Grounds for Impeachment

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably

Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.

For your review

or not.

Peace, Earth & Justice News

Affair of Illegal Interrogations of Pakistani Immigrants in Greece Embarrasses London and Athens

"These assertions are absolutely baseless," the Foreign Office (visibly embarrassed by this media tempest on account of the diplomatic cover offered to "6" agents deployed abroad) limited itself to declaring. To protect the identity of one of Her Majesty's spies named by the Greek journal, the British media were "muzzled" through the intervention of a government injunction prohibiting publication of his name. Moreover it was unofficially emphasized that the revelations in question are provided by a Greek investigative journal that often tends to the sensational.

Fear Destroys What Bin Laden Could Not

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - and expect America to be pleased by this - I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

Exploiting Fear and Insecurity

To date, they still don't get it. Possibly because they have no reasoned arguments or because fear mongering has gotten them more visibility than they ever had before, they persist. Fear, it appears, is the only arrow they have in their quiver.

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

Censuring Bush Requires Citizens' Help

Bonifaz is right. But it is unlikely that the effort to censure Bush and Cheney, let alone impeach them, will get far without significant organizing around the country. After all, the House is controlled by allies of the president who have displayed no inclination to hold him to account. Indeed, only a few Democrats, such as Conyers, have taken seriously the constitutional issues raised by the administration's misdeeds.

I would much rather see the House moving towards articles of impeachment.

See also Censure Bush, Impeachment Buzz and The I-Word Is Gaining Ground, immediately below.

For anyone with understanding and respect for the Constitution, it is obvious that Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment and federal law. This is the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Clinton lying about sex is nothing compared to this. It is timely and responsible to talk about impeachment. If the Republicans were loyal to the Constitution, they would be discussing impeachment. Bush has declared himself king in an undeclared war. We don't allow kings in this country. The Founding Fathers came here to avoid that.

If you are a diabetic

do not click.

ETA:

2006resolutions

In case you missed this last week

Senator Byrd: No President Is Above the Law
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Monday 19 December 2005

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choosing to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as "domestic terrorists."

We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition, and the so-called "black sites," secret locations in foreign countries where abuse and interrogation have been exported to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation that through an executive order, President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government - the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people - by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government's role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than "trust me." But, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new opportunities for cooperative action."

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election "a landmark day in the history of liberty." I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the times that try men's souls."

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of "national security" are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of "executive privilege" in order to avoid further embarrassment.

The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected?

Happy Happy, Joy Joy

Happy Yule
Happy Festivus
Happy HumanLight Day
Merry Christmas
Happy Hanukkah
Happy Boxing Day
Happy Kwanza

However you choose to name these days, Happy Whatever To You!

It doesn't matter what you call them. What matters is that you are with people you love, people who love you. If you can't be with loved ones, keep them, and the Light of this season, in your heart.

My Christmas Present to you, courtesy of the University of Virginia.

Is she cringing?

The Border Is a Common Ground between Us"

But the lure of cheap labor has led the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (including Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and other corporate giants) to insert guest worker programs into almost every immigration reform proposal. Some argue this will benefit migrants, but a choice between becoming a bracero and dying in the desert is no choice at all. Instead, many immigrant organizations, like the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations in Fresno, call for a general immigration amnesty instead.

In other news...

FBI Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Bush's Snoopgate

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story - which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year - because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

From the White House: Some Candor, but Not Enough

While the President's new candor is refreshing, it is neither complete nor is it sufficient. The original sin of this war was not just the failed intelligence on WMDs and the supposed 9/11 connections. It was also the failure to understand the consequences of the war, its costs and the commitments it would require. One thousand days ago, the White House entered Iraq, believing the war would be a "cake walk." Fantasy and ideology combined to create this mess, providing no security or services for the civilian population, dismantling the apparatus of the state and military, enabling cronyism and corruption, and all the rest.

One thousand days later, some candor and some admission of mistakes, but still no strategy and no clear sense of what will constitute real victory.

Because the US presence has become a part of the problem plaguing Iraq today, and because the legitimate government in Iraq still needs help, it is time for the US to leave. But to leave responsibly, there must be in place an internationally recognized support system that can assist the new government in making needed changes in its constitution, provide security, reconstruct its infrastructure and end the insurgency.

It Should Have Been Unforgettable

You might think that this administration, supposedly dedicated above all else to protecting the United States from terrorism in its newly formed Homeland Security State, would have devoted resources above all else to the task of implacably hunting down these particular terrorists, wherever they might be; that dead-ends met would have only led to redoubled efforts. That would have been, if not a "war" on terrorism, then at least a police action of note. Instead, with thousands of Americans and Iraqis now dead and an actual weapon of mass destruction still potentially loose in our land, the inability to focus all resources on real terrorists and bring them to justice seems but another cost of George Bush's "war on terror."

The saddest story is this: If tomorrow, George Bush, Dick Cheney and their cohorts were somehow tossed out on their ears - call it indictment, impeachment, or something else - what they, not Osama bin Laden or the anthrax terrorists will have cost us, in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will still be incalculable. Among the greatest costs will be the way administration officials used the 9/11 attacks (and buried the anthrax ones) in order to breach so many levees of our world.

What they have embedded in our lives since 9/11 - from Northcom to our newest pinheaded giant bureaucracy, the Homeland Security Department, from the Patriot Act to ever increasing domestic spying by the Pentagon and the National Security Agency among other organizations - will be with us long after they are gone. Just imagine a political change of fortunes in our country in which the Democrats take Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Then ask yourself a single question: What will the Democrats do with Guantánamo. Unfortunately, you already know the answer.

Now, let that pause button go and watch not just the Twin Towers but so much else in our world tumble down one more time.

Which shameful act is worse?

The NYT (finally) disclosing the information on the illegal wiretaps (after waiting a year; no, they don't kiss Rove-ass much) or the disclosure of the identity of CIA agent by a senior government official?

Invading a sovereign nation, without cause or provocation, or lying about the reasons for your invasion?

Waving the bloody flag of 9/11 every single day for more than four years or sending under-armoured, under-trained people to fight a war of conquest, I'm sorry, Freedom Fighters Delivering Democracy, started with those lies?

What's shameful, Mr. President, is what you've done to the United States of America.

The Constitution is not just a goddamned piece of paper!

If you had a shred of honor, you'd resign.

But, you don't.

You have no honor.

Which is why we're in the mess we are.

~ ~ ~

I know Los Angeles is a huge city, but I didn't realize it had it's own Senator. Same for Las Vegas. Does that mean we now have 102 Senators, and not 100? If so, someone alert www.thomas.gov, because I can only email 100 of them. I don't want to miss a single Senator in my futile effort to register my fury. Also, I'd hate for the Senator from Los Angeles or the Senator from Las Vegas to feel slighted.

As I'm not a Republican,

I am not completely humorless.

I'd say do a shot for every criminal act he admits to, but then we'd be drunk by noon.

Americablog did a live blogcasting of Der Fuhrer's speech this morning.

Sorry Republicans... but I've just had it with your party and your moronic leader. Once those people are out of office, I'll go back to being my usually respectful self.

So? Will he be impeached now?

No, of course not.

Why?

Because the vast majority of the United States populace does not give a hairy rat's ass that the President of the United States has committed crimes.

George W. Bush is a criminal.

And so is every person who serves at his pleasure.

But, he won't get impeached.

He'll continue to stay in office, further shredding the Constitution, until January 2009.

Radical Militant Librarians and Other Dire Threats

As if this were not outrageous enough, Bush, during his weekly radio address, bluntly admitted to violating the laws governing surveillance of American citizens and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution not once, but some thirty times. "I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September 11 attacks," said Bush, "and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

The... President... doesn't even have the decency to be ashamed of he's been doing.

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Karen Kwiatkowski, widely known for her revelations about the inner workings of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and its manipulation of Iraq war evidence, spent two years working at the National Security Agency. On Sunday, I asked her what the ramifications are of a President throwing aside the firewalls that have blocked governmental surveillance of citizens for the last twenty five years.

"It means we are in deep trouble," said Kwiatkowski, "deeper than most Americans really are willing to think about. The safeguards of mid-1970s were put in place by a mobilized Democratic congress in response to President Richard Nixon's perceived and actual contempt for rule of law, and the other branches of government. At that time, the idea of a sacred constitution balancing executive power with the legislative power worked to give the Congress both backbone and direction."

"Today," continued Kwiatkowski, "we have a President and administration that has out-Nixoned Nixon in every negative way, with none of the Nixon administration's redeeming attention to detail in domestic and foreign policy. It may indeed mean that the constitution has flat-lined and civil liberties will be only for those who can buy and own a legislator or a political party. We will all need to learn how to spell 'corporate state,' which for Mussolini was his favorable definition of fascism."

Get it people? DO YOU GET IT? It's a crime!

What is it going to take to get the populace of the United States off it's lazy, sorry ass and into the streets, demanding this Administration be removed from power? When are we going to wake up and force a change?

Rumsfeld Spies on Quakers and Grannies

Gail Sredanovic of the Raging Grannies makes an additional point: "Aside from the disturbing civil liberties aspects of the Pentagon spying on local peace groups, it makes me scared to think that the folks in charge of protecting us from possible terrorist attacks can't tell the difference between a terrorist threat and a peaceful citizen gathering. Are they really that stupid?"

Yes Ma'am, they are. They are the largest gathering of morons this country has ever had in Office at one time. They're also paranoid. Stupid, paranoid people making decisions for all of us.

'78 Law Sought to Close Spy Loophole

As a general matter, the Constitution forbids the government from spying on Americans - including by listening in on their phone calls - without a court's permission. The 4th Amendment says police or federal agents must show a magistrate some evidence of wrongdoing before they can obtain a warrant that authorizes them to listen in on phone calls.

However, through most of the 20th century, presidents maintained they had the power to protect the nation's security by, for example, spying on foreign agents who were operating in the United States. No one questioned that US intelligence agencies could tap the phones of Soviet agents.

In the mid-1970s, Congress learned the White House had abused this power: Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, had authorized the FBI to tap the phones of hundreds of political activists and celebrities, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Vietnam War protesters.

Those revelations led to the 1978 law. One provision says it is a crime for anyone to "intentionally engage in electronic surveillance" except as authorized by law or a court order. However, "the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance ... to acquire foreign intelligence information" if officials obtain a warrant from a special court that operates inside the Justice Department.

The judges of what is known as the FISA court may issue warrants for wiretaps when the government has evidence that a person is working for a "foreign power" or is involved in terrorism. This is not a high standard, legal experts say. The judges issue warrants virtually whenever the government applies for one, the Justice Department has said in the past.

However, the law requires evidence that the wiretap target has links to a foreign government or a terrorist group. It would not permit, for example, the wiretaps of hundreds of Muslim men in the United States simply because they telephoned the Middle East.

Top intelligence officials have in the past assured Congress that they follow the law and do not engage in secret spying. "There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we - the CIA, the NSA and the FBI - scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of US persons are involved. We do not collect [information] against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power," then-CIA Director George J. Tenet told a House committee five years ago.

Violating the Constitution

Apparently, the White House over a year ago asked the New York Times not to publish the facts of NSA eavesdropping on American citizens. True to character, the Times complied and cooperated.But now that we know about it, the media, every member of Congress, and every concerned American should be asking "Is this Constitutional?" and "Is this legal?" The executive branch itself should be asking these questions as well. Further, the executive branch would do well to ask, in a business sense, "Is this worthwhile?" and "Is it cost effective?" and "Does it work to improve national security?" I'd like to think that, in addition to these questions, my old boss Michael Hayden is asking the very simple, straightforward, and ultimately the most courageous question: "Is it right?"

Securing America without Destroying Liberties

By Senator Robert Byrd.

Friday 16 December 2005

Remarks by US Senator Robert C. Byrd as delivered on the Senate floor.

I believe in America. I believe in the dream of the Founders and Framers of our inspiring Constitution. I believe in the spirit that drove President Lincoln to risk all to preserve the Union. I believe in what President Kennedy challenged America to be.

America, the great experiment of democracy, where the strong are also just, and the weak can feel secure, and the soul and promise of America stand as a beacon of freedom and a protector of liberty which lights and energizes people around the world.

Today, sadly, that beacon is dimmed. This Administration's America is becoming a place where the strong are arrogant and the weak are ignored.

Yes, we hear high-flown language from this White House about bringing democracy to lands where democracy has never been. We seem mesmerized with glorious rhetoric about justice and liberty. But, does the rhetoric really match the reality of what our country has become since the heinous attacks of September 11?

I speak of the actions of our own government, actions that have undermined the credibility of this nation around the world. These actions, taken one at a time, may seem justified. But taken as a whole, they form an unsettling picture and tell a troubling story.

Do we remember the abuses at Abu Ghraib? They were explained as an aberration.

Do we remember the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? They were denied as an exaggeration.

Now, we read about this so-called policy of 'rendition' - a policy where the US taxpayers are funding secret prisons in foreign lands. What a word - rendition. It sounds so vague, almost harmless. But the practice of "rendition" is abhorrent. The Administration's practice of 'rendition' is an affront to the principles of freedom - the very opposite of principles we claim we are trying to transplant to Iraq and other rogue nations.

The Administration claims that "rendition" is a valuable weapon in the war on terror. But, what is the value of having America's CIA sit as judge and jury while deciding just who might be a threat to our national security? Such determinations receive no review by a court of law. The CIA simply swings into action, abducts a person from some foreign country, and flies them off to who-knows-where. With no judicial review of guilt or innocence, a person can be held in secret prisons in unnamed countries, or even shipped off to yet another country to face torture at the hands of the secret police of brutal governments.

Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America of which millions dream dreams? Is this the beacon of freedom inspiring other nations to follow?

The United States should state clearly and without question that we will not torture prisoners and that we will abide by the treaties we sign. To fail to do so is to lose the very humanity, the morality, that makes America the hope for individual liberty around the world. The disgusting, degrading, and damaging practice of rendition should cease immediately.

"It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." Those are the words of my colleague, Senator John McCain. Senator McCain is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a former prisoner of war, and he is exactly right.

There is no moral high ground in torture. There is no moral high ground in the inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Our misguided, thuggish practice of "rendition" has put a major blot on American foreign policy, and now comes this similarly alarming effort to reauthorize the Patriot Act retaining provisions which devastate many of our own citizens' civil liberties here at home. What is happening to our cherished America? Any question raised about the wisdom of shredding Constitutional protections of civil liberties with roots that trail back centuries is met with the disclaimer that, "the world has changed" and that the 9-11 attacks are in effect a green light to trash the Constitution. To seize private library records, to search private property without the knowledge of the owner, to spy on ordinary citizens accused of no crime in a manner which is a sick perversion of our system of justice must not be allowed. Paranoia must not be allowed to chip away at our civil liberties. The United States of America must not adopt the thuggish tactics of our enemies. We must not trash the Fourth Amendment because the United States Senate is being stampeded at the end of a congressional session.

Government fishing expeditions with search warrants written by FBI agents is not what the Framers had in mind. Spying on ordinary unsuspecting citizens without their knowledge is not what the Framers had in mind. Handing the government unilateral authority to keep all evidence secret from a target so that it may never be challenged in a court of law is not what the Framers had in mind. Yesterday we heard reports that the military has spied on Americans simply because they exercised their right to peaceably assemble and to speak their minds. Today we hear that the military is tapping phone lines in our own country without the consent of a judge. Labeling civil disobedience and political dissent as "domestic terrorism" is not what the Framers had in mind.

Our nation is the most powerful nation in the world because we were founded on a principle of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Our founding fathers, intent on addressing the abuses they have suffered at the hands of an over zealous government, established a system of checks and balances, ensuring that there is a separation of powers within government, so that no one body may run amok with its agenda. These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us now to restore and protect that freedom.

So many have died protecting those freedoms. We owe it to those brave men and women to deliberate meaningfully, and to ultimately protect those freedoms Americans cherish so deeply. The American people deserve nothing less.

Earlier today, the Senate voted to stop a bill that would have allowed the abuses of American civil liberties to continue for another four years. The message of this vote is not just about the Patriot Act: it is a message that the Senate can stand up against an over-reaching executive that has sacrificed our liberties and stained our standing in the world.

The Patriot Act has gone too far. Secret renditions should be stopped. Torture must be outlawed. Our military should not spy on our own people. The Senate has spoken: let us secure our country, but not by destroying our liberties.

Thank God for checks and balances. Thank God for the United States Senate.

Monday morning nonsense

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 7/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

7 out of 10? Holy crap!

The Keys to Your Heart

You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free. In love, you feel the most alive when your partner is patient and never willing to give up on you. You'd like to your lover to think you are stylish and alluring. You would be forced to break up with someone who was emotional, moody, and difficult to please. Your ideal relationship is open. Both of you can talk about everything... no secrets. Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. You think of marriage something you've always wanted... though you haven't really thought about it. In this moment, you think of love as something you can get or discard anytime. You're feeling self centered.

What Are The Keys To Your Heart?

Your Dating Purity Score: 78%

You are an under-experienced dater. This doesn't mean you're unexperienced - far from it. It just means that there's a lot of romance left to discover!

Dating Purity Test

You are an under-experienced dater.

That cracks me up for so many reasons!

Please explain: You've dated someone you met online but didn't meet in real life

Seriously. WTF?

I could crow

About Bush caving in on the torture issues, but I'd rather have you read this:

The Silence of the Doctors

By Jonathan H. Marks
The Nation

26 December 2005 Issue

It was called the "water cure." But it was dosed out liberally to those who weren't sick. Unfortunate recipients were held by the neck beneath a water tank. The tap was turned on, and they were forced to swallow the gushing stream - or to choke within an inch of death while trying. Another variation used tubing to siphon water from a kerosene can into a detainee's nostril. Sworn testimony records the use of this tactic in the presence of a doctor. It was, after all, a "cure." When the detainee still refused to talk, the doctor would ratchet up the treatment, ordering a second tube to be placed in the detainee's other nostril and a handful of salt to be thrown into the water. Anyone who's ever had sea water up his or her nose will know just how pleasant that would have been.

This interrogation tactic comes not from the "war on terror" but from the war in the Philippines more than 100 years ago. There too the abuses were justified by the need to combat troublesome local "insurgents." The enemy was "not civilized" and did not deserve to be treated according to the rules of civilized warfare. The water cure is, of course, the precursor to a more recent interrogation technique known as "water boarding." And the participation of the physician is an early example of American medical personnel being co-opted into an egregious and unlawful military mission. The doctor's presence did not restrain the interrogator's excesses; on the contrary, he actively fueled them.

After 9/11 some American healthcare personnel were once again asked to step into the breach and help Army interrogators conduct aggressive interrogations. They have, among others, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller - former camp commander at Guantánamo Bay - to thank for this. Miller considered the participation of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams - known colloquially as "Biscuits" - to be an "essential" part of the interrogation process. Having introduced the first Biscuit to the Guantánamo facility in late 2002, Miller urged the deployment of a similar team at Abu Ghraib in late 2003. These Biscuits were staffed at various times by psychologists and/or psychiatrists.

The Defense Department has acknowledged that several Biscuit staff were sent to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for training at SERE school - short for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. This is where American soldiers are taught how to resist their captors. Training is based on exposure to abusive tactics, some tantamount to torture, delivered by fellow soldiers. (That these tactics are designed to break detainees and procure false confessions - not to produce intelligence - appears to have been overlooked by the Administration when it decided to deploy them in the "war on terror.") At SERE school, Biscuit healthcare personnel acquired a grounding in the now well-publicized techniques of hooding, prolonged isolation, stress positions, sleep deprivation and exposure to loud noise and temperature extremes - techniques often used in combination.

They brought this knowledge back to Guantánamo Bay, where - according to an internal Army report - they offered opinions on the character and personalities of detainees, advised on interrogation plans and approaches, and provided feedback on interrogation technique. Army documents also record that Biscuit personnel sometimes sat in on interrogations. Notably, the name of a Biscuit psychologist appears in the interrogation log of Guantánamo detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani. According to that log - a copy of which was obtained by Time magazine - Qahtani was questioned for eighteen to twenty hours per day for forty-eight out of fifty-four consecutive days in late 2002 and early 2003. During that time, he was subjected to an array of tactics that included exposure to temperature extremes, barking military dogs, strip searches, stress positions, being led around on a leash and being forced to stand naked in front of women. In addition to these measures - many of which were held "legally permissible" in a recent Army report - a medical corpsman forcibly administered three and a half bags of intravenous fluid. Qahtani was refused a promised bathroom break and, when he became desperate, he was told to go in his pants.

Before this interrogation regime, Qahtani had been subjected to 160 days of isolation and - according to a letter of complaint sent by the FBI to the Pentagon - he was "evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma." Not surprisingly, this trauma was compounded by the deleterious impact the interrogation tactics had on Qahtani's physical health. On one occasion, his heartbeat became so slow - just thirty-five beats per minute instead of the normal sixty to 100 - that he had to be hospitalized. On at least two occasions, his temperature dropped to a life-threatening ninety-five degrees.

Aggressive interrogations like those endured by Qahtani were based on a model that seeks to employ extreme levels of stress in order to erode established patterns of behavior, such as resistance to questioning. One of the functions of Biscuit health professionals is to help interrogators tailor interrogation "stressors" to the personality of each detainee - particularly "high-value detainees." In one example - reported by Neil Lewis in the New York Times - interrogators were told by a Biscuit that a detainee's medical files recorded his severe phobia of the dark, and the Biscuit suggested ways that fear could be manipulated to make the detainee cooperate.

Much ink has been spilled - by me and others - explaining why these practices violate fundamental rules and protections found in both the laws of war and international human rights law. These two bodies of law prohibit most of the aggressive interrogation strategies deployed in the "war on terror" - and mandate the humane treatment of detainees. The Administration has tried its best to circumvent these laws. It argues, for example, that the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment doesn't apply to foreigners outside the United States - a position the McCain amendment seeks to overturn. This amendment is all the more important in light of the Defense Department's new Interrogation Directive. The directive was greeted warmly in the press with headlines like "Pentagon: Detainees Must Be Treated Well" (AP). It prohibits the use of military dogs and requires interrogations to be humane and in accordance with "relevant" international law (whatever that may be). But read the fine print: It also expressly provides that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld or his deputies may authorize interrogations that do not meet either of these basic criteria.

When medical personnel are involved in interrogation, medical ethics should also have something to say. And when the Administration plays around with legal rules, it is all the more important for the medical establishment - and its members - to take an ethical stand. Medical ethics should embrace and reflect the fundamental protections found in human rights law and the laws of war, as the UN has recognized. According to a resolution of the General Assembly adopted without dissent in 1982, it is a "gross contravention of medical ethics" for health professionals to be complicit in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They are also required not to use their knowledge and skills to assist with an interrogation that may adversely affect a detainee's health and is not in accordance with international law. Medical personnel who helped design and monitor aggressive interrogations like those of Qahtani have undoubtedly fallen afoul of this ethical mandate.

But ethical constraints can and should go beyond the requirements of law. The World Medical Association has acknowledged this and holds that - even in times of armed conflict - it is unethical for physicians to weaken the physical or mental health of a human being "without therapeutic justification." Its codes also emphasize that detainee medical records are presumed to be confidential. This presumption - universally acknowledged as being vital to patient trust and effective medical care - was violated by the routine exploitation of medical records during interrogations at Guantánamo. The association's rules also prohibit force-feeding hunger-strikers - a rule now broken daily at Guantánamo. Although the Defense Department has denied the shocking claim that a finger-thick nasogastric tube was reused without sterilization in order to feed different detainees at the facility, it readily admits that force-feeding is occurring.

The Pentagon has recently taken steps to alleviate concerns about the involvement of medical personnel in abuse. In June it issued new medical "procedures" for detainees in US custody. These prohibit healthcare personnel from participating in interrogations not in accordance with "applicable law." But what law is "applicable"? More pertinent, what law is applicable according to an Administration that does not shy away from developing its own highly permissive formulations of legal doctrine? In September the Defense Department issued a further "special text" stating that Biscuit members should not have access to medical records "except as needed to maintain safe, legal and ethical interrogations." But anyone familiar with previous abuses must have concerns about how that constraint will be enforced. In October the Pentagon flew officials from several health professional organizations to Guantánamo. Like the typical Defense Department tour of Guantánamo, it was a six-hour visit. Guests were armed with packs of information and given multiple briefings, but they were not permitted to talk to detainees - a prohibition that recently led UN human rights experts to cancel their Guantánamo visit.

These measures may not have had the effect the Administration hoped for. Following the Guantánamo trip, Dr. Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, stated publicly that it was "inappropriate" for psychiatrists to serve on Biscuits. The APA's board is soon expected to adopt changes to its rules that will make this official policy. Sharfstein's concerns extend beyond aggressive interrogations. In his view, all Guantánamo interrogations are tainted by the detention of the subject in legal limbo and, more than that, he doesn't want his members participating in or advising on any inherently deceptive interrogation tactics.

Other groups - not least, Physicians for Human Rights and Physicians for Social Responsibility - have also been vocal in their condemnations of medical participation in abusive practices at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. The responses of two of America's core medical professional organizations, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, however, raise serious concerns.

The performance of the AMA - the organization that spoke out so firmly in response to the abuses of Nazi doctors - has been especially shocking. After the Guantánamo tour, it declined to make its representative on that trip, Dr. Audiey Kao, available to the New York Times for comment. The AMA was also slow to express support for the anti-torture McCain amendment, doing so only after other medical groups had spoken out and its silence became embarrassing. One reason for the AMA's lack of resolve is its members' concerns about other issues - topics more relevant to their daily practice. Hundreds of resolutions are brought by members every year on issues ranging from tort "reform" to Medicare. But only two resolutions in the past year addressed the interrogation issue. The result was a decision in November to commission a report from the AMA's ethics body, which won't appear until June 2006 at the earliest. That concerns about the level of Medicare reimbursements - currently under consideration on the Hill - are preventing the AMA from speaking out on an issue that goes to the heart of what it means to be a physician (whether for fear of offending the government or exhausting the group's political capital) should be a source of shame.

The American Psychological Association has been quicker to act, producing guidance drafted by its Presidential Task Force in June. But the task force was stacked predominantly with psychologists who work or have worked for the military - in some cases at SERE school. Although the resulting guidelines require psychologists not to facilitate torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they adopt as a "touchstone" US rules and regulations as "developed and refined" in the "war on terror." Despite the association's subsequent support of the McCain amendment, this makes psychologists' ethical constraints appear dependent upon the Administration's manipulation of legal doctrine and, in particular, on its views about the scope and content of the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Just as important, the task force also failed to require psychologists to respect the fundamental human rights of detainees established in international law. Rather than giving psychologists firm guidelines, the task force tells them to be mindful of factors that "require special ethical consideration" when consulting on interrogation. But leaving psychologists to make ad hoc decisions in military scenarios - when they are dependent on others for information and have neither the time nor the competence to assess it - is not a good recipe for preventing future abuses. Since the Defense Department has deployed psychologists rather than psychiatrists on Biscuits recently - sensing, perhaps, that their ethical constraints may not be as rigorous - it is especially important that the shortcomings in these guidelines be addressed.

But all bodies within the medical establishment should lay down rules that directly address the participation of their members in the design and monitoring of interrogations. Clear rules drafted with real-world scenarios in mind are vital if we are to empower medical personnel to say no when asked to participate in future abuses.

Moving forward, however, also requires looking back. At least four Guantánamo detainees have lodged a complaint against Dr. John Edmondson, head of the facility's Naval hospital. They allege that physicians under Edmondson's supervision made medical care contingent on cooperation with interrogators, that they witnessed and participated in abuse and that they shared medical information with interrogators to expose detainees' weaknesses. The Medical Board of California has refused to entertain the complaint on procedural grounds. The board says it can't consider the complaint because the alleged conduct occurred outside its jurisdiction, on a military base. By that rationale, a lawyer could be guilty of serious misconduct in California and still practice at the New York bar. This point has not escaped Scott Sullivan, the attorney representing the detainees. He has asked the California courts to compel the Medical Board to hear the complaint. That it should come to this is more than unfortunate.

Although it is the job of the medical community to regulate its own, and to call to account the few who threaten to tarnish the reputation of the many, a full and independent investigation into detainee abuses and the role of medical personnel in those abuses is also needed. An "assessment" report of detainee medical activities made public by the Army Surgeon General in July raised more questions than it answered. What did the seventy-four medical personnel - in Iraq alone - who admitted witnessing interrogations actually see? What do the detainees who were the subjects of those interrogations - and who were not interviewed for the report - have to say about the involvement of those personnel? More generally, how were some medical personnel co-opted into a policy of detainee abuse after 9/11? Demanding answers to these questions is essential, not just for the integrity of the medical community but for the health of our democracy.

Remember people: mid-term elections next year.

Not In My Back Yard

NIMBYism is a global issue.

Tiny Malta feels pressure of immigrant traffic

By Robin Pomeroy
Thu Dec 15, 8:02 AM ET

VALLETTA, Malta (Reuters) - More densely populated than Bangladesh, Malta has little room to house illegal immigrants. Even the newcomers, fleeing to Europe from war and poverty in Africa and Asia, know the island is approaching crisis point.

"There are 400,000 people here. The problem is the land isn't enough for the Maltese, so how about the refugees?" said Mohammed Abdull Osman, a 26-year-old Somali who like thousands of others landed in Malta in a fishing boat from Libya.

This year at least 1,800 immigrants have arrived in Malta -- a rocky outcrop barely twice the size of Washington, D.C. at just 122 square miles.

The wave of migration began in earnest in 2002. Most immigrants land in Malta by mistake as they try to reach the European mainland on overcrowded, wooden fishing boats or are picked up by Maltese authorities, who have a duty to save lives at sea.

Just as the new arrivals don't want to be here, many Maltese would rather they were elsewhere. Critics accuse the former British colony's conservative government of having no answers.

"Rational interest would dictate that we should take a stand and make it clear that Malta is not the dumping ground of the Mediterranean," said Philip Beattie, the founder of Republican National Alliance, a new anti-immigration, right-wing movement.

Home Minister Tonio Borg has called on Libya to take back migrants who leave there by sea, copying a controversial agreement Italy has struck with Tripoli. He also wants other European Union countries to take some of the immigrants.

RISE IN RACISM

Illegal immigration has become a highly charged political and social issue in southern Europe. The sight of hundreds of Africans trying to scale razor-wire fences in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta this year underscored the desperation of people driven by the huge gap between lifestyles in Europe and Africa.

Borg said the illegal immigrants arriving in Malta, many with nothing but the clothes on their backs, were sapping the island's resources -- and inflaming passions.

"What is more worrying is the public reaction," Borg told Reuters in a recent interview. "To us, Africa was just another neighboring continent. Now there are racist opinions."

Beattie, a 41-year-old economics lecturer at Malta University, led the island's first protest march against illegal immigration in October. Minor scuffles broke out with opponents who accused Beattie of racism.

An admirer of Italy's post-fascist National Alliance party Beattie rejects accusations that his movement fuels racism. "The people who call us racists are bigots."

Beattie says Malta should stop patrolling its coastal waters -- a space of a 250,000 square miles, according to the government -- and cease rescuing boat people. He says Libya should also patrol its shores to stop people from leaving.

"If they keep coming, summer after summer after summer, where are we going to put them?"

Further to the right, and better known in Malta, is Norman Lovell, the leader of Imperium Europa, a white supremacist group which talks of Malta leading a "planetary struggle" to save the "White Race" and create a Latin-speaking European empire.

Beattie distances himself from Lovell's ideas about race but credits him with raising awareness of the immigration issue.

"I suppose he will go down in history as the first whistle-blower."

HOME SWEET HOME

Near the docks in Malta's capital Valletta, a derelict school has been converted into an "open center" for 400 immigrants, mostly Africans and nearly all men, who sleep in bunk beds in what used to be classrooms.

A curtain hangs around one bed, providing a measure of privacy. A notice pinned to it reads: "God bless our home."

What seems an ironic gesture is in fact probably meant in all sincerity -- the people living in these cramped rooms are the lucky ones, free to come and go and seek casual work.

They have survived the crossing from Libya --a perilous trip which killed at least 600 people between June and October, according to Borg who said this was a conservative estimate.

After the crossing, most of them spend around 12 months in Malta's detention camps while their applications for asylum are processed. The live in barracks, tents or rusty World War Two tube-like Nissen huts under heavily military guard.

"They're detained in pretty miserable conditions," said Katrine Camilleri, who works for the Jesuit Refugee Service, a non-governmental organization that provides legal and medical aid at the camps, which journalists are not allowed to visit.

Camilleri said the system was both punishing and useless: processing never leads to deportation because it costs too much and is a diplomatic nightmare to return people with few documents to far-flung countries with no links to Malta.

"We have a system that if you are accepted you stay and if you are rejected you stay," Camilleri said.

She estimated 6 to 8 percent of the immigrants get refugee status and around 50 percent are granted humanitarian protection -- allowing them to stay on the island, live in the open centers and work -- usually because they are from war zones like Eritrea, the Palestinian Territories, Somalia or
Iraq.

If immigrants who make it to the European mainland are caught and identified, they are sent back to Malta.

"On a human level, I feel extremely sorry for them, but I do understand that in a country the size of Malta it isn't possible to have everyone staying," said Camilleri. "As long as human rights are respected, people should be returned (home)."

In the center, Somali Osman says he would happily return to his wife and daughter if his country was safe, and he made light of the risks he had taken.

"In our country, we have the Indian Ocean. The Mediterranean? This is nothing."

(Additional reporting by Nelson Graves)

Any solutions?

Excluded and Invisible

Excluded and Invisible

By Jeremy Lovell
Wed Dec 14, 5:36 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Millions of the world's neediest children are not even a blip on the radar of their own governments because there is no record of their birth, the United Nation's Children's Fund
UNICEF said on Wednesday.

In its annual State of the World's Children report "Excluded and Invisible," UNICEF said one-third of the estimated 150 million children born worldwide each year were not registered -- and the number was growing.

"Birth registration is vital to really start to know the extent of the problem, how many children there are out there, how many abuses are going on," report author David Anthony told Reuters in an interview.

Children not registered at birth may never officially exist, making it easy for governments to ignore them and for traffickers to make them disappear without risk of retribution.

From that stemmed an array of problems from pedophile abuse to slavery, the report said, estimating that 1.8 million children entered the sex industry, 5.7 million were sold into slavery and 1.2 million were trafficked each year.

"These numbers are huge, and we do have to push several buttons in every case," said UNICEF child protection chief Karin Landgren. "So we have to start by shining that light on the plight of these children."

But equally AIDS orphans and those forced into early marriages accounted for millions of children who simply disappeared either through being cast out by their communities and taking to the streets or just ceasing to be seen.

"Part of what this report does is to highlight the issue to the public to create an outrage about what is going on," UNICEF chief Ann Veneman said.

SEX TRAFFICKING

She said sex trafficking was an increasing phenomenon -- driven in part by cheap flights making sex tourism easier and in part by the spread of the Internet.

"Trafficking needs to be looked at as a global problem that is not just a developing world problem ... because the demand often comes from the developed world," she said.

And it was not just governments that bore the responsibility for taking action -- although they had the primary function of monitoring their own populations and ensuring that they enforced their own basic laws.

"The recommendations in this year's report particularly make it clear that it is not just governments that are involved here. Civil society has a huge role to play, communities have a huge role to play," the report's author Anthony said.

"It takes bold and courageous action to tackle some of these things in many countries," he added.

But matters were slowly improving.

"Just looking at governments' reactions in recent years, we have seen enormous changes. If governments talk about these issues -- as we have seen with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa -- it sends a signal that it is OK to talk about these things," protection chief Landgren said.

Read the Report.

It's been a really weird morning.

First, I noticed that parts of blogs and entire blog entries were missing from blogspot. Then I open my email from the office around 9am and find several dozen emails from gmail and hotmail accounts. Death threats; threats to kill my cat - vividsect is what one of them said - threats of beatings, rape, torture... incredibly sick, twisted, stuff.

Why?

I don't know. But pay attention punks. I'm hunting for you. When I find you I'll be forwarding all the information I have on you to law enforcement authorities. Over this past year I've had email accounts hacked and credit card information stolen. I've had enough. Whether or not you morons are responsible really doesn't matter to me - I'm going to take it out on you anyway.

In the meantime, I'm deleting all entries that have any personal information in them. I've changed passwords and blocked the gmail and hotmail morons and I may, yet again, change email accounts.

Moving on

Moving onward, because I can't figure out what happened. An excellent article I'm re-posting from TruthOut.

The Death Penalty Is Not Pro-Life
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 12 December 2005

In 1960, California Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown agonized about whether to grant clemency to death row inmate Caryl Chessman. Brown's refusal to commute Chessman's sentence haunted him for the rest of his life. He reversed 23 death judgments in the last 7 years of his term. Ronald Reagan, who defeated Brown in the 1966 gubernatorial election, used the death penalty as a weapon to unseat the incumbent governor.

Twenty years later, Rose Bird, one of the greatest chief justices ever to serve on the California Supreme Court, lost her confirmation election largely because of the way she voted in death penalty cases. In all 64 capital cases that came before her during her tenure, Bird voted to overturn every one. Her court as a whole reversed 61. Some of Bird's supporters advised her to affirm just one death verdict in order to win confirmation. Bird refused. She said, "It is easy to be popular. It is not easy to be just."

Republican Governor George Deukmejian and President Ronald Reagan both campaigned against Bird. "The defeat of Rose Bird was significant because it created a new danger in [California], the danger of politicizing a judicial branch that had not previously been subject to political pressures," Court of Appeals Justice J. Anthony Kline observed. Reagan's opposition to judges who "save the lives of killers" helped him in his bid for the presidency.

The fate of Stanley Tookie Williams now rests in the hands of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't spare Williams's life. On the one hand, Schwarzenegger is under pressure from right-wing Republicans to refuse clemency. But there's also high-profile pressure on him in California to grant clemency and prove his campaign claims that he really is a moderate.

When Schwarzenegger denied clemency to Donald Beardslee, the governor was the subject of a mighty backlash in his native Austria, which has outlawed the death penalty. And he must deal with his conscience, much like Pat Brown did in 1960. Schwarzenegger said the Beardslee decision was "the hardest day" of his life.

If ever there was a condemned man who deserved clemency, Williams is the one. A co-founder of the Crips gang, Williams has undergone a remarkable transformation in the 24 years he has been in prison. The author of several children's books that decry gang violence (65,000 have been sold to schools and libraries), Williams has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1993, Williams videotaped a message from death row supporting a truce between the Crips and the Bloods. He said, "Working together, we can put an end to this cycle that creates deep pain in the hearts of our mothers, our fathers, and our people, who have lost loved ones to this senseless violence." The videotape was shown during a peace summit meeting attended by over 400 gang members. If Schwarzenegger refuses Williams's plea, what message will it send to our children?

By granting clemency to Williams, Schwarzenegger would affirm the ideal of rehabilitation he claims to favor. A governor's pardon of Williams would signal that people can be redeemed, that mercy, not just retribution, is a worthy goal. "I have a despicable background," Williams said. "I was a criminal. I was co-founder of the Crips. I was a nihilist. But people forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched."

But even if Schwarzenegger pardons Stanley Tookie Williams, we must ask ourselves if we want to continue to engage in the state-sponsored killing of our people. "The reason to oppose capital punishment," the Los Angeles Times wrote in a recent editorial, "has to do with who we are, not who death row inmates are. The death penalty is inappropriate in all situations because it is unbefitting of a civilized society. Williams' case, though poignant, is irrelevant to this argument."

As it deliberates the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, the Senate must also deal with what it means to be "pro-life." Alito, who claims to be pro-life when it comes to abortion, is pro-death when it comes to the death penalty.

During his tenure on the Court of Appeals, Alito has shown little solicitude for death row inmates bringing habeas corpus petitions, particularly claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel and racial discrimination in jury selection. His positions in these cases run contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of both race-neutral jury selection and constitutionally adequate counsel.

In 2001, Alito voted to affirm the death judgment of an African-American man convicted by an all-white jury in Delaware. The prosecutor had struck all prospective African-American jurors from the jury pool. That same prosecutor had struck every prospective African-American juror in 3 other capital murder trials in the same county during the prior year. When Alito refused to infer racial discrimination from that pattern, he said, flippantly, "Although only about 10% of the population is left-handed, left-handers have won five of the last six presidential elections ... But does it follow that the voters cast their ballots based on whether a candidate was right- or left-handed?"

A majority of the full court accused Alito of "minimiz[ing] the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants."

Stanley Tookie Williams, an African-American, was also convicted and sentenced to death by a jury cleansed of all prospective African-American jurors by the prosecutor, based on the testimony of paid police informants. Williams maintains his innocence.

If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, Alito would have a powerful influence over whether many of our citizens live or die. In the past 5 years, the Court decided only 3 cases concerning abortion, but over 3 dozen involving the death penalty.

Capital cases are complex and often laden with error. A recent study at Columbia University found that 67 percent of death penalty cases had been reversed for serious constitutional error. Recurring features in these cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. There is a growing number of cases where DNA or other evidence has proved conclusively that death row inmates are factually innocent. In some cases, that evidence has surfaced too late - after innocent people have already been executed.

The United States is the only industrialized Western democracy that still executes its citizens. In 2004, 97 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Vietnam and the United States. Several major international human rights treaties eschew the death penalty. None of the 3 international criminal tribunals - the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda - permit the death penalty as a sentencing option for the most heinous of crimes over which they have jurisdiction.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments, according to Amnesty International.

"The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality," US Supreme Court Justice Arthur L. Goldberg wrote in a 1976 article in the Boston Globe. We must not be a society that rewards the meanest judges and elected officials. Let us choose and affirm life, not death.

Other interesting articles include:

At the Gates of San Quentin. Are we blind yet? Most excellent question.

Judge Clears Way for Border Fence. "The 2006 Homeland Security budget includes $35 million to cover most of the work." That's nice. And funding for the rebuilding of New Orleans is being objected to. Oh, and don't forget, this government gutted the funding for fixing the Levee's to add to the funding of Homeland Security.

The Inheritance: Can Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Save the NYT - and Himself?.

What the...

I was answering comments this morning and noticed I'm missing entries and parts of entries. What the heck happened? Massive blog failure or something? Anyone else having this problem?

ETA:

7:40 am

This is crazy; what's missing or chopped up makes no sense.

I swear the internet gods hate me. Email fubars are constant and now this?

Word to the wise: back up whatever you want to keep.

Your Christmas is Most Like: The Muppet Christmas Carol

You tend to reflect on Christmas past, present, and future... And you also do a little singing.

What Movie Is Your Christmas Most Like?

Lieberman hasn't been right in the head since he ran for VEEP.

Remember Connecticut. Remember.

Not surprising

You Have a Melancholic Temperament

Introspective and reflective, you think about everything and anything. You are a soft-hearted daydreamer. You long for your ideal life. You love silence and solitude. Everyday life is usually too chaotic for you. Given enough time alone, it's easy for you to find inner peace. You tend to be spiritual, having found your own meaning of life. Wise and patient, you can help people through difficult times. At your worst, you brood and sulk. Your negative thoughts can trap you. You are reserved and withdrawn. This makes it hard to connect to others. You tend to over think small things, making decisions difficult.

What Temperment Are You?

Keep The Promise

World AIDS Day

Test

hair.gif

or

big hair

~ ~

PS: wait for the 45 second download - it's so worth it!

And, for the record, I LOVE her partner's hair long and curly.