not likely have the opportunity to get the man on the plane. Who had the opportunity? Someone who could pressure the intelligence and security leaders not to put the man on a “No Fly” list in spite of a call from the man’s father warning the CIA about his son’s “radicalization.” Someone who could talk the airline to “make an exception” for the man. Someone familiar with using people as scapegoats to cause a scene that would embarrass Obama. It would be logical to form an idea about a suspect for this case. But while political pundits talk about the suspect on the plane, our logic is suspended because the real culprit is out of our reach, helping to misdirect the investigation. The truth loses again because the real terror is our own right here at home.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | No Comments »

October 4, 2009 by mike.

I guess the US needs to check its hubris against this fundamental historical fact.

Even aside from the probability that certain post-Soviet sources are likely enthusiastically sending weapons and munitions back to Afghanistan to get even with the US for Charlie Wilson’s War, there is certainty of defeat dictated by the facts on the ground.

Steep ground.

Steep, rocky ground.

Perfect terrain for sniping and allowing a small mobile force to wreak havoc against large and powerful armies. The only approach that works is an airwar that will necessarily kill civilians and create new populations willing to send martyrs to us for retribution.

“We will win the war in Afghanistan” makes about as much sense as “the beatings will continue until morale improves.”

I feel terrible for all the people suffering and being killed or injured in this amazingly stupid military exercise.

The foolish Bush planners gave us an unnecessary war in Iraq to test their theories on shock and awe, the best and the brightest a few decades ago gave us the Vietnam War, and we appear poised to repeat the best and brightest mistake in Afghanistan. The pertinent question is the same one that arose with the Vietnam War, “how do you ask a man to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?”

clipped from www.cnn.com 8 U.S. troops killed in battle with militants in Afghanistan KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) — Hundreds of militants attacked American and Afghan troops in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, opening fire on an outpost from multiple locations with rockets, mortars and heavy-caliber machine guns, according to an initial U.S. military report on the battle. At least eight American troops and two members of the Afghan National Security Force died — the largest number of Americans killed by hostile action in a single day in more than a year, according to CNN records. The fighting lasted about 12 hours, with the militants firing down on the joint U.S.-Afghan outpost from ridgelines above the base, a senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the first reports told CNN. The official said the report was preliminary and subject to change as more information came in.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »

September 10, 2009 by mike.

I recommend jumping to this website and reviewing the entire presentation. It’s well organized and presented. Nice use of graphs and text to tell the story effectively.

A simple solution to this problem (if you think it’s a problem) is to restructure the tax rates to include a steeply progressive top end. The simple fact that is shown by economic growth analysis is that steep top tax rates encourage growth and investment in infrastructure and industry that are good for all of us. An economy built on consumption and service jobs instead of an economy built on production of useful goods using sustainable methods is what we have today. We can do better.

clipped from www.cbpp.org Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.[1] During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households. 2007 marked the fifth straight year in which income gains at the top outpaced those among the rest of the population. From 2002 to 2007, the average inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households rose 62 percent, compared to 4 percent for the bottom 90 percent of households (see Table 1).

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, Small Foot Print, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »

September 7, 2009 by mike.

Double-speak, the group and individuals behind Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission would be more accurately described as Money United.

If the Supreme Court rules 5 to 4, as it very well may, to unleash the power of corporate money in US politics, we will be facing a very different political environment. This will not be just a demonstration of a shift to the right by the Court, it would be a huge lurch into corporatism. I think there is every reason to believe that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will vote for their corporate masters. Anthony Kennedy gets to decide this matter.

I think it is clear that the US is at best a center-right country, if not a right-far right country. Need confirmation? Look at how centrist dems like the Clintons and now apparently Obama get cast as far left, wildly liberal, socialist political leaders. But look at how little concern there is in the country when the republicans dismantle important federal functions. Need examples: ok, Katrina? anybody remember the FEMA performance in that case? Madoff? How is the SEC doing at regulation and investigation. Oh well, there is nothing to do in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission but wait for a 5-4 decision and see which way Justice Kennedy rules.

The natural balance against a corporate Supreme Court would have to be a populist Congress. We don’t have that today and I don’t know how a populist Congress could get elected given the current influence of corporate money in Congress.

It will part of the continuing orwellian political nightmare if Citizens United overturns a century of legislation and precedent. It will be a moment when centrists in the Congress will have to ask themselves if they should have opposed the Alito and Roberts nominations. This could be the real legacy of the Bush-Cheney era.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com A Test Case for Roberts Judged by the standard of an event’s potential long-term impact on our public life, the most important will be the argument before the Supreme Court (on the same day, as it happens) about a case that, if decided wrongly, could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests. This sounds melodramatic. It’s not. The court is considering eviscerating laws that have been on the books since 1907 and 1947 — in two separate cases — banning direct contributions and spending by corporations in federal election campaigns. Doing so would obliterate precedents that go back two and three decades. President Obama’s health-care speech on Wednesday will be only the second most consequential political moment of the week.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, Small Foot Print, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »

September 5, 2009 by mike.

The rule of law is not going to be kind to the Bush administration, nor is the historical review. As various cases appear in courts, judges are going to find over and over again that the Bush administration violated constitutional protections over and over again. The US was a rogue nation under Bush-Cheney. We wait to see if Obama will pull the country back. So far, the indications are that the dictatorial powers seized by Bush-Cheney are proving too tempting to the successors.

If and when these cases find their way to the Supreme Court, we can easily predict a 5-4 decision to throw away our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Justice Anthony Kennedy gets to make that decision all by himself. The other eight votes are already counted. Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas need to be voted down in important cases for the next few decades. Will it happen? Time will tell. For now, Justice Anthony Kennedy calls the shots.

clipped from www.nytimes.com Panel Rules Against Ashcroft in Detention Case Former Attorney General John Ashcroft may face personal liability for the decisions that led to the detention of an American citizen as a material witness after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Friday. In the decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s practice of holding people it suspected of terrorism without charges, as material witnesses. “We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” said the opinion, written by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. Unless Mr. Ashcroft appeals the decision, the case will go back to federal district court for further hearings, which could involve extensive investigation of the former administration’s antiterrorism policies.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | No Comments »

September 5, 2009 by mike.

It works the same in Afghanistan as it did in Vietnam. Deploying thousands and thousands of trigger-pullers in a foreign country will always have the same impact on hearts and minds.

What a disaster that Obama is making Afghanistan his own Vietnam. There is always the choice of declaring victory and withdrawing the troops.

Will the US be attacked if we fail to chase terrorists to the ends of the world? Yes, it will.

Guess what? The US will also be attacked if we chase terrorists to the ends of the world.

It might be smart to pick our battles. The attack on September 11th warranted a response, but it was not like Pearl Harbor or the German invasion of Poland in WWII. There was no country or military army behind the attacks and our response should have been directed to finding and prosecuting perpetrators, the invasion of two or three countries that had little or nothing to do with the attacks on the US was idiocy.

Look at the pictures of the villagers below who are burying their family members and neighbors. The US has no friends in this crowd now.

clipped from www.nytimes.com NATO Strike Magnifies Divide on Afghan War KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — A NATO airstrike on Friday exploded two fuel tankers that had been hijacked by the Taliban, setting off competing claims about how many among the scores of dead were civilians and raising questions about whether the strike violated tightened rules on the use of aerial bombardment. Afghan officials said that up to 90 people were killed by the strike near Kunduz, a northern city where the trucks got stuck after militants tried to drive them across a river late Thursday night. The public health officer for Kunduz Province, Dr. Azizullah Safar, said a medical team sent to the village reported that 80 people had been killed, and he said that “most of them were civilians and villagers.” But he said it was also clear that some of the dead were militants, noting that the site was scattered with remnants of ammunition vests and other gear carried by insurgents.

Posted in News, Politics, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »

August 31, 2009 by mike.

Any truly independent and unfettered investigation will reveal significant wrongdoing and criminal activity and the trail leads right to the Office of VP during the Bush years.

Dick Cheney is a war criminal. That has worked ok for Henry Kissinger to date, but not so well for General Pinochet. I guess we can take up a collection to give Dick a vacation to The Hague and a tour of the World Court if he wants to review the issues with folks there.

I am betting he is afraid to set foot in Europe and will spend the rest of his life hiding from prosecution in the US.

It is encouraging to see Aborn call the shots so bluntly and correctly. I don’t know if that means he is a serious candidate or an opportunist, but it does not hurt to start with the truth: Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

clipped from www.nydailynews.com DA hopeful Richard Aborn portrays former vice-prez Dick Cheney as a criminal in campaign mailer Manhattan district attorney candidate Richard Aborn portrays former Vice President Cheney as a “criminal” in a provocative new campaign mailer hitting Democrats’ mailboxes.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | No Comments »

August 20, 2009 by mike.

So former members of the CIA (if there are such things) are in top management of Blackwater and Blackwater get contract for assassinations, but they never actually did anything. I guess that’s the official story.

I will wait to see if we get more facts about the assassination business. I suspect that if/when we know the truth, we will see a resurrected version of the Nixon enemies list, but the targets won’t be scheduled for tax audits.

David Kay? Paul Wellstone?

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com CIA Hired Firm for Assassin Program Blackwater Missions Against Al-Qaeda Never Began, Ex-Officials Say A secret CIA program to kill top al-Qaeda leaders with assassination teams was outsourced in 2004 to Blackwater USA, the private security contractor whose operations in Iraq prompted intense scrutiny, according to two former intelligence officials familiar with the events. The North Carolina-based company was given operational responsibility for targeting terrorist commanders and was awarded millions of dollars for training and weaponry, but the program was canceled before any missions were conducted, the two officials said.

Posted in News, Politics, Connect the Dots, War Criminals | Print | 1 Comment »