about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Click here to listen to Thom
Hartmann's eloquent and irrefutable rebuttal of Newt Gingrich's insane statement that the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in support of
Habeas Corpus "will cost us a city."
Why does the corporate media allow this disgraced, scum-bucket who divorced his wife on her death bed in order marry the young
secretary he was having an affair with?
Sunday, 15 June 2008 at 8h 35m 9s
Innocent men are held at Guantanamo
This is why Habeas Corpus is written in the constitution.
An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men —
and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and
elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.
McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials
with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal
documents and other records.
This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary
criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to
Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.
The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many
Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with
militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or
adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.
Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any
terrorists of consequence.
If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication — and several former high-ranking U.S. administration
and defense officials said in interviews that they are — most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but
men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.
"As far as intelligence value from those in Gitmo, I got tired of telling the people writing reports based on their interrogations
that their material was essentially worthless," a U.S. intelligence officer said in an e-mail, using the military's slang for
Guantanamo authorities periodically sent analysts at the U.S. Central Command "rap sheets on various prisoners and asked our
assessment whether they merited continued confinement," said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the subject. "Over about three years, I assessed around 40 of these individuals, mostly Afghans. ... I only can
remember recommending that ONE should be kept at GITMO.
At a Pentagon briefing in the spring of 2002, a senior Army intelligence officer expressed doubt about the entire intelligence-
"He said that we're not getting anything, and his thought was that we're not getting anything because there might not be
anything to get," said Donald J. Guter, a retired rear admiral who was the head of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps at
Many detainees were "swept up in the pot" by large operations conducted by Afghan troops allied with the Americans, said
former Army Secretary White, who's now a partner at DKRW Energy, an energy company in Houston.
One of the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo, White recalled, was more than 80 years old.
Army Spc. Eric Barclais, who was a military intelligence interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from September 2002
through January 2003, told military investigators in sworn testimony that "We recommended lots of folks be released from
(Bagram), but they were not. I believe some people ended up at (Guantanamo) that had no business being sent there."
"You have to understand some folks were detained because they got turned in by neighbors or family members who were feuding
with them," Barclais said. "Yes, they had weapons. Everyone had weapons. Some were Soviet-era and could not even be fired."
In 2002, a CIA analyst interviewed several dozen detainees at Guantanamo and reported to senior National Security Council
officials that many of them didn't belong there, a former White House official said.
Despite the analyst's findings, the administration made no further review of the Guantanamo detainees. The White House had
determined that all of them were enemy combatants, the former official said.
Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon
lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected
"enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.
In late 2004, Pentagon officials decided to restrict further interrogations at Guantanamo to detainees who were considered "high
value" for their suspected knowledge of terrorist groups or their potential of returning to the battlefield, according to Matthew
Waxman, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the Defense Department's head official for
detainee matters, from August 2004 to December 2005.
"Maybe three-quarters of the detainees by 2005 were no longer regularly interrogated," said Waxman, who's now a law professor
at Columbia University.
At that time, about 500 men were still being held at Guantanamo.
So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees — less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've
been at Guantanamo — with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few
cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.
About 500 detainees — nearly two out of three — have been released.
Lasseter | McClatchy News Services | 15 June 2008]
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it.
The Supreme Court has upheld Habeas Corpus 3 god damn times during the Bush administration, with the 4 corrupt judges the
only one's to dissent (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito). In his dissent this week, Scalia said that protections were included and that
our freedom is in jeopardy.
Are you kidding me? What more proof can there be of the absolute abdication of principle and willingness to mangle the words
of the United States constitution by a Supreme Court justice. This is worse than the Dred Scott Case of the 1850's when a freed
slave was forced back into bondage when he traversed into a slave state. Read the sentence in the constituion which says habeas
corpus shall NOT be suspended. We are not being invaded and there is no rebellion.
CNN -- the "Comedy News Network" -- is however more interested in puffing up McCain's credentials, discussing how Obama
can lose, and giving press-time to the whores who make hundreds of thousands of dollars saying Bill Clinton slept with them, but
couldn't prove it in a court of law.
Sunday, 15 June 2008 at 8h 8m 32s
It's an invasion stupid
The Boston Globe just issued an editorial which rips the notion that we invaded Iraq to install democracy and create a sovereign
nation of free people.
Bush and Maliki agreed in November on principles for a "status of forces agreement," which will be needed as a legal basis
for American troops to remain in Iraq after the United Nations' mandate for them expires Dec. 31. The agreement would set
rules for US forces in Iraq. Since March, Iraqis and Americans have also been negotiating a "strategic framework agreement" to
define more broadly the long-term political and diplomatic relations between the two countries.
The two agreements have been reopened for negotiation. Though Bush speaks of Iraq as a free, democratic ally, the original
versions gave the United States privileges in Iraq more suitable to the relationship between a colonial power and its
The contents of the agreements were not cast in the form of a treaty because a treaty would have to be ratified by the US Senate.
Bush plainly does not want senators asking troublesome questions about the implications of an open-ended Iraqi approval for 58
American military bases on Iraqi soil.
Five of the 58 are sprawling megabases that replicate the amenities of an American town. Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad, has
air traffic comparable to Chicago's O'Hare Airport. No wonder some Iraqis see these bases as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain
control of its vast oil reserves and to establish a new permanent military presence in the heart of the Middle East.
Click here for an easy to follow
side-by-side comparison of the 2 tax plans proposed by the candidates.
The Tax Policy Center is a think tank related to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. Certain newspapers will call it "left-
leaning" because it's substantive, non-partisan conclusions run counter to the political views of the editors in charge of those
newspapers. The editors and CEO's of the corporate press insert the phrase "left-leaning", just like they insert the phrase
"alledged" every time another one of their pet politicians gets caught in a corruption scandal.
Because I firmly believe everyone should always be aware of the potential bias of one's sources,here is a Wikipedia on the Tax Policy Center.
Accordingly, "Based in Washington, D.C., the Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings
Institution. The Center is comprised of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the
highest levels of government."
Thursday, 12 June 2008 at 7h 54m 21s
US troops just attacked a group of Pakistani paramilitary units within Pakistan. The US military is saying they were coordinating
the effort with the Pakistani military, and that the units which were attacked were militants attacking US forces in Afghanistan.
Now considering how many times the US military has been wrong over the last 5 years, and how many times the US military top
brass has covered up its mistakes, you have to take the reaction by the Pakistani military seriously, because they might be telling
Pakistan contended Wednesday that the Tuesday night strike was deliberate and unprovoked. The United States called it a
legitimate response to an attack by militants on an American unit, and said the U.S. operation had been coordinated in advance
with the Pakistanis.
"This was on purpose," Pakistan's military spokesman, Maj. General Athar Abbas, told McClatchy Newspapers. "There was no
engagement on our side. We consider this a deliberate act of aggression. I'm dumbfounded."
"It's a disaster," Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, told McClatchy after the Tuesday night incident. "How can we call
ourselves allies when this sort of thing happens? This will create greater mistrust. The only beneficiaries will be the militants."
The vehemence of the Pakistani official reaction was the latest sign of growing tensions with the United States.
[SOURCE:Saeed Shah and
Jonathan S. Landay | McClathcy News Services | 11 June 2008]
Now considering how bungled and mismanaged this administration and the current top brass have made of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan -- how much do you trust them to do anything against Iran? All the saber-rattling to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities will only make matters much worse, and (I fear) will begin the slide into World War Three and the Apocalypse
that much closer. But that's what Bush wants, because in chaos and crisis they can destroy democracy and create the totalitarian
But what do I know, eh?
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 15h 55m 19s
Are we winning yet?
Thanks to bartcop, and mnftiu.cc (who is the comic creator).
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 18h 2m 29s
The John McCain you never knew
Of course, this has to come from a Newspaper in Britain, because the US press is full of speculating nincompops
meaning of journalism every day.
Click here to find out why John McCain left his first wife.
‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just
does,’[ John McCain's former wife Carol].
Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who
abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for
McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a
millionaire who had impeccable political connections.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have
been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let
me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away.
Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for
something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that
first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
[SOURCE:Sharon Churcher | The Daily Mail | 8 June
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For those who are curious as to the political perspective of the British press, here is A Wikipedia on the British Newspaper Daily Mail -- in case you are interested. Accordingly,The
Mail is well-known for its right wing stance on numerous issues which it sees as being of moral significance...The paper, and the
stereotypical "Daily Mail reader" have become stock characters in the UK (as the phrase "Guardian reader" has become for the
and also (because things are not that simple)
The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England speaking up for "small-c" conservative values against what it
sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-EU, anti-mass immigration, anti-abortion view, based around what it
describes as "traditional values", and is correspondingly pro-family, pro-capitalism (though not always supportive of its
aftereffects), and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower
levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left. However, it is less supportive of
deregulated commercial television than The Sun, and unlike Rupert Murdoch's tabloid it seems to be broadly nostalgic for what it
believes the BBC once was.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 13h 27m 26s
Why Chris Matthews is an a**hole
Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 12h 34m 38s
Your Whiteness Is Showing
This is totally awesome. I got the snippet from AmericaBlog, but the piece is from an old college buddy of mine
Click here for the article in Lip
Back in the day, 1987-1991, Tim had a unique way of making his point irrefutable. I'm glad to see he still has that knack.
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their
commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are....
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what
you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity,
in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press.
On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be
more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least
until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever
media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against
Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at
some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding,
and it is grotesque....
[B]lack folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they
were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from
the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell,
for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black
man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the
one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Personally I am getting sick of Hillary supporters calling "Hillary haters" those who are disgusted by her feckless self-serving
compromises over the last 7 years. It's not like our disgruntlements don't actually have a basis in fact.
Hillary used push-polls to
try to disparage people from voting for Obama. Hillary made comments like "Obama is alienating White voters" after she won
West Virginia. Hillary made comments like "Obama is not a muslim, at least as far as I know" when the press barraged her with
that nonsense. How come she didn't stand up for Obama vociferously and criticize the person who kept asking this question and
use it as a moment to be disgusted with the way media tries to manipulate the message?
But she didn't do that did she. Just like
she didn't stand up for the constitution when the Republicans were passing laws without oversight. Nope, she played nice and
tried to work the mythical middle ground. How come she didn't act like Russell Feingold or Henry Waxman or Barbara Lee or
Dennis Kucinich, instead of trying to be Republican-lite? Did she think she could still sell her brand-name despite the
Obviously, the answer is yes. The shame is that so many people out there in the pundit media-consultant land are still talking
tripe about how 18
million people voted for Hillary and that this is supposed to represent a ground-swell of revolutionary fervor. How many of those
18 milion people are just plain racist or rigidly feminist? How many are just knee-jerk brand-name voters who couldn't tell you
why Hillary did not vote when the bankruptcy bill came up (Obama voted NO)? How many accuse Obama of voting
for the war spending, when Hillary also voted for the same appropriations bills?
Does the name blind hypocrite mean anything?
Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 8h 52m 40s
Helping democracy by insisting upon 58 military bases
This is absolutely incredible.
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that
will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal
along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile
act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war
between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a
leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said,
referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now
we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from
prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to
cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said....
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30
major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,"
Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers | 9 June 2008]
So when the French helped us in the 1780's, did they insist on 58 permanent military bases? How many foreign military bases
would any sovereign nation want to act independently within the national boundaries?
But of course, only terrorists are resisting the will of the United States, right?