Ron Paul confronts the liar Condeleeza Rice

related videos

McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare

First collected by dandelionsalad

Obama Responds to Bush and McCain Foreign Policy Attacks

First collected by veracifier

The Daily Show: Douglas Feith Uncut

First collected by dandelionsalad

Douglas Feith Uncut Pt. 2 | The Daily Show | Comedy Central Video

First collected by dandelionsalad

TPMtv: McCain's Lobbying Pals: Vol. 57

First collected by Talking Points Memo

Dennis Kucinich on Iraq and the Economy (video)

First collected by dandelionsalad

Discussion on blog comments needed !!

Has anyone who reads this noticed that during the past week, there has been a CHANGE in
in sign-in procedures to any sites within the last week.

I really encourage some discussion of why sign-in policies, agreements, or other things might have changed now.

Has anyone noticed an abrupt change also ??

I am finding that none of the comments but one are posting and being logged by Google ..

Virginia

ON reTHUG cronyism and the HUD crisis ..

From Center for American Progress -

many fine links throughout ..

Alphonso Gets Evicted

This morning, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced he is stepping down effective April 18. While the White House has so far refused to give a reason for his departure, Jackson faces ongoing probes "by a federal grand jury, the Justice Department, the FBI and the HUD inspector general." Earlier this month, Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) sent a letter to President Bush "urging him to request Mr. Jackson's resignation, arguing that accusations of wrongdoing had made him ineffective." Their calls joined similar ones from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2006. Jackson was one of Bush's few remaining holdovers from Texas, after a parade of these loyalists -- including Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Dan Bartlett -- left the White House last year. Like so many of Bush's Texas friends, Jackson's legacy will be one of incompetence, corruption, and political cronyism. While he was busy awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to his golfing buddies and erecting giant photo homages to himself, the nation was spiraling into the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression.

A PHILADELPHIA STORY: One of the most recent scandals to come to light focuses on Jackson's willingness to retaliate against employees unwilling to participate in his cronyism. In 2006, Jackson allegedly demanded that the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) "transfer a $2 million public property" at a "substantial discount" to Kenny Gamble, a developer, former soul-music songwriter, and friend of Jackson's. When PHA director Carl Greene refused, Jackson and his aides called Philadelphia's mayor and "followed up with 'menacing' threats about the property and other housing programs in at least a dozen letters and phone calls over an 11-month period." For example, Orlando Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at HUD, suggested in an e-mail that the agency "make his [Green's] life less happy." Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing, proposed that they "[t]ake away all of his Federal dollars." According to Green, Jackson's politically motivated plan to remove federal funds from Philadelphia "could raise rents for most of its 84,000 low-income tenants and force the layoffs of 250 people." "This kind of stuff undermines public confidence in our officials," Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said to Jackson during a recent congressional hearing.

LOYAL BUSHIES ONLY: In May 2007, Jackson testified to Congress, "I don't touch contracts." In retrospect, that statement appears to have been at best a gross inaccuracy, and at worst, an outright lie. In 2006, Jackson told a group of business leaders in Texas that he refuses to award contracts to people who disagree with the President. During this controversial speech on April 28, 2006, Jackson recounted a conversation he had with a prospective contractor who had a "heck of a proposal." This contractor, however, told Jackson, "I don't like President Bush." Jackson said that he thought to himself, "Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected." Jackson subsequently refused to award the man the contract, despite the merits of the proposal. A former HUD assistant secretary also confirmed that Jackson told agency employees to "consider presidential supporters when you are considering the selected candidates for discretionary contracts." He also said that he "did not want contracts" awarded to certain "political groups," which included "Democrats." Jackson's actions appeared to violate the Federal Aquisition Regulations (48 CFR 3.101-1), which states, "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and...with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none."

CRONYISM OVER COMPETENCE: In Oct. 2007, federal investigators looked into whether, after Hurricane Katrina, Jackson lined up an emergency "no-bid contract" at the HUD-controlled Housing Authority of New Orleans for "golfing buddy" and friend William Hairston. According to HUD, the emergency contract paid Hairston $392,000 over a year and a half; Hairston's partner companies also received "direct contracts" with HUD. One of the companies which received a contract in New Orleans, Columbia Residential, had "significant financial ties to Jackson." Jackson's wife also had "ties to two companies that did business with the New Orleans authority." Atlanta lawyer Michael Hollis, another Jackson friend, "appears to have been paid approximately $1 million for managing the troubled Virgin Islands Housing Authority," despite having "no experience in running a public housing agency." A "top Jackson aide" reportedly made it clear to officials within HUD that "Jackson wanted Hollis" for the job. Curiously, Hollis received more than four times the salary of his predecessor.

Jordan Paust: No Shelter for War Cirmes "Within the Scope of Employment"

No Shelter for War Crimes 'Within the Scope of Employment'

JURIST Guest Columnist Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says despite a recent conclusion of the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top US officials are immune from torture-related litigation launched by former US detainees because they were performing acts "within the scope of their employment," it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be sheltered by such authority while engaging in war crimes...

---

In Rasul v. Myers, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld dismissal of suits brought by four former detainees against Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and others for (among other claims) alleged “torture” and, alternatively, alleged “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” in violation of international law. Dismissal was based on a sweeping anticontextual conclusion that each individual defendant was a federal official or employee “acting within the scope of his office or employment” within the meaning of the 1988 Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(1) and (d)(1). The three-judge panel noted that the district court below had “agreed with the defendants that their alleged authorization, implementation and supervision of torture was ‘incidental to the conduct authorized’” by the Executive and that their actions were “‘within the scope of their employment.’”

Plaintiffs had stressed that the conduct was “seriously criminal,” “never authorized,” and had long been condemned by the United States. Plaintiffs had agreed that the “torture, threats, physical and psychological abuse inflicted upon them” were “intended as interrogation techniques to be used on detainees.” The three-judge panel noted that the district court found that the alleged “‘torture and abuse [were] tied exclusively to the plaintiffs’ detention in a military prison and to the interrogations conducted therein.’” These points were enough for the three-judge panel to conclude, “then, [that] the underlying conduct – here, the detention and interrogation of suspected enemy combatants – is the type of conduct defendants were employed to engage in....” (emphasis added). With respect to the fact that the alleged conduct is seriously criminal, the panel stated that “criminal conduct is not per se outside the scope of employment.”

What must necessarily be shocking to those familiar with international law is that alleged conduct that is “seriously criminal” and creates war crime responsibility (e.g., torture, cruel treatment, inhumane treatment, and degrading treatment in violation of the laws of war) could ever be considered to have been engaged in by any member of the executive branch while acting “within the scope of his office or employment” or that if defendants had authorized, were engaged in, or had facilitated interrogation as such, they could ever be said to have been acting “within the scope” of their office or employment with respect to interrogation tactics that they had authorized, facilitated, or used that were violations of the laws of war, which are war crimes. As documented in my recent book, Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration’s Unlawful Responses in the “War” on Terror 21-22, 169-72 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007), every relevant federal and state judicial opinion since the dawn of the United States, including several U.S. Supreme Court opinions, has affirmed that all persons within the executive branch are bound by the laws of war and that the laws of war place limitations on the authority of any member of the executive branch. As a matter of common sense, it is legally and morally impossible for any member of the executive branch to be acting within the scope of his authority while engaging in war crimes. As the Supreme Court recognized more generally with respect to conduct during the Civil War in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882):

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.

During the Civil War, the Supreme Court also affirmed that the President has no powers ex necessitate, “is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute [and not violate] the laws,” and “[b]y the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers.” Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 119-21 (1866). In Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 231 (1901), the Court recognized that military powers are “regulated and limited ... directly by the laws of war.” As noted, throughout our history judicial opinions addressing the laws of war demonstrate that members of the executive branch are controlled by the law of war and are not employed to violate the law of war. Clearly, crimes under the laws of war are not within the scope of the “office or employment” of any federal official or employee and relevant criminal conduct is beyond the scope of lawful authority or ultra vires whether or not “underlying conduct” is within the scope of their authority. Indeed, as Founders and Framers recognized, the people of the United States were bound by the customary law of nations and had no authority to violate such law that they could delegate to the executive. Instead, they created an express mandate in the Constitution that the Executive must faithfully execute the laws.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg rightly applied an ultra vires rationale in the face of German national claims that they were acting within the scope of official authority and were entitled to immunity: “He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law.” During Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA or ATS) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) litigation over the last many years, several federal cases have also applied the ultra vires rationale in connection with civil suits against foreign heads of state, other officials, generals, and others to recognize that conduct in violation of international law cannot be considered to be an “official,” “public,” or authoritative act and, instead, is outside the lawful authority of any government or office. Since international law has often been used by the Supreme Court and other federal courts as a necessary background for interpretation of federal statutes, it is surprising that the three-judge panel did not use international law for purposes of interpreting the phrase “within the scope” and that there was no reference to the IMT at Nuremberg’s recognition or to the many ATCA and TVPA cases noted above that had used international law in connection with an ultra vires rationale.

It is also surprising that the panel did not use The Charming Betsy rule that federal statutes must be interpreted in a manner to comply with international law and that, in any event, federal statutes “can never be construed to violate ... rights ... further than is warranted by the law of nations.” 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 117-18 (1804) (emphasis added). Additionally, it must be shocking to those abroad to learn that a U.S. court has concluded that torture, cruel treatment, inhumane treatment, and degrading treatment are “within the scope of” the office or employment of persons within the U.S. executive branch; that such persons are not bound by the rule of law; and that they are employed to engage in such international crimes. When interpreting the phrase “within the scope,” it would have been better to affirm that no officer of the law is beyond the law, that no officer of the law can be employed to violate the law, that no officer of the law can be acting within the scope of his office or employment if he is committing war crimes.

Also of interest is the fact that torture, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are proscribed in all circumstances under human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment. Moreover, each treaty requires that civil remedies for violations be made available. For example, the ICCPR expressly mandates that victims “shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” As documented in Beyond the Law (at 166-67), both treaties were ratified after the 1988 legislation and the Federal Tort Claims Act and are, therefore, last in time. As such and under the last in time rule, they must prevail against any prior federal legislation that might otherwise deny an effective remedy. Even if the treaties had not been last in time, rights to effective remedies under the treaties would prevail under the “rights under” treaties exception to the last in time rule that has been recognized in Supreme Court and other federal cases. As explained also in the book, this point can be important with respect to proper interpretation and application of the subsequent Military Commissions Act (MCA), although one should not apply the last in time rule with respect to such legislation because, in accordance with a long line of Supreme Court cases, a treaty will prevail unless there is a clear and unequivocal intent of Congress to override a particular treaty expressed within the legislation and no such intent appears in the MCA.

The message that Rasul v. Myers sends within the United States and abroad is a message that terrorists generally prefer in order to demonstrate that the government that they oppose is acting outside and beyond the law, that the rule of law is inoperative and unrestraining. It is also a message that we clearly should not tolerate in the face of ahistorical and autocratic Bush Administration claims, otherwise denied by the Supreme Court in Hamdi, Rasul, and Hamdan, that the President can violate any inhibiting international law and congressional legislation during his so-called “war” on terror – that he and his entourage are beyond the law.

Jordan J. Paust is the Mike & Teresa Baker Law Center Professor at the University of Houston, a former JAG officer in the U.S. Army, and author of Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration’s Unlawful Responses in the “War” on Terror (Cambridge University Press 2007), available online at www.cambridge.org/9780521711203.

White House gone mad!! "Crime has been commited when evidence is spoilated" LEGAL ASSUMPTION

Things to think about in the the White House email tape "recycling"

- Think about these things; discuss amongst yourselves. -

No, they did NOT "go green" - they've clearly broken the law

and that's what the law tells us to presume

For background see http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30775

From the AP:

The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages — including those pertaining to the CIA leak case — have been taped over and are gone forever.

The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.

Among the e-mails that could be lost are messages swapped by any White House officials involved in discussions about leaking a CIA officer's identity to reporters.

Before October 2003, the White House recycled its backup tapes "consistent with industry best practices," according to a sworn statement by a White House aide.

Backup tapes are the last line of defense for saving electronic records.

The White House (leader of the FREE world!! Champion for the victim's of the world's despots and terrorists!! (right) has made the announcement that under usual industry practice, (yeah, like the governnment is an industry!!) they've deleted all sorts of lovely emails that an serious investigation into crime and corruption needs to see.

FLASH!: The United States government's property belongs to the people, not to Bush and his advisors or staff.

The White House documentation of its activities is mandated by the US Constitution.

Heeeeeeeeeeel loooooooooo! Can't anyone remember that? Not Congress? Aren't they supposed to provide a little program called checks and balances? Some serious accusations are "on the table" and being investigated!! Do they know nothing about contemporary data storage and can't see the evidence right under their noses??

Pardon me! I was not aware that anything had changed, but apparently it has, as Pelosi&Co aren't screaming in outrage at the announcement. They've just been HAD.

Instead of cooing at their public (and in the confines of the rooms with their groomers), the Congress should get serious and use their voices to scream loud and long about this most recent obstruction of justice and wrench the media's blinders off so The People can see for themselves this latest affront. Congress does get paid to perform that duty for us. Nice large sums, too, compared to what we make.

People have known since Fitzgerald's review of Rove's computer that there was problems with the White House archiving.

Perhaps now would be the time review what problems were known; which software specifications were discussed; and which software products were identified that would meet the problems identified during the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame-Name Outing. Never before has a US Intel agent been publically outted; and in light of the fact that it seriously endangered the investigation of nuclear proliferation (the Dr. AQ Khan case), surely this warrants some serious investigation.

THE WORLD IS WAITING. If the American people are not aware that things are rotted to the core at the White House, the world surely knows. What's it gonna take to get a proper investigation?

What's happened since Plamegate

What needs to be looked at now

Quite obviously the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence is not the final chapter in the ongoing saga of investigation. Every story has a beginning, a middle and an end, and we, with Congressional help, are no further in finding out The Answers than we were many months ago; a good, solid middle of the story, I'd say.

What problems with White House procedures are still to be looked at??

Can we please take a look at which US government personnel knew of the problems with the software in the White house - but did not ensure the "new contract" included technical solutions to address the "archiving problems" the Grand Jury discovered.

[Ah, pardon me, but it is a streeeeeeeeeeeetch to believe that this was never taken up on behalf of the American people without someone colluding about it! Who purchases these contracts? Who reviews the purchases? What do they know about data collection - what do they know about archival responsibilities in government? Even if we hold them to their standard of conduct, why are things SO screwed up??]

Why is this problem with White House e-mail archiving, regardless the software issues, not getting addressed using some sort of "backup to the failed backup";

In light of the serious charges that come to light in JUST the outting of an intel community -- not taking into account other criminal irregularities --- why would some one responsible NOT look into a more permanent system of backup? An indestructable, fail safe system? With the cozy relationship between the White House and the Telecoms, surely someone from an ISP could have given them some "industry standard" advice as to what the companies to ensure that nothing gets lost? Okay, follow that logic!! Can you see my point?? But I guess that simple idea got lost on the White House staffers. Call Ma Bell, ask for a remedy to your backup problems!! SIMPLE, neat, easy -- but beyond the capabilities of the morons and criminals operating the White House computers? Even someone from a business college course could figure out that one. Ah, guess so. Any morons in any industry who couldn't figure this out, ask the experts or the name brand would be swiftly "downsized" and given a few weeks unemployment benefit. But the White House sure knows how to pick 'em!! The common variety of employee who would just "ask Bell" doesn't seem to be available to our CEO decider-in-chief. Try it yourself, put a query into google about it; you'll get DOZENS of answers. The destruction of perhaps as many as 10 million emails is rather a lot; something worth taking a bit of time to find out how to store at least SOME of them. Industry standards must be met - not just your idea of industry standards, eh Mr. President??

What was the plan Office of Personnel Management used to hire contractors and IT experts to transition the "bad" WH archiving system to a "better" one that did meet the legal requirements that were foreseeable, given the JAG-identified concerns in 2001 going forward that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could adjudicate alleged war crimes;

Or was its more convenient and less revealing to not have a plan? Again, war crimes complicity is implied in White House actions since the issue arose so long before the email g-- and other unknown data -- got "recycled". Now, if I was criminal and I wanted to ensure that I could continue doing my crimes, the one thing I would do is to ensure I left no traces. So, when anyone gets up to ignoring obvious calls to be accountable, I get more than just a bit suspicious. Why, did White House do this when indeed legal experts were raising this issue so early in the Bush administration, was nothing done to ensure that nothing would disappear from security archives?? And where is the mandated official scepticism on one would assume that Congress would have after the Judge Advocate Generals had already expressed their concerns? Congress kept funding the war, didn't it care if things were legal??

What summary can WH provide showing, after Fitzgerald's findings:

[a] there was an understanding of the problems;

[b] there was a review of the existing technical solutions;

[c] there was a program manager assigned to identify a solution and implement a solution that met the legal requirements; and

[d] there was a planned review to ensure the proposed plan, and implemented solution did address the foreseeable risks identified by Fitzgerald, and met the foreseeable legal interest of the ICC which the JAGs identified to DOJ OLC in 2001;

Thinking of the corporate standards that the White House says it has, where are the documents showing that they had an ACTION PLAN?? In the offices where I have worked when problems cropped up we put down the action steps, met as circumstacnces presented themselves, set target targets for resolutions of difficulties and expected people to meet imposed deadlines. Of course various strategies for resolutions would be proposed. Regular reviews of progress were expected. Any legal problems were expected to be addressed. And we didn't have legal eagles standing over our shoulders either. This is standard corporate/business procedures (SOP). Yet the White House doesn't seem to hold themselves accountable for even good business practices, let alone serving as a competent federal agency on what had been shown to be a potential legal problem!! What does the Chief of Staff not know about this usual procedure in any office that functions in today's world?? In light of the severity of the potential problems that were identified by JAGs -- WAR CRIMES -- surely this is not an accidental policy, and under the law (which they more than know, they contend) then wouldn't it be wise to ensure that the American people's interests were protected by good practices rather than letting them get tossed to the winds? There is also a transparency of government issue here, and a question of "historical record" that might have been addressed in such a plan. This is beyond gross incompetent as their discussion of "events" suggests. Pretty shabby "biz" practices, I'd say.

Was here no consideration for the JAG-related concerns at the POW working group meetings to _modernize_ the archiving system in the WH to meet the foreseeable risk ICC or other international tribunals would want information about the "foreseeable torture" (court words, civil case, former Guantanamo Prisoners of War) at the hands of US personnel;

Hey, Bush&Co - get with the program! This is modern times! Businesses keep up! But you seem to assert you can be lousier than a failing mom and pop store. Everyone keeps records in business! We pay taxes, we save receipts. We pay lightening bills, we buy gifts for customers. We save records of our correspondence. We are more computer savvy than ever before. Yet, you - inimitable as always see to think that when you have been told that the international criminal court and further misbehaviour -- which included TORTURE - might come breathing down your necks don't have look at potential risks of disposing of evidence! Give me a break! You've already seen the court decisions!! You know that there are further risks being taken, and yet cannot do the simplest of business activities? Oh, really .. this is mother speaking .. you're really awful! You hear no one, you don't care that the "business" you are actually in is a PEOPLE BUSINESS!! You break the international misconduct barrier AND you expect people to believe that you cannot hear expert advice which warned you? These computer records were important and you were told that. Yet even the standard you claim you've met is nowhere near being fulfilled when dealing with crimes against HUMANITY. Sigh. One MUST obviously assume the worst.

Many people in federal government have brought up these issues during the "CEO of government's" "regime". Since the US is a signatory to Geneva (like it or no), it must have "heard" the concerns of the Judge Advocate Generals at some point during the past six years, particularly when meetings were held to foresee the problems that are apparent today. I smell obstruction! I can only assume the worst and that's the way the law sees it.

What program reviews included, or should have included, the JAG Memoranda to Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel outlining the foreseeable risk that the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals could prosecute US persons for alleged war crimes;

Can you show me those program reviews? Can you show me what they included? Here is a "for instance: Your kid is now on probation and he takes a part time job .. you just ASSUME that conditions of his time, the legal conditions, are taken into account. You ask him as time goes along - "have you met your probation conditions? I need to know before I sign on to you doing more part time work." But spoiled brats that they, are the White House couldn't be bothered to look at the conditions of their probation when it came to review their "conditions" - which were to comply with international LAW. When it came time for someone to sit down and look at the progress, they shrug and say, "What probation conditions?" They just never included them. Bad business practice, bad relations with the citizens, bad submitting to good and proper legal advice. They think they are 'above' the law, but there are not - legal considerations given to them by federal officers should have been followed at each performance review.

Why was there funding set aside with the Military Commissions Act to _defend_ US persons before international tribunals for war crimes; but there was allegedly no technical system in place to [a] meet that foreseeable risk the JAG identified; [b] fully preserve documents that legal counsel knew or should have known would substantially be likely subject to subpoena; and [c] there was no backup system to protect that "valuable" information needed to _defend_ those the MCA foresaw as being subject to war crimes prosecutions;

The JAG's performed their duties. The War Crimes act was rewritten. Express and grave reservations about documenting decisions taken by the Unitary Executive were expressed. The likehood of US personnel being subjected to TORTURE equal to the treatment that the US hands out to others was a very huge risk. Yet, by failing to keep records it became VERY HARD indeed to show just how the US does comply with international covenants and to protect its citizens serving in the military or in intelligence agencies. Not too bright!! You'dda thunk that the White House would seriously attempt to comply with the JAG's recommendations as they consistently pointed how one thing could lead to another and DRASTIC consequences for AMERICAN citizens ensue. With the alteration of the Military Commissions Act George Bush, CEO deluxe, must still publish his royal interpretations of the law in the Federal Register. Assuming that the president takes this obligation seriously – and issues detailed interpretations – this will provide much-needed transparency regarding how the U.S. interprets and plans to implement its international treaty obligations. This provides a "cushion" for Americans as to whether they want to take the risk of signing up to take on military "obligations" Is signing up to be waterboarded or tortured in other ways or is one not?? The possibility is always there that the very worse could happen.

But with the destruction of the White House emails and other data now "recycled" - we are left to conclude that White House legal counsel's interpretations of the US Government/business responsibilities and has been interpreted to mean - he decides all things, wants to cover up all things -- and we can assume that crimes have indeed been committed.

and

Was it the intent of the DoJ OLC and other legal counsel who wrote the MCA language granting funds for defendants before the international tribunals to have _no evidence_ and _no records_ from the White House; and how does this "foreseeable outcome" -- that of having a requirement to defend, but not evidence to defend -- reflect on the legal counsel who had a foreseeable duty to provide a full defense to their clients and ensure the "needed evidence to provide a full defense" was available?

Where DOES the buck stop? The War Crimes Act was very specific. CONgress must take every step it possibly can to ensure that American lives are protected from torture and other conditions involving “cruel and inhuman treatment,” which is defined as conduct that causes serious or physical mental pain or suffering. Obviously the JAGS had that in mind - but does the Department of Justice, both under Alberto Gonzales and now under Michael Mukasey (who's expressed no legal opinion on waterboarding! and Congress let him get away with it!!) have any grave concerns as to where all this will lead - just exactly what does it see the consequences of NOT keeping records as being? What does this SAY about the Office of Legal Counsel itself?

Who is going to ensure that Americans are protected? Is Congress going to "step up to the plate" and make good its oaths to uphold the Constitution that says citizens have a right to expect legal compliance from its agencies?

The destruction of the emails "problem" has not been solved by George Bush's "company.". It has (excuse the coming snark) lousy attorneys, its auditors (the Congress) are derelict in their duties and we "the shareholders" are worried that the "workers" are going to waterboarded. We do not know if our security system (intel agencies) will be "turned off" when the President has a bad hair day. They -- BuZh administrators, the "Executive OFFICE" -- were warned caution was required. They don't give reports on the truth at the Shareholder's meeting. They don't seem able to put together an adequate IT team in 2007 and didn't even admit that until people got heavy with them. In fact, they don't even keep enough documentation to file an annual report! And now they expect us to buy their crapola excuses for Poor Management. This is criminal, we can only push for their prosecution as we cannot sell our "Stock" which is our citizenship. Instead, an investigation will have to be made, legal culpability determined, and indictments pursued. And with the destruction of evidence, all we can do is say .. with spoilation you must be assumed to be GUILTY -- and the Company taken away from you all and penalties for "Bad Business" pursued.

We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. The American public has been cruelly "hoaxed" this assertion of power in the Military Commissions Act - and now it faces further abuse by those violating the Geneva Conventions who destroy the evidence. A new low.

We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.

What happens NEXT???

Stayed tuned .. as the next installment in Bush Dynasty plays out on primetime .. As always, after the shock wears off, the inevitable finger pointing will start, the projections and rationalizes will fly, people will run from their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution as they have for so many years . and yet .. somehow we can all work to ensure that JUSTICE prevails and let the Bush Adminstration and its ridiculous "office boys" know .. we are watching you!! We see what you're up to!! and we know that every legal remedy to your "mismanagement" will be undertaken by those who KNOW ..

YOU MUST ASSUME CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED when the evidence is spoilated.

You didn't fool us at all. The White House security office is responsible for the tapes and that is
Director of the White House Security Office, James Knodell.

As CREW says:

It is perfectly clear why the White House has used every strategic maneuver it can think of to avoid answering any questions about the missing email: its answers are likely to raise more questions than they answer. That, years after the problem was discovered, the White House is still questioning whether or not there is even a problem is deeply disturbing.

Your pal,
Rosemary Woods

Back to the telecom immunity issue .. Bring on the brooms!!

“It’s particularly unusual in the case of the telecoms because you don’t really know what you’re immunizing,”

said Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law with the Law Library of the Library of Congress.

"You don’t know what you’re cleaning up.”

When I was a student at the art academy,
our education tended towards balance,
harmony, order, the observation of nature,
and the poetry of everyday life.
If only our leaders were required
to receive such an education.

picture and words from
www.robertsturmanstudio.com

"Even as the White House lobbied to expand the scope of FISA, we now know that President Bush disregarded the rule of law when he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on ordinary Americans' phone calls and e-mails without the warrant FISA requires. Shockingly, Congress voted to temporarily condone this abuse of power in August 2007 with legislation sanctioning this illegal operation. This legislation, which we've dubbed the "Police America Act," is only temporary and will expire in February 2008."

~ the ACLU website

For my Canadian readers, this first:

We need a clean sweep! Out with illegal legislation and Executive Orders! Out with the "Police America Act!" Out with the rePUGs who want everyone living as serfs! Out with those who side with them!!

The BuZh administration (can you say Dick Cheney and cohorts?) has done many abominable things to turn the United States into an IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY, rotting a republic striving to be democratic right to its very core.

The trampling of human rights really picked up steam under Clinton in many, many areas of law in a country which is SUPPOSED to be based on rights of individuals. The US is the child of yearings to be free of the power of Kings and Queens and rights are clearly delineated in the First Amendment to the Constitution which reflect its parentage.

Clinton was quite good at trampling people under by using the government - lest you forget, I am talking about Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the persecution of many indigenous tribes. He managed to subvert the purpose of the Department of Justice, as if by magic.

I fell into one of their little "traps."

And of course, as I am ALWAYS on about this -- he trampled the rights of people like me by insidious practices that broke the LAW on the war on drugs. At least the ACLU noticed some of it .. but because it lead to abuse, the current US adminstration thought that they would take it that many steps further ..

BuZh is something else. His something else is that PRIVATE corporations and government contractors now are the vigorous perpetrators of oppression, which has been workable as long as he can keep up his IMPERIAL WAR DRUM, which continues to eat away the rights of the US citizen, no matter where that individual may be. Motive is a seperate topic. We are concerned in this posting with only the wherefores of how they use criminality to do that today ..

One doesn't have to be in a "combat area" to fall under the purview of the US Intel "community" - according to them all areas are combat areas! Under the global war on terror, America has the most basic of its rights -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech suffer -- grave assaults. And he would take away the right to privacy, too, if people let him. You can catch a link to information on the The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act below and how that came out for We, the People below ..

This is to speak a very deep legal issue in very bare terms, I know. But I am trying to make a simple point.

When the US was founded there were no fax machines, no "singing wires", no computers and the founding fathers didn't sit down and figure out how to enact laws on each little thing that would be invented in the future. They figured just putting into the first amendment to the Constitution that people had a right to privacy was quite enough to cover any eventuality in the future that might crop up.

But BuZh, as is HIS want, thinks HIS decisions over what constitutes threats to America and what HE wants to do about his little Global War on Terror (choke!) outweighs the United Constitution. And to BuZh&Co, all areas are threatening - including the privacy of one's conversations with one's mother-in-law or an email to Santa Claus.

Or, has more darkly been contended, they can listen in to find out how to blackmail people .. because now whatever you express over some communications network is grounds for "surveillance" and the information gathered is "duly noted", but by who, we aren't really sure.

The intel agencies have mushroomed, blossomed, been given vast sums of money (who even knows how much??), become the elephant in your computer, on your phone, anywhere data can be collected. There were around 16 the last time I checked ..

When Clinton came to office there were a multitude of telecoms. The monopoly powers had been smashed in court. However, as time went along the power of the bigger telecoms came back with corporate takeovers and America was back to the powerful handful once again. How the FCC was manipulated is another story, for another time. But since BuZh, these telecom guys have been making unconscienable profits, and much of it due to the unwilling largesse of the American taxpayer who is apt to paying for his own surveillance! Make sense to you? Me, neither.

There it is - in a very written-down nutshell. It's We The People versus George W. BuZh and his staff of insidious legal advisers in the little matter of what rights do WE have to keep the federales outta our computers, off our phone lines, intercepting our fax transmissions .. and hanging unto data about us in storage for God knows HOW long and for what purpose(s) as yet determined.

Why should we fight for this -- what would appear to be a fundamental right?

Because the RePUGlican Party outweighs the interests of America, the US citizen and the democratic values enshrined in America's Bill of Rights. People have clearly forgotten what a republic is under the rePUGs and allow CONgress to "abridge their rights" and allow those who do it outside the DC Beltway to do it with IMPUNITY!!

The Patriot Act saw to that.

The bullies just see the imperial tax collectors, the corporate cronies right to profit without any accountability (and of course, the better war mongers they are and the more money they give the Republican National Committee, the more money they get to keep) all in a cozy little nest - and then there is everyone else. And anyone who violates this nice little system of theirs - well, they just better beware!! Big Brother is LISTENING.

While Bush&Co's imperium has clearly VIOLATED the law of the land, cronyism being what it is, they wish to keep their telecom friends from criminal (or civil) prosecution by saying that telecoms have total immunity for damages. Hey! you give yer buck$ to the rePUGs to get elected, you should have your immunity, eh? That's what the telecoms with their big fat dollars think.

Too bad the telecom's have invaded people's lives and tough cookie all you stiffs who got 'tapped.
Um HMMM. Sure.

Not just while BuZhistas are in office, but for always.

So to that end, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and their nice little GOP "reich" want to shove this down Congress's throat .. right away, before the bill which allows this to expire.

The neocons looked like they were gonna get away with this nasty little piece of cronyism BUT Christopher Dodd, a Senator STOPPED! them which came as a bit of shock to those of us used to seeing ONLY a spineless CONgress. But we still need them BROOMS to get rid of this mess once and for all.

Someone finally stood up to The Decider and made a difference. Which gives all of us human rights activists a bit of a thrill in a seven year slog.

There is a great fear on the part of some Congressmen/"ladies" and potential candidates that they just might not get re-elected or find a seat if they don't start standing up for Americans. Some of us are pretty busy letting CONgress know "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!" And not only THAT, but you're gonna find we don't give you another nickel to run for office.

So the spineless democrats are now coming onto us -- trying to make us believe we can count on them for another term to express our views, and stick up for our rights -- and DO something for a change. Not that they'll end the war, but at least let us sue the companies whose services we paid for not knowing that they had extra ears on our lines and huge storage facilities for all the data that they were collecting -- all supposedly in the "national interest." It's in the REPUBLICAN PARTY's interest, that is all.

[and not only that, but should it turn out that this info was used to blackmail or set someone up or .. then we can use that in impeachment proceedings and war crimes tribunals ... ] Funny how these Bushistas can conveniently "lose" millions of emails, but can find the time and inclination to store all of ours!!]

President Bush and the National Security Agency enlisted the help of telecommunications companies to spy on American citizens without the FISA-required warrants. Now Bush wants Congress to give the telecom companies permanent immunity from prosecution!! Like the Telecoms didn't KNOW?? I don't reach for metaphors easily, and I'm not going to now either, BUT this really stinks. It's just all Bad Law all around. And who wants this to turn into something SO big, it'll take a tank rather than a few brooms to remove it??

I ask you to fight/understand the telecom immunity problem in the first step towards restoring the US to being a republic. It's a SHAME to be fighting on this issue, but there ya have it, it's what must be done. And it might prove well worth it ..

Telecom immunity means that corporations who worked with the government to illegally spy on US citizens would never have to answer for their actions and I don't care if you are pro-republican or pro-democratic or from the moon, it's just not okay as it is a system just clearly meant to create different classes of people - those who can listen with impunity and do whatever they like with what they hear, and those who cannot. There is not even a guarantee that this date is actually accurate if it is used in a court of law! They can say you said anything they make it out you said . or didn't. It's really complicating a very basic idea on many levels .. that basic idea is that you have a right to privacy. nice. neat. simple. and people who violate that right, should be held accountable!!

This bill exemplifies how wealthy corporations have more rights than U.S. citizens. Large telecommunications companies spied on Americans, violating the 4th Amendment, the right to privacy, and now Congress and the president wants to give them a get out-of-jail-free card.

We need to protect the Constitution of the United States or we might as well just say, "let's have the kings back!" and it's okay for the US to ram democracy down people's throats around the world while not being the least bit democratic at home. And all this surveillance is a total waste of taxpayer's money! Not only THAT, but there's a very good chance this information is being used to cover up CRIMES. That's what Dr. Fisher is on about. Ya don't know whatcher cleaning up!!

Some of us are not too keen on that immunity for the king's chronies idea. History is replete with the tales of King's gone wild over the citizenry. It's hard enough with Presidents to ensure rights. King George II must be put back in his place .. as someone who is being paid to protect citizens and uphold the Constitution, whether he likes it or not, it's not "just a piece of paper." For some people like me, it's a birthright and something that was a model for taking on values as a citizen. To replace the Constitution with Big Brother is not my idea of republic at all.

What a dangerous precedent has been set by the actions of CONgress and the Bushistas. But the hope is that the damage can be undone.

The immunity that telecom companies "enjoy" due the spineless CONgress expires in February. Last December Dodd made his stand and said someone has to stop this! The new Senate session convenes on 15 January and the rePUGs want to vote on the bill as fast as they possibly can. Can we get out enough brooms in time and SWEEP??

IF enough people can swing their Senators (they guys with the big buck$ in CONgress), the US might finally get this message: no one is going to support lawmakers who give immunity to those who violate US citizens' rights. There should be no need for a further filibuster and endless debate; enough people should be good and mad to stop this complete breakdown of the law.

Here's a question: How do you commute the sentence for a crime, before you've even determined what it is, precisely? Rhetorical? No a question for some lawyers to look at and one for us ACTIVISTS to bring to the public's attention. It's not a textbook question, it's one that we all must solve if there is to be any freedom from Big Brother at all.

No Telecom Immunity Action Page:
http://usalone.com/laesch/pnum778.php (anyone can use this link)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum778 (to use
this you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

this has been the subject of MUCH legal debate: here is the BEST summary of the some of the FISA issues and how this came to this pretty pass:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Fisher070607.pdf

The link below gives you a good precis of some legal issues with plenty of links AND just a smidgen of the now famous John Ashcroft confrontation (oh, these Bushistas! They'll stoop to anything!!)
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2005/12/clash-between-then-attorney-general.html

and then this may help you get informed on the whole issue of the Surveillance in the US:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17321res20030408.html

Immunity for Telecoms May Set Bad Precedent, Legal Scholars Say
October 22, 2007, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101041.html

When previous Republican administrations were accused of illegality in the FBI and CIA spying abuses of the 1970s or the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, Democrats in Congress launched investigations or pushed for legislative reforms. But last week, faced with admissions by several telecommunication companies that they assisted the Bush administration in warrantless spying on Americans, leaders of the Senate intelligence committee took a much different tack -- proposing legislation that would grant those companies retroactive immunity from prosecution or lawsuits. The proposal marks the second time in recent years that Congress has moved toward providing legal immunity for past actions that may have been illegal. The Military Commissions Act, passed by a GOP-led Congress in September 2006, provided retroactive immunity for CIA interrogators who could have been accused of war crimes for mistreating detainees. Legal experts say the granting of such retroactive immunity by Congress is unusual, particularly in a case involving private companies. "It's particularly unusual in the case of the telecoms because you don't really know what you're immunizing," said Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law with the Law Library of the Library of Congress. Civil liberties groups and many academics argue that Congress is allowing the government to cover up possible wrongdoing and is inappropriately interfering in disputes that the courts should decide. The American Civil Liberties Union [said] in a news release Friday that "the administration is trying to cover its tracks."

A very famous TV clip about Andrew Card & Gonegonzles confronting Ashcroft

THAILAND, drugs, George Bush, and Depleted uranium!!

Will a Drug Warrior Be Hanged?

| Bush Betrayal | Attention Deficit Democracy | Bush | Bovard

So, after the primary results last night, I was looking for something uplifting to put on the blog.

Voila! The possibility that an evil politician could get hanged!

The Future of Freedom Foundation today posted online an article from their Freedom Daily on the Bush-blessed Thai slaughter of drug users and other people hated by the police. The American media has largely ignored the Thai atrocities.

Will a Drug Warrior Be Hanged?
by James Bovard

Thailand’s billionaire prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was deposed in a coup last year by the country’s military. Somchai Hom-la-or, chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, recently declared that “Thaksin and his government committed crimes against humanity.” Thai lawyers and human-rights activists are suggesting that he be indicted and tried by the International Criminal Code for the thousands of killings committed by Thai police and other agents during his war on drugs.

While the odds of Thaksin’s ever having to face charges for atrocities committed by his war on drugs are slim, it is refreshing that people are openly suggesting that an elected leader be held to account for his actions.

Thailand’s war on drugs — vigorously approved by the Bush administration — has received far less attention in the United States than it deserves.

When Thaksin launched his anti-drug campaign in 2003, he declared that “in this war, drug dealers must die.” Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha promised that drug dealers “will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.”

The Thai government was concerned about the rising number of Thais taking amphetamine-type pills — popularly known as Yaa-Baa. The crackdown began in early February 2003. Within weeks, government officials were bragging about the number of bad guys killed. A New York Times article noted that “the killings started right on cue. Many victims were on secret, but official, ‘black lists.’”

Throughout Thailand, local officials set up black boxes or mailboxes and encouraged people to accuse anyone suspected of involvement with narcotics — no evidence required. Many people used the anonymous system to accuse business competitors or personal enemies. According to a 2004 U.S. State Department human-rights report, the interior minister warned “governors and provincial police that those who failed to eliminate a prescribed percentage of the names from their blacklists would be fired.”

The central government issued specific quotas for arrests for each state, city, and village. Sunai Phasuk of Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based human rights organization, noted, “Most of [the victims] got killed on the way back from the police office. People found their name on a blacklist, went to the police, then ended up dead.”

Thai Senator Tuenjai Deetes observed, “The justice system was destroyed…. Here, the government official or police judged immediately, ‘You are doing drugs, you must be killed.’”

Drugs were planted on the bodies of many victims after they were murdered. Amnesty International complained, “Authorities are not permitting pathologists to perform autopsies and bullets are reportedly being removed from the corpses.”

The interior minister even established an arrest quota for local politicians: “To prove the government is serious and spares no one, in March and April you will arrest big dealers — suspects such as provincial councilors and local politicians — four to five in each province.”

Governors were permitted to keep 35 percent of all the drug assets they confiscated, and police detectives were entitled to skim 15 percent of the loot.

Many knowledgeable Thais believed the crackdown had little or no chance of permanently suppressing narcotics. Charan Pak-dithanakul, secretary to the supreme court president, commented, “People may take one look at the death toll and hail the government, but if you scrutinize the names of those killed, there’s not a single big-time dealer.”

Many Thai drug gangs operate under the protection of politicians and the military and appeared to easily survive the Thaksin purge.

In early May 2003, the Thai government proudly announced that 2,275 suspected drug dealers had been killed and that 90 percent of the nation’s drug trafficking had been eliminated. The government insisted that it had no role in the vast majority of deaths of drug dealers, except for a small number of dealers whom police supposedly killed in self-defense.

Some of the killings did not enhance the government’s image, including the police slayings of a 9-year-old boy as he and his mother drove along a Bangkok street; a 16-month-old baby killed along with her mother when their car was riddled with bullets; a woman who was in the eighth month of her pregnancy; and a 75-year-old grandmother gunned down as she walked along a street. Thaksin dismissed concerns about widespread violence in the drug crackdown, declaring that being murdered “is not an unusual fate for wicked people.”

U.S. response to the killings

The slaughter evoked muffled comments from the U.S. embassy in Bangkok. On May 7, a U.S. embassy spokesman, who insisted on anonymity, told the Associated Press that the Bush administration has “made very clear that we have serious concerns about the number of killings that may have been associated with Thailand’s war on drugs” and insisted that the Thaksin government “needs to … investigate all unexplained killings and identify and prosecute those responsible.”

The Thai government ignored the anonymous State Department official’s comments. The following month, Thailand’s prime minister was invited to the White House to meet with Bush. Bush upgraded Thailand’s status with the U.S. government to “major non-NATO ally” (thereby entitling the Thai government to a bevy of U.S. government benefits and subsidies, including the right to buy depleted-uranium ammunition). A June 11, 2003, White House statement by the Thai and U.S. governments declared,

The two leaders recognized the long, successful history of cooperation between the United States and Thailand on law enforcement and counternarcotics. President Bush appreciated Thailand’s leadership in hosting one of the largest and most successful U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) operations in the world as well as the U.S.-Thai International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). President Bush recognized Prime Minister Thak-sin’s determination to combat transnational crime in all its forms, including drug trafficking and trafficking in persons.

The White House Joint Statement dismissed the allegations of anti-drug carnage:

Regarding recent press allegations that Thai security services carried out extrajudicial killings during a counter-narcotics campaign in Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin stated unequivocally that the Thai government does not tolerate extrajudicial killings and assured President Bush that all allegations regarding killings are being investigated thoroughly.

The only reference to the slaughter was a brazen lie by the Thai prime minister that was sanctified in an official White House statement. The prime minister’s pledge made as much sense as if he had promised to personally resurrect all the people wrongfully killed in the crackdown. The Nation, one of the most respected newspapers in Thailand, noted that “the American president saw the halos on Thaksin’s head,” including one from the “drug-suppression campaign.” Thailand’s interior minister said that Bush praised Thailand’s anti-drug campaign during the White House meeting.

On October 27, Bush visited Thailand and proclaimed, “Thailand is also a force of good throughout Southeast Asia.” A month later, William Snipes, the Bang-kok-based DEA regional director for East Asia, hailed the Thai crackdown: “Temporarily, we look at it as successful.” Snipes conceded that whether the reduction in drug activity “is a lasting effect, we will have to wait and see.”

Drug-war “success”

By early December 2003, the official bad-guy body count had risen to 2,625. Speaking at a giant Bangkok victory rally of thousands of government employees, Thaksin proclaimed, “Today is a milestone. More than 90% of ordinary Thais can now lead an honest daily life free from narcotics in their communities…. We are now in a position to declare that drugs, which formerly were a big danger to our nation, can no longer hurt us. ”

In his annual birthday message on December 5, 2003, King Bhumibol Adulyadej — the king in whose honor Thailand had been rendered drug-free — first said that the alleged killings of drug dealers were a “small thing.” Then he insisted that many of the killings were not the fault of the government. Then he called for an investigation of the killings. The king fretted that, unless the killings were cleared up, “the people will blame the King. This would breach the Constitution which stipulates that the King should not have to take responsibility for anything.”

But the government stonewalled such investigations. Deputy Attorney General Prapan Naiyakowit, the chief investigator of the killings, complained in early December: “In May I completed the probe report on drug-related deaths. Since then, police have not submitted a single report on any individual killing that happened during the anti-drug campaign. ”

A Thai senate committee concluded that “the government used rhetoric and ceremony to make people hate each other, to destroy the human dignity of suspected drug dealers, and incite people to handle the drug problem with violence and without mercy.”

The government’s killing spree intimidated much of the populace. The Thai National Human Rights commissioner, Cha-ran Ditthaapichai, complained of the plight of the 329,000 people on the blacklist: “They feel they are no longer safe and could be exterminated at any time.” Amnesty International reported that the government’s murder spree left many Thais afraid to leave their homes, and others avoided traveling to areas where they were not known for fear of being suspected as drug traffickers and shot dead.

After 9/11, Bush repeatedly proclaimed that any nation or government guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists would be considered to be as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Yet the U.S. government helped bankroll a Thai government campaign that terrorized the Thai people. The Bush administration gave Thailand $3.7 million in anti-drug aid in 2003 — thus compelling American taxpayers to bankroll Thai state terrorism.

According to the U.S. State Department, 307 people were killed worldwide in international terrorist attacks in 2003. The Bush administration endorsed and helped finance an anti-drug crackdown that killed more than seven times as many people in a single country as were killed by all the international terrorists in the world that year.

It remains to be seen how vigorously the new Thai government will investigate the atrocities of the Thaksin regime. As Chairman Somchai noted, “Sad-dam Hussein was charged with committing crimes against humanity for the killing of 170 people. In that case, the 2,500 deaths we witnessed here must constitute crimes against humanity.”

If the Thais can help establish a principle of holding leaders responsible for the killings they order, they will be doing a far better service to the cause of democracy than anything the Bush administration has yet offered. Sometimes the threat of a noose is the best way to put government back on a leash.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.

TrackBack

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/01/09/will-a-drug-warrior-be-hanged/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post

Dirk W. Sabin

Comment on Wednesday 9th January 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Gee, and I bet there aint no more drugs in Thailand neither.

I must admit that I would be stuffing those boxes full myself…..under cover of darkness.

Another Democracy on the March
Shoot First, change later.

Tory

Comment on Wednesday 9th January 2008 @ 2:50 pm

My advice to all Asians would be to never, ever, act drunk, high or comatosed. No chantings or hummmings. Avoid all alcoholice beverages of any kind. I would bet they’re all on their best behavior - everyone is acting ’stately’ if you knmow what I mean. There are no signs of mental illness in Thailand.

Possession of any opium or opium derivative (in Asia) is punishable by death. This would include codeine, morphine, etc. In Thailand, people would rather eat dog than be caught (or accused) with cocaine; is also a death sentence. When Asian doctors prescribe pain killers the patients just walk away (quickly.)

I hear they’re avoiding rice tea too (their lives depend on it).

“Government is our worst enemy.”

Tory

Drug producing countries:

Opium:
Afghanistan, IRAN, (maybe China), and Turkey.

Marijuana (hashish): Syria (and California and maybe Florida)

Cocaine: COLUMBIA and other S. American countries.

Should I have included Mexico for something ?