Friday, December 30, 2005

Republic Or Autocracy? That Is The Question.

Over at Empire Burlesque, Chris Floyd hits one out of the park with The Last Stand of the American Republic. We need to make some space in the radio program to read this one aloud on the air.
So now, at last, the crisis is upon us. Now the cards are finally on the table, laid out so starkly that even the Big Media sycophants and Beltway bootlickers can no longer ignore them. Now the choice for the American Establishment is clear, and inescapable: do you hold for the Republic, or for autocracy?
Go read the whole screed. He nails it. How will the Establishment respond? Republic or Autocracy? Do they even understand anymore that it has to be one or the other? It can't be both.

We shall see. We shall see.

Helping Them Find The Toad

Good news, comrades. Our mad scientists have cracked the neurosignaling of the marijuana munchies. Huzzah!

Now, where did I put my vaporizer? It was right here, somewhere...

Thursday, December 29, 2005

British Torture Memos Published?

The Daily Kos claims to be republishing some British "torture memos" (not to be confused with the Al Jazeera Memos referenced by the banner on the right). Unfortunately, the source of these documents has already been pulled offline, presumably by Her Majesty's Government.

These documents appear to say in black and white what anyone who has been paying attention has known there was good reason to believe since day one of this story. The USA and Britain have been avid consumers of "intelligence" they knew full well was derived from confessions produced in Uzbekistan under torture.

We've long known that Uzbekistan tortures its prisoners. We've long known that the USA and Britain have been "rendering" people into the tender mercies of Uzbekistani prison wardens. These facts have been beyond reasonable dispute for years. Years! All these documents do is show that the USA and Britain have known that specific intelligence was derived from confessions produced by specific acts of torture and they continued deliberately to look the other way while feeding more prisoners to the torturers.

If these documents are authentic (and I, personally, find that claim pretty credible), then these are evidence of violations of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Now, it should be remembered that the USA ratified this treaty but it took a "reservation" against the definition of torture in Article 16, because it insisted on using the broader prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in Amendment VIII of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, the U.S. State Department is on record describing the treatment of prisoners in Uzbekistan as torture.

Isn't it about time the USA and Britain come clean and denounce the Convention Against Torture under the terms of its Article 31? If they did that, at least their credibility in signing treaties wouldn't be irreparably damaged. They'd still be monsters on the world stage, but at least they would be monsters with which you can negotiate a peace treaty.

Another Bullet Dodged

In addition to not falling for the hoaxed reports of Fatherland Security goons visiting college students about their habits of reading Mao in the original Chinese, it appears we here at The MojoWire have another reason to give ourselves props for keeping out of a pundit frenzy.

It seems our private suspicions about Micheal Scheuer, the former CIA agent and anonymous author of Imperial Hubris, may yet turn out to have been warranted. Over at Sisyphus Shrugged, there is quite an interesting collection of quotes from the man. It concludes with speculation that maybe the guy is a little unhinged.

We refuse to speculate, but as Bellatrys wisely remarks in the comments there: "It always surprised me that so many people thought Anonymous Mike was a good guy, just because he criticized Bushco a bit for their obvious clusterfuckery."

Yeah. What she said.

Take a moment please,

And remember Admiral James Stockdale, former VP candidate and POW who died this year. The Carpetbagger Report links to a New York Times Magazine story (sub. required) about Admiral Stockdale that is worth checking out. Here is the part that grabbed me:

After his release, Stockdale became president of the Citadel, a civilian military college in South Carolina, but only lasted a year. Stockdale apparently wanted to curb the school's violent hazing culture, his board blocked his efforts, so he quit. As he later told a friend, "When you've been tortured by professionals, you do not have to put up with amateurs."

We have discussed torture on this blog and in our radio show quite a bit in the last few years. I think it is instructive to consider the treatment of American POW's in the Hanoi Hilton in truly grasping the depths of human degradation and evil that torture represents. Not to mention, for you *realists*, the complete and utter failure it was in this context for providing useful information or even propaganda. Admiral Stockdales resistance, and his almost superhuman efforts to retain his dignity and humanity in the face of his brutal treatment, deserves a moment of reflection on his memory, and as inspiration to redouble our efforts to restore the honor of this nation and it's ideals and end the support and practice of torture by this country.

Godspeed Admiral.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Paging Dr. Strych9...

Dr. Strych9, please respond to the Economic Rough Trade Wing's Bond Yield Curve Inversion ward, stat!

mojo sends

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Warrantless Searches Should Lead to Impeachment

Okay hippies, listen up:

There is no question. The President admitted he engaged the National Security Agency in warrantless searches of electronic communications. He did it, he's proud of it, and said he'll do it again.

He also said it was legal... somehow.

Well, here's the law, comrades:

50 USC §1809

Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.


(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.


There's the law for violating the FISA statute. May we now please proceed to the articles of impeachment...

mojo sends

(P.S. hat tip to Rob in Baltimore)

Atrios Is Right...

...you should just go read Tbogg. When you're done, you can tell me, again, who is going to police these retards.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Tyrants In Black Robes, Indeed...

Help me out here... this is an excerpt from an article in yesterday's Izvestia On The Potomac:
A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that the continued detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is "unlawful," but he decided he had no authority to order their release.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson criticized the government's detention of Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim, who have been jailed at Guantanamo for four years; they have been cleared for release because the government has determined they are not enemy combatants and are not a threat to the United States. But Robertson said his court has "no relief to offer" because the government has not found a country to accept the men and because he does not have authority to let them enter the United States.

Robertson wrote that the government has taken too long to arrange a release for the men, who cannot return to their Chinese homeland because they would likely be tortured or killed there. U.S. authorities have asked about two dozen countries to grant the men political asylum, but none has accepted, in part out of fear of angering China.

The Uighurs -- along with seven other detainees who have been found to be "no longer enemy combatants" -- are in Guantanamo's Camp Iguana, a less-restrictive area of the prison. They were cleared by a combatant status review tribunal about nine months ago, but no solution for their release has been reached. Robertson wrote that their situation is untenable.

[...]

Let me see if I get this straight...
  • They're "no longer enemy combatants."
  • Their continued detention is "unlawful."
  • They can't be rendered back to China, because they would "likely be tortured or killed" there.
  • Nobody, presumably not even the United States of America, dares anger the Chinese Red Army by granting them political asylum.
  • A U.S. federal judge has no authority to order any relief.

I'm supposed to believe that the tyrants in America are the judges?

And would somebody please explain to me— really, one of you wingnuts with the answers to everything ought to be able to just pop in here and straighten this out with a simple one-liner, I figure— what the fsck is the United States of America planning to do with these guys? Keep them detained in Camp Iguana for the rest of their natural lives?

Why am I paying taxes to pay for this?

It Was A Hoax

I knew there was something fishy about that story out of U. Massachusetts— the one about the political science student getting a visit from scary men in black from the Department of Fatherland Security supposedly just because he requested a copy of Mao's Little Red Book on inter-library loan.

I was right: it was a hoax. That's why I didn't post about it here. Looks like none of the other editorial board at The MojoWire got fished into this one either, for which I'm grateful. We've been gulled by hoaxes almost as bad as this one, and we've never failed to admit those mistakes. We promised to be more cynical, and this should serve as evidence of our efforts to be more suspicious of stories like these.

Anyway... would somebody please smack that kid around for me? I hate time-wasting little snots like him.

A MojoWire Christmas

I would like to tell you all a story... a Christmas story ... A Christmas story about Santa Claus.

I call this story, "Santa Claus and His Numerous Violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

You all know the song "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake..."

Unfortuantely for Santa Claus, acting as he does in a quasi-state capacity as the leader of a sovereign territory, (and his involvement in nuclear disarmament activities), his warrantless searching of children's bedrooms not only represent nearly an a priori violation of Fourth Amendment protections against such intrusion, but at least in the state of California, there are several Penal Code sections that specifically prohibit non-guardian adults from gathering information about children (c.f. PC §637.9).

To begin, the act of such intrusion is itself prohibited, but then this allegedly jolly old elf uses evidence gathered without probable cause in this illegal fashion to pronounce summary judgment (we'll get to due process in a minute) in violation of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine in the exclusionary rule.

But even if he met the hurdles of fourth amendment jurisprudence for his no-knock entries of houses without any judicial oversight, he clearly runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

For instance, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Justice Douglas writes for the majority:

"The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment."


And since we deem Santa to be acting in at least a quasi state actor role, we feel his activities are covered by the Fifth's protections of a "zone of privacy." And to reiterate, in the state of California, the penal code is especially protective of children given their status as the most vulnerable in our society to abuse and harm.

But let's pretend for the moment that the exigencies of the fourth and fifth amendments are met. Easily the most severe violations of constitutional rights are Santa's blanket disregard for due process as protected by the Sixth Amendment.

I don't even know where to start with this one. I mean, starting from his inability to prove-up his apparently self-appointed jurisdiction over all the children (who I might add, are still considered citizens, with all rights thereunto pertaining) of the United States.

Then there is the issue of judgment being pronounced on these children without any form of hearing or judicial process, much less giving children, or their parents, guardians, ad litems or other legal representatives an opportunity to make a case on their behalf.

We don't even want to go into the whole problem with his judgment being pronounced ex cathedra without any statutory authority for leaving lumps of coal in stockings (we won't even go into the CEQA rules about unregulated distribution of bisthmus coal in a residential setting...)

So from all of us here at the MojoWire: van.mojo, Dr. Strych9, Sean we wish all of you (even the asshats who come by) a very Merry Christmas.


legal disclaimer
From us ("the wishors") to you ("hereinafter called the wishee"):

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practice of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, our best wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of this calendar year of the Common Era, but with due respect for the calendars of all cultures or sects, and for the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that:

1. This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at the wishor's discretion.

2. This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor are acknowledged.

3. This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishors to fulfill these wishes, nor any ability of the wishors to do so, merely a beneficent hope on the part of the wishors that they in fact occur.

4. This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishors.

5. This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

6. The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.


Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "Our Saviour", or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.


mojo sends

Friday, December 23, 2005

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....

The latest on Iraqi democracy from MSNBC.Com...
[...]
The election results in Iraq may present Chalabi’s ardent U.S. supporters with a quandary: Chalabi, as well as other losing candidates, is alleging fraud in the election, even though the Bush administration hailed the vote as a historic step for democracy in Iraq.
[...]

Of course, Ahmed "Super Crypto Spy Man" Chalabi isn't the only one to have made this argument in recent days.

In the meantime, naturally, we here at The MojoWire are waiting with bated breath to find out whether 1) Iraq's new Jeffersonian Democracy is still the best thing to happen in the HeartOfTheArabWorld™, or 2) election fraud in Iraq is preventing Jeffersonian Democracy from breaking out in the HeartOfTheArabWorld™.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know What To Think!

Racist Scumbag Alert!

You knew they were rattling around inside the South Carolina affiliates of Fox Broadcasting Corp, didn't you? You didn't? Well, now you do. [Via ThinkProgress.Com]
Birckner’s praise of StormFront didn’t go unnoticed by Jamie Kelso (”Charles Lindbergh”), the site’s Senior Moderator, 11/14/05:
One detail that I forgot (until just yesterday) was to unmoderate our new Stormfront Member, FOXSC, so that Fox could post more easily on Stormfront.
Birckner told Think Progress that she is unsure whether or not she will be doing a follow-up piece and is waiting to hear more from the “local community.” When asked why she didn’t include some voices that were critical of StormFront, she replied she did the story exactly as she was told to and that officials at the network were very pleased with her coverage.

For those of you unfamiliar with Stormfront,Org, they are unreconstructed racist, white supremacist scumbags. They do not deserve fair treatment in the media. They are Evil and Insane, and they should be run like dogs— not fluffed with airy kisses from an affiliate of an international media behemoth.

Does anyone need further proof that Fox Broadcasting is an enemy of the United States? No? I didn't think so.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Your Shoes Are Ready For You, RedState...

Just go read this post by Michael Bérubé. Yes, RedState— we are mocking you.

p.s. Like Michael, I have to confess I'm beginning to resent being called a "liberal" too. The other names just make me laugh.

The BigWord™ Of The Day

an·ti·no·mi·an·ism n.
1. Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.

I bring this word to your attention in the context of these remarks from our friend Paperwight, who said...
The very existence of that talking point [that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were told about the spying project months ago], the fact that it's viable, says a lot about the modern Republican Party. Think about it. The response to "Hey, that's illegal" is: "We told some of the people who represent you, and they did nothing."

That response is completely orthogonal to the rule of law and to the very possibility of any form of democracy. It plainly grows out of a nasty swamp comprising equal parts antinomianism [emphasis added —s9] and authoritarianism, which has at its rotten heart the maxim: "There is no law. There is only power."

Allow me to simplify this for the ignorant Jethros in our tiny and rapidly dwindling readership.

Antinomianism is a fancy word that means Moral Relativism. The "It's Okay If You Are Republican" (IOKIYAR) thing is what we're talking about. When you combine it with Authoritarianism, what you get is a Party Doctrine that goes like this:
Conservatism frees Republicans from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and patriotism is attained solely through loyalty and the gift of political favor.

Are we starting to hit home with some of you people yet?

I guess there really is a Santa Claus

Federal Indictments are coming to town! From the Post:

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, facing trial on fraud charges Jan. 9 in Florida, is negotiating a possible deal with the Justice Department, in which he would agree to plead guilty and cooperate in the wide-ranging political corruption investigation focused on his dealings with members of Congress and executive branch officials, people familiar with the talks said last night.

Abramoff would provide testimony about numerous members of Congress and their staffs if he and the Justice Department reach an agreement, the sources said. Negotiations have been ongoing for several months, people knowledgeable about the discussions said, but pressure is mounting because of the pending trial.


Crikey! This is going to turn into an episode of I, Claudius. They are going be knifing each other in the parking structure of the U.S. Attorneys office to see who gets there earlier to get a better deal. Talk about coal in your stocking.

Who am I really looking forward to being cuffed and sent to man jail? Ralph Reed, that pompus and evil little punk who, along with Grover Norquist, fancies himself quite the tough guy. Memo to you Ralph, you aren't Gordon Liddy. You are a pimped out Alfalfa who is looking at doing serious time. I wonder what Pat Robertson thinks of his little protege now?

How many packs of smokes to you think Ralph is going to be worth in the open bitch market at Leavenworth?

More Little Victories...

Here is another one of those little victories... ANWR drilling gets punked.

One of my favorite little bits from this was Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens getting in the well of the Senate and saying that without ANWR drilling, there will be no money to pay for Katrina victims and avian flu vaccine. That is stellar work, Mr. Wizard...

Tell me Senator, how will revenues from oil, that don't appear for a decade or more effect the Katrina recovery or public health funding efforts now?

We'll just wait here for that answer...

mojo sends

Nice Job, W, Iran Wins Iraq Election...

We get the following from Voice of America about the official results of the Iraqi Election...

The Iraqi Electoral Commission on Tuesday released more preliminary voting results from the country's December 15 election for a new National Assembly. The largest Shi'ite coalition appears to have kept most of its seats in Iraq's 275-member Assembly.

The Iraqi election chief, Adil Al Lami, says 90 percent of the votes have been counted. Although the official tally will not be certified until early January, the preliminary results show that the United Iraqi Alliance will hold the largest number of seats in the country's new four-year, fulltime National Assembly.

The United Iraqi Alliance currently holds a narrow majority in the National Assembly. It also has most of the positions in the powerful ministry of the interior. The prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is also a member.

The Alliance is a conservative grouping of Islamist parties with ties to Iran. Sunnis accuse the current government of allowing Shi'ite militiamen, thinly veiled as police and interior ministry forces, of harassing, detaining and killing them.


The issue here is of course that in spite of intense Sunni turnout at the polls, we had reports on the eve of the election of Iranian ballot tampering. Of course, all the asshats didn't seem to be worried about that, in spite of being given pretty good reason to.

So in spite of all their chest thumping faux patriotic flag waving on the march of freedom, when the Iraqi people get an election stolen right out from under them by the Axis of Evil they are no where to be seen. Typical, they would rather see a crooked election that will screw up their long run plans than have to admit that there was something wrong in the first place.

The ultimate triumph of style over substance.

Although I certainly wouldn't put it past certain elements to be willingly looking the other way... now, why would they do something like that?

mojo sends

Update 1.0: Apparently, we here are not the only ones who noticed that something was wrong with the Iraqi election. And now, the dissaffected parties, including secular Shi'a political groups, are calling for a boycott of the new government if these charges are not investigated seriously.

The Pushback Continues

I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way to work all this week because I can count on him to present the Bush administration pushback on the spying scandal without delaying it or hedging it.

Today, the line appears to be a fetid load of rancid fertilizer stemming from a column by John Schmidt in today's Chicago Tribune (boo, hiss— do we need to remind you of the editorial bias at the trib?) that falsely argues the President had legal authority to order the wiretaps we've been talking about all week. I heard Limbaugh rant for a good twenty minutes on this subject. (And may I just say— dude needs to go back on the little blue ones. He's starting to go all Michael Savage on us, and that is not pretty.)

This latest argument is all of the same piece as the other attempts to muddle the debate we brought to your attention earlier this week. The fine folks at ThinkProgress.Com are all over this one. They are quite handily deconstructing this bullshit-on-demand.
[...] It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:
“All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority.” [...]

Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law.

If you read the whole thing, and compare notes with our previously linked comments, it will be plainly apparent that this pushback is all stemming from the same source. Somebody, probably somewhere inside the Justice Department or the White House, is purposely misquoting FISA and pretending it doesn't say what it does. Specifically, they want you to believe that 50 USC 1802 doesn't limit the definition of a "foreign power" to which it applies to a subset of the categories defined in 50 USC 1801 that specifically excludes international terrorists. The Congress explicitly and deliberately wrote the law this way.

Once again, apologists for the President are deliberately lying about the text of the law and the judicial record. The President has authority to order electronic surveillance without a court order on foreign agents narrowly defined to exclude international terrorists. These people are trying to pretend that the Congress did not explicitly limit the President's authority to prevent his office from ordering what George W. Bush admitted in front of God and C-SPAN he did.

p.s. "Deliberately" is a really fun word in this context— you should look it up, RedState!