Friday, February 25, 2005

What's The Point?

A friend forwarded me a copy of The Washington Post article from February 24, 2005 that details how the Department of Defense is trying to get the Department of State out of the way in inserting personnel into foreign countries. The Pentagon doesn't want to have to ask permission of or notify the ambassador in a country before inserting Special Forces. It makes me wonder why we even have a State Department anymore.

Shouldn't all of our foreign relations be handled by strictly military personnel for at least the next four years?

It seems like it would save a lot of money if we just shut down all our embassies, and the entire State department took a four year vacation. It wouldn't be enough money to not operate at a defecit, but I guess that is asking a bit much.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

S.

The following is from my friend Alok Kumar. It says what I thought much more eloquently than I did.
On the Death of S.

Life is ugly and poorly dressed
Hunter S. is laid to rest
amongst the twilight did he fly
a sparkle of chemicals in his eyes
today marks a solemn turn
the death of freedom and peace burns
today a gift has gone away
an idol lost generation betrayed

why did you put a bullet in your head
why did you vanquish a movement led
by heroes and thinkers who gave us hope
that we too could drink, drop, and dope
who can say why acid freak, vagabond of woody creak
put a pistol to his head and from this world abruptly fled

we will have your books and your life
to think of during times of strife
but somehow I will always know
sometimes your mind you have to blow
for those of you who feel deprived
at least Keith Richards is still alive

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Biding Time

I read the other day about a defense attorney who has been jailed along with her paralegal staff for aiding terrorists. All she did was allow her client to communicate with the outside world. In America that is Free Speech. We were not founded on any other one principle besides Free Speech.

The argument used was that this man speaking would cause lives to be lost. There are countless phrases that have been uttered over the last few years that have met that criteria and as much as I dislike and disagree with those statements I would never condone banning the individuals from saying them. Take for example, "Bring 'em on", "We're gonna smoke 'em outta their holes", "Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction". All of these have now cost over 1,000 American lives and some uncounted and probably attrocious number of Iraqi lives, but we can't censor W.

Can he censor me?

With an Attorney General who condones torture, more conservative Supreme Court justices on their way, and a culture where "Americans should watch what they say" I suppose that I am just biding time until my ultimate stay in Abu Ghraib. Maybe I'll make Guananamo Bay. It is closer, and the weather should be stellar.

I've always wanted to see Cuba.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Outsourced Torture

When we abridge the rights of Americans to free speech, the terrorists win.

The following story is appaling in that this attorney was prosecuted, and because she had to sign any agreement to abridge her clients first ammendment rights at all. If Bush wants to get cruel and unusual then extradite prisoners like this to prisons in North Korea, Zimbabwe, or Sudan. Don't trash my country and my laws.

If we can outsource high paying American jobs for less overseas, then we should be able to outsource our torture too. China has a billion people and almost no respect for human life. They would be great at taking over the torture and Constitutional violations that we don't want to sully our reputation by doing in house.

This is going to be a long four years...

N.Y. Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorists
By Gail Appleson

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York lawyer aided terrorism by helping a client send messages to militant followers, a federal jury found on Thursday in a case critics said stemmed from Bush administration efforts to discourage the defense of accused terrorists.

Lynne Stewart, 65, long a defender of the poor and unpopular, was convicted of helping her imprisoned client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, to contact followers in Egypt with messages that could have ended a cease-fire there and ignited violence.

Abdel-Rahman was found guilty in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was serving a life term when the crimes charged against Stewart occurred.

Stewart was convicted of all five counts against her, including two terrorism charges that combined carry a maximum 15-year prison term. All five counts combined carry a maximum term of 30 years, but it is unlikely she will be sentenced to such a lengthy term.

The complex trial lasted more than seven months. The Manhattan federal jurors deliberated 13 days.

"I committed no crime. I know what I did was right," Stewart said, adding that she would appeal. She remains free until her sentencing, tentatively set for July 15.

"I was a poster girl for John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and his Patriot Act," she told reporters after the verdict, referring to the former U.S. attorney general.

Prosecutors said Stewart enabled Abdel-Rahman to communicate with the Islamic Group, which they said is a terrorist group that had Abdel-Rahman as its spiritual leader.

Stewart maintains she was just zealously representing her client and her defense team argued she was a victim of a Bush administration effort to discourage lawyers from defending those accused of terrorism.

Stewart began to cry outside the courthouse while speaking after the verdict and was comforted by her husband as supporters chanted, "Hands Off Lynne Stewart."

WAKE-UP CALL

"I hope this case will be a wake-up call to all citizens of this country," Stewart said. "You can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell lawyers how to do their job."

In addition to the terrorism counts, she was convicted of three charges related to lying to the government by breaking a pledge to prevent her client from communicating with followers.

"I'd like to think I would do it again," she said. "It's the way a lawyer is supposed to behave."

Stewart's co-defendants Ahmed Sattar, a postal worker who acted as a paralegal for Abdel-Rahman, and Mohammed Yousry, an Arabic translator, were also convicted. Sattar, charged with the conspiracy to kill people outside the United States, could be sentenced to life in prison.

The case attracted attention from U.S. lawyers, some of whom believed Stewart was the target of vindictive prosecutors who wanted to punish her for her leftist beliefs and others who said she willingly broke the law.

"It's unbelievable," said Ivan Fisher, a New York defense lawyer. He said she was "absolutely" a target of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

Jeff Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "There are some (lawyers) who will be scared and won't take these cases, but there are others who might be even more zealous to demonstrate that we won't be cowed."

Others, such as Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet, said Stewart broke the law: "This case had nothing to do with zealous advocacy and everything to do with obeying the law."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the convictions "send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals."

During the trial, prosecutors said Stewart signed and then broke a deal with the U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) to prevent Abdel-Rahman from sending messages that could cause violence.

Evidence included a call Stewart made in 2000 to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issued by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire in Egypt. The group had observed the cease-fire since a 1997 attack on tourists in Luxor.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The Secret Police

I've heard rumblings that Rummy now has his own unsupervised branch of special ops. I figure things like this have existed for a long time, but an official acknowledgement would be original. I guess that I would feel better about it at any time in history except maybe the Civil War, or McCarthyism.

For a long time I would have agreed with that both parties represented equally valid viewpoints, even if they differed significantly from my own, What scares me are: violations of the Geneva convention and basic human decency being committed in the name of the US, unprovoked invasions that endanger our citizenry and national financial wellbeing, and telling me that a god I don't believe in will help us win a war against an enemy we haven't effectively attacked in two invasions (note: the terrorists are mobile enough to leave when they hear the planes coming, the citizens get fucked. If you don't believe me, then tell me who would be the first one out of your town in a war, you with the job, family and mortgage, or the kinda crazy guy who hangs out on the streetcorner yelling at strangers about Jesus?).

Personally, I think all the Ammendments are important, but the 2nd needs some tweaking. Everyone should bear arms except religious fanatics. I don't care if you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist whether your name is Osama, Sharon, or W. If you believe that you can kill in the name of your god, then you ought to be kept away from firearms and sharp objects.

And please force this administration into more transparency, not less.

In tough times dissidence is patriotism.