Public Service Announcement

My keen observation skills have led to an advantageous discovery about the enemy: Po-Po. When they are not parading around in their decked-out cars and terrorrizing the paranoid people with their mere presense they are up to something more sinister: undercover. But they are not so smart, no they aren't mister. A fatal flaw in their designs.

AUM

The undercover police cars all (well I have seen three now) have license plates that start with these three letters. So if you think you're being narked just take a looksy at the plates.

Robin that sucks!!! about the bike. Now you and lilho have something else in common-her bike was stolen from right outside my house last year. And, feel free to come over and sit in the garden whenever you please. Rachel, look into my eyes and count backwards from twenty...you are not being brainwashed, you are not being brainwashed, sing like a rooster, cock-a-doodle-dooo!

not the other way around.

As a fellow civil servant I respond to Jessbob [inlink]jessbob,10[/inlink]. I feel it would be way more important for the president to fly his flag at half mast everytime his actions result in the death of an American (actually anyone, but that may be stretching patriotism). Reagan is the figurehead of modern conservatism. He created the "trickle-down" economic theory (I don't really give him personal credit, but it was instituted under his watch) which has been the root substantiation of the corporate plundering of America, too many people are getting less and less trickle. He is George Bush's idol (isn't that enough to hate him). He perpetrated mass war-crimes against an entire continent (heard of Iran-Contra?). Under guise of the cold war he continued to stockpile massive amounts of armaments against an already defeated (if unacknowledged) foe (we have over 10,000 active nuclear warheads thanks in large part to Reagan). Personally the one good thing I've got from him is Friday off becasue he died.

And on the fact that I should lower my flag because the president died in regards to our current leader, I would at the least expect the courtesy that he visit a couple soldiers' funerals or send personal condolences to the families of the victims of his war (Bush has done neither of these things). Respect is earned, it is not a condition of office.

Attorney General John Ashcroft took the stand today in front of the Senate DOJ oversight committee trying to defend the issue of American using torture as an interrogation technique. Much of the questioning swirled around recently leaked memos pertaining to the power of the president to protect individuals accused of committing torture in the name of the war or terror. Here is one of the actual memos . Check out page 31 (28 of the pdf file), it says:

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qauda terrorist network. In that case, DOJ believes that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Basically, the President will protect anyone accused of torture using convoluted logic equating torture to self-defense. First it was preventive/pre-emptive war as self defense and now it's torture as self defense, these guys are so fucking nuts! What isn't self-defense? This is scary, they are using 9/11 as justification for just about anything and everything they want to do. Anyways, the Committee asked Ashcroft to release the memos for review and he refused. They asked him under what authority and he said that it wasn't any particular executive order but that he was just explaining to them that he wasn't releasing them. He, of course, doens't have the authority to explain away his decisions, if he is going to withhold info from Congress he needs to have a reson and the authority to withhold that info. Several members of the congressional panel charged with Justice Department oversight saif Ashcroft's refusal bordered on contempt of Congress, which if prosecuted and convicted can result in punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.
"Y'all better come up with a good rationale [not to release the memos] or otherwise it's contempt of Congress," Senator Biden warned Ashcroft.

sidenote: does anyone have any opinions one way or the other on the county takeover of park service in Buffalo. It's being planned right now as an effort to balance the city's book and an effort to further consolidate city/county relations. Sounds like a good idea to me as long as it actually happens, many suburbs (like Cheektowaga) are complaining that they shouldn't have to pick up the cost. I think that since they use the economic support of the city (ie: jobs, infrastructure) they shouldn't complain about giving a little back. Here's a couple BuffNews articles: .

Both the NY Times and the Washington Times are reporting on various memos between Pentagon officials and the White House. The memos, issued between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, describe how international law regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists and 'unlawful combatants' doesn't apply to US troops. The documents are very telling after the recent scandal at Abu Graihb and amidst continuing allegations or torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay. As noted by Josh Marshall one passage in the Washington Times is particularly revealing of Administration thought on the matter:

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Basically a blanket statement saying the Pres. has "got your back" to anyone accused of committing war crimes in the name of the War on Terror. It's really frightening. These are purely fictitious powers that are specifically not given to the President through the Constitution. Bushco has shown repeatedly that they have little regard to any norms of conduct or the separation of powers. According to them, the President can declare war, hold foreign troops (and in a few cases even Americans) for indefinite amounts of time, and now against all international laws (ie: Geneva Convention) decide what actions by our troops-if any-constitute war crimes.

The last point I'll make is that there was one quote describing how the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are not subject to regulations of the Geneva Convention because they are being held in a US-controlled area. Maybe true, probably not, but the problem is that they have been vociferously claiming for years that these same suspects should not be granted access to due process/lawyers/courts because they are not being held in American territory. Which one is it? Or maybe which one is more important to Bush, the ability to torture with impunity or to hold indefinitely without access to a court? The audacity to claim both "rights" under conflicting definitions is outrageous. These guys gotta go. They are the real terrorists.