Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects

Ok, I need to know, Where does president Bush get off claiming that he alone knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? He has never been in Combat, neither have any of his close advisers. But now he truly believes, with all the passion he's shown in press conferences, that his way and only his way, will make us safer. With a track record like Bush's? I'd rather trust American Law, International law, and Colon Powell.

Colon Powell was the Secretary of State when 911 happened, he knows everything the president knows, he's been in combat and commanded troops on the battlefield. Unlike the President, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and everyone else who avoided the Vietnam Draft.

Powell has spoken strongly against this proposal, so has John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Grahm, all republican senators on the Armed Services Committee.
Powell's letter to McCain:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers.

Bush wants to allow things like "waterboarding" that's where you drown someone until they inhale water and pass out, then they are resuscitated. From testimony, it is excruciating to inhale water into your lungs and sinuses, you pass out from the pain above all else.

That's torture, the United States does not stand for such things, these are evil and sinister acts. just because Bush happens to be president for 6 years doesn't mean he can soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.

Bush's proposal aims to 'clarify' the Geneva conventions. Ooooooh, ok. But the Geneva Conventions were signed by 47 other countries. We agreed upon them at that time, and it has been the bedrock or international legitimacy. Now the US is going to be the first to chip away at it.

Offering our own interpretations of the laws of war. That sounds like a terrible thing for any country to do, offer their own interpretation of the laws of war. Especially during a time of war. Isn't that the whole point of laws in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? This is not a nation ruled by the passions of men, we are ruled by time tested Laws. That's the whole point of the constitution. And it's what makes a democracy last.

International law is the only way that peace can exist today. Without law your only option is violence and war. I do not want to leave my children with a world that has no trust in international standards of law. There will be no peace in such a world.

We follow the law, that's what makes us the good guys and them the bad guys.

I updated this post a bit since yesterday, I posted it in a hurry.

Couple things in the news today, if you're wondering how I find out about all this stuff, you only need to know one website
The Huffington Post
When you can'd read the news, listen to WHLD 1270am

(1)
George Bush is on Capital Hill today with Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove Lobbying congress to pass his plan to deal with terror suspects after his whole Enemy Combatant - Military Tribunal system was shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Militaty Tribunal system was invented by the Bush administration for the War on Terrorism. (the executive branch cannot invent a new judicial branch that doesn't comply with American law and the Constitution).

So today Bush is working to get his new system "legalized" by congress (funny, he didn't ask them in the first place).

But Bush's system still doesn't comply with the Constitution. I guess that Bush forgot that his job was to protect and uphold our constitution. Colon Powell and John McCain are opposed to the bill because of how it deals with military detainees. But Bush on the other hand, is stomping around Capital Hill screaming "Subvert the Constitution! This is an American Fascist Revolution!" ok, there I said it. The Bush Agenda is un-American.

(2)
That leads me to my point on Torture, because the president is lobbying in support of a law his administration wrote that allows people that they capture to be tortured, furthermore, any 'evidence' obtained under torture should be used in court against them.

The problem is torture doesn't work. You get bad intelligence, you end up with a lot of wild goose chases, and a lot of innocent victims disappeared and tortured, maybe killed for no reason. People will say anything if you torture them enough, whether it's true or not.
any interrogation manual will say you need to develop rapport, a relationship based on trust, so that they will give you credible information

(3)
Lastly A house report about Iran's Nuclear Program is filled with fabrication and lies. "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
That's right "Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring."
The intelligence community says 3.5% and Rumsfeld hears 90% ?!?!?!? no wonder we are in the mess we are today.

I don't watch TV news much, usually I rely on print media and radio news. But today I felt like crap and was laying on the couch at about 6:30 so I turned on the network news.

The thing that struck me, is how little information from TV news, they spend all their time trying to get you excited about something. They never seem to get to the point, or give you any context to understand what they are talking about.

The entertainment factor of TV news is absurd. You can tell that the news is created by the entertainment industry, unlike radio news or print.

The only TV News worth anything is the Jim Lehrer news hour at 6:30 on PBS.

TV news is a disaster for democracy and civic discussion.

ok, the anniversary of 911 is to heavy for me to get into. so I'm going to summarize things in a couple of links.

Kieth Olberman gives a great summary. He noted those moments of unity after 911 when everyone followed the presidents lead, and compared that to now. Where has this tragic administration lead us? There isn't even a memorial at ground zero five years later. And we ignited a civil war in Iraq for no reason, and lost international respect.
Here's the video and transcript:

The Path to 9/11 - ABC television's "Docu Drama"?? I call it "intentional propaganda" to put it nicely, or a flagrant manipulation of the truth with some occasions of portraying the exact opposite of what happened. Yea, it's true sorry to say
You can watch clips on Youtube. Here are 9 clips from the user p911sux
More Stuff Here


And the president interrupts our lives for a prime time speech to make excuses for the Iraq War. Good idea Mr President, exploit it like a photo op to advance your failed agenda in the middle east. How moving. . . asshole



Enjoy your dose of News Video.


Update:
Read Ajay's post too
Good reflection.

Just in case the Mainstream media doesn't report this story, I'm posting it here for the record. This is bad news. We already know that the millitary situation in Iraq is getting worse, now here is a distinctive sign that the political situation is in trouble as well.

From the Telegraph UK


I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader


By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
    
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
    
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.

"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."

According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.

"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."

Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."

Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.

"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.