Legal Memo-Random

The terror threats are back

When Edwards was announced as VEEP candidate, there was an announcement of a vague terror threat.

During the Democratic convention, there were nonstop stories about vague terror threats and warnings.

During the GOP convention, nothing.

During the recent good month of GOP coverage, nothing.

Now that the debate is coming up (of note: this is the one on foreign affairs) and things might tighten up, the terror warnings are back:

See CNN for more.

CNN, like all good obedient puppy dogs, licks the GOP's collective face and doesn't ask any tough questions about the suspicious timing of all this.

0 for 5,000

Picture any job...imagine a baseball player. "Oh, I'm a pitcher ..but my record is 0-5,000"... Picture a stock analyst who was wrong the last 5,000 times, or a business CEO who couldn't close the deal 5,000 times.

Now, imagine that this is the Attorney General charged with leading the legal fight in the war on terrorism, and you've not managed a single conviction out of the last oh, say, 5,000 arrests.

Via Talk Left.

Zero convictions since 9/11.

Zero leadership types held responsible for all of the intelligence screwups, including 9/11, letting He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken escape from Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Zero charges brought against senior officers involved in Abu Ghraib.

Zero people held liable for bungling Afghanistan & Iraq.

Geezus, doesn't ANYONE get held accountable in the Bush White House?

CNN - shill for US Government

Via CNN:

One of the detainees approved for release was also found not to be an "enemy combatant" by a tribunal set up to review the status of detainees in the war on terror, a Department of Defense news release said.

An "enemy combatant" can be detained indefinitely without charges or legal representation.

Oh? Where does it say THAT? Under what law? Please feel free to point out where the LAW says this - if its something that the US claims without a law to back it up, YOU need to point that out. Even the US Supreme Court has said that our terms of confinement are NOT as CNN states.

CNN - We will not be OutFoxed.

Its sad that CNN has become a shill for the Bush administration.

Where do women stand?

My wife and I were talking last night about Theresa Heinz Kerry in the context of "if I (me) ran for public office, would you play the part of a demure wife or would you be a Theresa Heinz Kerry?" She laughed, and asked me if I thought she could keep her mouth shut. Naturally, I said no, and we had a good laugh at the idea.

But the fact is, that in the 21st century, the female (because it is usually the male that runs for big office) partner is expected to be, well, "lady-like."

So Vice President Dick Cheney can tell a congress-critter to go f*ck themselves, but when a reporter with an agenda keeps spreading mis-information, and THKerry responds with a "shove it" or something like that, the nation stands with a puritanical expression of gasping for air on their faces, and Conservatives go into full outrage mode. Bush called (in the '00 campaign) a reporter a major league as*hole, and nobody cares.

Personally, I hope that THKerry speaks up more and often, and says what is on her mind. Its a sad commentary that she has to be careful of what she says, or she'll be pegged as a 'loose cannon" or some other derogatory title.

Of course, the Democrats need to stop harping (and this includes me, who has been known to jump on these cases too, although mainly to point out the hypocrisy) on every vulgarity from a Republican. It should be one way or the other (either its acceptable or not), but that acceptance should not be contingent on whether the speaker is a man or a woman.

Fahrenheit 9/11

While I have generally enjoyed most of Michael Moore's productions (Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, even some of his books), I have always (in the back of my mind) understood that Michael Moore is the Ann Coulter of the left wing in this country - a little more honest, but you can't always depend on every word Moore uses or says. Otherwise, like Coulter to the right wing, Michael Moore's pieces are usually red meat for the left wing.

Went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 last night.

This movie is in a different class from his other two movies - Roger & Me and Bowling, and this movie will touch a nerve in a totally different way, just by virtue of the immediacy of the footage and the graphic nature of some of that footage.

First, while the movie revolves around events of 9/11, the movie does not show any footage of the planes striking the towers or the pentagon. In fact, as far as I can tell, it never shows any of the crash scenes in any state - before, during or after - except for one scene of the Pentagon (which is obviously quite a few hours after the attack). It does show the images of shock and dismay in the streets, chaos, panic, and evidence of destruction (litter, the fallout, etc.). But rather than show the actual events, we are shown a blank screen for a couple of minutes with an audio of the sounds of the attacks. And, amazingly, 3 years later, you don't need to see the attacks to know just what those sounds are, and it doesn't take much to visualize what probably is going on.

On the other hand, the movie does show a lot of carnage, both American soldiers & civilians, and Iraqi civilians (as far as I can tell) from the current war. Some footage I had previously watched on the news (the picture of the US soldier trying to get out of his tank after it had either hit a mine or was struck by an RPG, with his arm bleeding). Some, I had seen pictures of, but never saw the video (such as the two of four contractors who were killed, burned and strung up from a bridge in Fallujah).

Over time, the movie starts out with a recap of the 2000 election, and the point that Moore is making is not that this sucked - it did. The result was awful and unfortunate. But pointing a strong finger at the Democrats, as if to say "how can you then roll over and play dead?" The scene of Al Gore asking if there were any objections, and all of the members of the House (all minority, as far as I can tell) got up to raise objections - all they needed was 1 - count them - one Senator to sign on to make that objection to the election results, and they couldn't get a single solitary Democrat to step forward and sign on to the objection (primarily revolving around allegations of black disenfranchisement in Florida). Scenes of Gephart and Daschle asking for cooperation and practially bending over for the new administration. It makes you think that wrong or right about contesting the election, that one thing that was lacking was a spine. They were defeated, and they accepted it in a way that says "well, at least I still have my job, and thats all I really cared about anyway." It made the Democratic party look weak and impotent. Which they have looked for the past few years.

Then the movie becomes a mix of tangled webs between Bush and his family and friends and the House of Saud and Binladen family and their friends. Business relationships, W's failed businesses, transactions, etc. Combine this with a quick examination of Bush's National Guard records, shows more intrigue, as another fellow who was also listed on Bush's forms as not having completed physical requirements and thus barred from flying is also a friend of Bush's and business associate. Confusing stuff that is sometimes hard to follow. If you believe that there is an unethical connection between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family (as I do), you will shake your head in disgust at all of these connections. IF you don't believe that its unethical, you will shake your head at how Moore can push all this stuff.

Finally, on to the big fights...Afghanistan and Iraq, and the cost of war...not in terms of money, but in terms of human lives. The lies or misleading basis for the war that led us into a carnage of human misery, gleefully cheered on by the press and bought by many in the American public.

But ultimately, this movie comes down to yet another class-warfare (and I don't say this as if it is necessarily a bad thing - but its a less-than-subtle twist) battle. Who serves in the military? Not the children of congress-critters - they only have one between all of them in Iraq. Rather, Moore returns to his old homeground of Flint Michigan (which, if you saw Roger & Me, is a small enclave of depression, ravaged by decisions in the auto industry), mixing footage of recruiters going after young adults in the mall or WalMart parking lots with footage of an interview he had with a self-described conservative-Democrat who is the mother in a large military family, trying to rectify her son's death with what she has now come to believe (in part carried by her son's message) was a pointless war that did not have to be waged.

Overall, you should shatter your stereotype of Moore and go see this movie. It is his best, and least gimicky movie to date. Even if you are a conservative or a Republican, and you have a pre-conceived notion of how bad it will be, go see it, if only to see the footage in the movie - scenes of devestation that you will never see on the news, and the human cost of all that you advocate.

Wishy washy courts, a partial victory

The US Supreme Court came down with some verdicts in the Hamdi/Padilla cases, as well as the Guantanamo cases.

The Supreme Court delivered a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, ruling that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

Via CNN.

Wishy washy, because it still defers to the Executive a bit too much power in pursuing its war against terrorism - any sort of claim that the US government has the power to hold American citizens without charges or trials seems to fly in the face of long-standing American tradition.

Ruling in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Congress did give the president authority to hold Hamdi, a four-justice plurality of the court said, but that does not cancel out the basic right to a day in court. (Padilla case background)

The court ruled similarly in the case of about 600 non-U.S.-born men held indefinitely at a U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men can use American courts to contest their captivity and treatment, the high court said. (Detainees case background)

Unfortunately, my gut tells me that these cases do NOT give enough direction to the lower courts, and that eventually, these cases will find their way back to the US Supreme Court as the US Government seeks to stretch the limits of what has been ruled, or in some cases, may simply ignore the US Supreme Court.

Hmmm...I wonder which Justices dissented, and would have given the big Dick Cheney F-You to Hamdi, Padilla, and the hundreds at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Could it be...Satan? I mean, could it be... Scalia and Thomas?

Back to fat, lazy, underpaid, non-citizen security guards?

One of the steps that many people supported in the wake of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks was a revamping of our security checks at airports. Many people were surprised that terrorists were able to carry sharp blades (knives, box cutters, etc.) onto the planes with apparently painfully little effort made to conceal them. Those of us who recall the pre-9/11/01 screening find this to be no surprise, as security guards from such distinguished companies such as Wackenhutt and other rent-a-cop agencies never seemed up to a serious security task.

So, with much fanfare, out of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created. At the bare minimum, they usually were at least more friendly and helpful, although I've always found most of the security procedures to be a waste of time or silly grasping at straws to stop the LAST terrorist attack (for example, the fact that we take off our shoes, because of Reed - I hope that there is never an "underwear bomber" in the future - either way, we always remain vulnerable to the next attack, because we are fighting the last one). And, they provided an air of security - that someone was finally taking the job seriously (even if it was partially all smoke and mirrors - at our last trip through airport security, in Raleigh Durham, we ACCIDENTALLY brought a big metal pair of scissors through security, with nary a peep from the early morning crew).

So now we get this, from the AP:

Airports that want to replace government security screeners with privately employed workers can do so by early next summer, the Bush administration told Congress on Thursday.

Is there anything that the Bush team will say or promise or give us that they will not eventually go back on?

The Denver Post says that the date is actually November 19th (can't find the story online, for some reason), according to Asa Hutchinson.

Get ready, terrorists, start your engines!

This time we're serious. No, really.

Saudi Arabia says that they will give amnesty to any terrorists in Saudi Arabia in the next month if they surrender.

Via CNN.

If they are wise and they accept it, then they are saved. And if they snub it, then God is not going to forbid us from hitting them with our force, which we get from our dependence on God."

Can you imagine that there are a group of people in Saudi Arabia who are concerned that the country is NOT religious ENOUGH?

I wonder what would happen if Osama bin Laden found his way back to Saudi Arabia and surrendered...

Either way, once again, Saudi Arabia plays footsy with terrorists, and we sit there looking like a deer in headlights thinking that they are actually turning up the heat on their own home-grown terrorists.

Some facts that one can gather about Saudi Arabia and terrorism, just from the last few years of news stories:

(1) Saudi Arabia doesn't care about terrorism unless it directly threatens their country and more importantly, their privileged monarchistic government.

(2) Saudi Arabia's government is not too far off from the Taliban in terms of their religious fervor. In fact, they were one of the few supporters of the Taliban up to 9/11/01.

(3) Evidence suggests overwhelmingly that many many members of the Saudi government, at almost all levels, have their hands in terrorism, sympathize with terrorists, or actively support terrorists on some level.

Saudi Arabia will never be a serious player in the war on terorism until either (1) We invade Saudi Arabia and make it a battleground in the war on terrorism (not saying I necessarily support this, although they have a much more logical connection than Iraq), or (2) Saudi Arabia has a serious purge of their government at all levels of terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

With friends like these...

CCR files suit

According to Kos, the Center for Constitutional Rights is filing suit under RICO against a couple of the mercenary groups that the US government is using to torture detainees.

Read the memo here where John Ashcroft and Co. try to rationalize torture.

Padilla re-re-re-ad-nauseum-dux

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate writes a good piece on the suspicious timing of Justice's release of info regarding Jose Padilla.

The DOJ insists that the timing of this release has nothing to do with public outrage about unsubstantiated warnings of stepped-up terror threats. They also say it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's deliberations over Padilla's case, due to be decided this month. (Your instincts were right, Stephen Breyer, Padilla really is a bad guy!) Perhaps it also has nothing to do with mitigating the public horror about the information-at-all-costs ethos that led to the events at Abu Ghraib. (OK, so we torture them some, but just look at what they planned to do to us!) Maybe it also has nothing to do with the fact that the solicitor general's office, most likely unintentionally, misled the Supreme Court at oral argument in this case, with claims that this administration allowed no prisoners to be tortured, even as the government knew what had happened in Iraq. (OK, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so we lied about the torture thing, but see how dangerous this guy is anyhow?) Something needed to be done to remind the world and the court how serious the case against Padilla really is.

Go read.