Tag Archives: defense

Bush Contradicts Claims By Cheney, Rove, and Fox News That Torture Was Useful

Posted on by
Reply
Over the past couple of days, Karl Rove and Fox News have offered a new argument in defense of the Bush administration’s torture policies. Now, they say, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) yielded intelligence that led to the disruption of an al Qaeda plot to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles, the Library Tower (which both Bush and Rove called the Liberty Tower, for some reason). There’s just one problem with Rove’s new story: it couldn’t possibly be true. As Timothy Noah pointed out in Slate, the Los Angeles attack was foiled in February of 2002. KSM was not captured until March of 2003, however — more than a year later. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that timeline is impossible. Perhaps appropriately, then, here’s a video of George W. Bush — in his own words — proving that Karl Rove and Fox News are lying about torture:
LINK

Popularity: 1% [?]

Map Where Congress Budgets Your Taxes on Google Earth

Posted on by
Reply
defensespending thumb Map Where Congress Budgets Your Taxes on Google Earth A new Google Earth layer keeps tabs on political spending by pinpointing where and for what projects U.S. government officials are budgeting funds for across the country:
Members of Congress know where the money is going: now citizens can, too. The Sunlight Foundation today released a Google Earth application that plots the locations for almost 1,500 earmarks in the House Defense Appropriations bill. This graphic illustration of defense earmarks gives anyone with an internet connection a bird's-eye view of exactly where Congress is directing federal spending—and the ability to investigate whether the earmarks address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork.
Navigate House Defense Earmarks on Google Earth [Sunlight Foundation via CNET News.com]

Popularity: 1% [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Restore Habeas Corpus

Posted on by
Reply
The Senate made a terrible mistake last October, and allowed President Bush to damage one of the oldest founding principles of our democracy. They gave the President the authority to seize people and hold them without ever explaining why -- despite the fact that the Constitution itself says he should not have that power. Now some members of the Senate have recognized how big a deal this is, and they're trying to set it right. This week, the Senate will hold its first up-or-down vote on restoring habeas corpus. Tell your Senators to support the Specter-Leahy amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. http://act.truemajority.org/o/1/t/3/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1183 The amendment offered by Senators Leahy and Specter to the Defense Authorization bill would restore habeas corpus. Without habeas corpus, it's a very slippery slope towards dictatorship. So urge your Senators to vote yes on the Leahy-Specter habeas amendment. Join with me and TrueMajority.org to pressure the Senate to do the right thing and restore this fundamental right. http://act.truemajority.org/o/1/t/3/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1183

Popularity: unranked [?]