Friday, June 5, 2009

The Speech Heard 'Round the World

Pres. Obama's speech is getting reviews around the world. From the spawn of Cheney, who of course didn't like it and I refuse to link to, to myself who thought it was one of his best.

One of my blogger friends K, did an excellent write up and review of it. K writes about politics with a mixture of music and soul. He gives a very good perspective and has always made more sense than most. Thank K, for keeping me straight a lot of times.

Last night at Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog, someone pointed us to a new spot I had never heard of before.

They were talking about a site giving a review of the Cairo speech and said this was a good review. So I checked out The Field and found some amazingly good reviews.

Gandhi – conscious that after being away for 27 years in London and South Africa he did not know his native country well enough to lead it – instead imposed upon himself a moratorium against speaking to the press, and embarked upon a listening tour through the forgotten and impoverished regions of India in order to first understand what the real yearnings and realities of its people were. Only after he felt he had a comprehensive enough vision for what kind of better society was possible there did he enter the fray that, as history knows, won independence for the region, while showing the world a new way to fight for freedom.
Listening to the President’s remarks in Cairo this morning – billed as a speech to all the Muslims in the world – it is clear that in Barack Obama our moment in history has one such transcendent leader.
This is an admission that infuriates some of my friends when I say it (it bothers them to distraction because it challenges so many presumptions that were accurate until he came along, but that they cynically thought reflected the permanent state of man and woman). The admission – Obama is that kind of great historical figure, one, perhaps, like Gandhi – is filled with paradox, as he achieved that standing through the messy art of electoral politics (in a country where the voting system is severely retarded by money, which is to say, capitalism) and he now heads what is still an Empire and the most powerful one in human history.
Obama’s rise to power does not erase that the Empire he commands grew through many atrocious acts of war, domination and economic pillage of other lands and peoples even as it began as the first and greatest model of how to cast off imperialist chains. The good and the bad of the United States of America grew up together, coiled around each other like DNA helixes, simultaneously making the country both an engine for human progress but also for unprecedented harm all at once. The debate is not, and correctly should never be, a question of “is America good or evil,” but, rather, which side of its schizophrenic split personality wins the upper hand in each moment.
The best side of America appeared today in Cairo. And it feels like it has been so long since it has materialized that one’s windpipes must share the gasp of shock with the exhale of great relief. Is that really us? Oh my, it is. Or it still can be.


Now, I know some are going to yell at any suggestions of Pres. Obama being in the same paragraph or even the same posting as Ghandi.. but just read it.. don't shoot the messenger.

The ju-jitsu of today’s speech came in the transformation of the US presidency from a force long regarded as oppressive and intrusive to, rather, an ally in their own aspirations for liberation in their own lands. There is not a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction ever made that could have possibly had such an impact. I am certain, based on my own lifelong study of social movements and their relationship to leaders, that very soon, in different parts of the Islamic world, we will see evidence of the shift that took place today. I wrote, yesterday, that the President would likely aim for the “hearts and minds” of Islamic youth. But what occurred today exceeded even my own out-on-a-limb expectation, another "three point shot" on the global basketball court.
Again and again throughout the 55 minute speech, the President kept hammering at the theme of praising and recognizing the accomplishments of Islamic peoples, and finding commonalities, where he could, with those of the United States.


The author broke down each section of the president's speech and laid out how it fit and how the argument was made to every section of the world. With his perspective of being outside of the US and talking to people outside the country he has a different insight into what is happening and sees things with clearer vision and without the spin and the color of the media we have here.

The best thing I can tell you is to go read the entire post. It is a wonderful read and really makes you look at the speech in a different way. This will definitely be on my must read list from now on.

Also make sure you read the comment section. He answers in there several things I think are worth noting. As I said his perspective is unique to us and makes me think from another way.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Pres. Obama Spoke to the World

Our President spoke to the world this morning, from Cairo, Egypt. He outlined his personal commitment to engagement with the Muslim world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect, and discusses how the United States and Muslim communities around the world can bridge some of the differences that have divided them.

This was, I believe a speech only he could give. I heard someone say that Bush gave speeches like this, but I don't remember him ever giving anything like this in 8 years. For one thing he would never have been this well received anywhere in the Muslim world.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Operation Rescue, They Use Felons To Do Their Dirty Work

Watch the video, then read the story below.



From PourMeCoffee's Blog I found this interesting video and posting. She had gotten the story from McClatchy and it goes something like this.

At the time of Roeder’s arrest Sunday afternoon along Interstate 35 in Johnson County, a television station captured the vehicle on video. There on the dashboard was a note that read “Cheryl” and “Op Rescue” with a phone number.

Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue out of Wichita, said Tuesday that she has spoken to Roeder in the past, but she said he would initiate the contact. She said she hasn’t had any recent contact with him.

Sullenger served about two years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in California in 1988. She has since renounced violent action.


She said Roeder’s interest was in court hearings involving Tiller.

“He would call and say, ‘When does court start? When’s the next hearing?’ ” Sullenger said. “I was polite enough to give him the information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what I mean?”


The emphasis is mine, but yes you read that correctly, Cheryl Sullenger served 2 years in prison for conspiring to bomb a clinic in California in 1988.

Two years. This is crazy, she is still speaking out about Anti-Choice, she is still protesting at clinics and she is still speaking with violent protestors, but she didn't have any idea he might do something violent. GIVE ME A BREAK.

This man was also a bomber, like meeting like. Too much coincidence for me. I don't think there is any way she didn't know what he was planning and I think she cultivated it.

There are so many lies in that video but anyone who sees it knows that, if they use their brain, and thinks about it. The one that I pointed out quickly, is the phone story. You can't just call a phone company and have the number switched over, unless you are the registered owner of the number.. Try it.. FAIL..

This just accentuates once again, this organization Operation Rescue is dangerous. They should be classified as a HATE GROUP at the very least, and as far as I am concerned and for many of other people they should be a Terrorist organization. What they do, what they have done and what they continue to do is TERRORISM. Plain and simple.

We have to keep speaking out against such as this. Don't let our voices be silenced as Dr. Tiller's has been. Don't let the Terrorist's Win.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Boycott Business That Play Fox, Or Ask Them to Change Channel

Last night Keith made the suggestion that instead of writing Fox News, or calling them, boycotting the advertisers, or writing or calling them, this time the best way to get the message across is to hit business who play it in public. Or talk to people who watch it.

Show them this clip, with O'Reilly telling lies about Dr. Tiller, who was the doctor assassinated in his church Sunday morning. The number of lies O'Reilly is telling is so numerous it is hard to list them all.

Watch this clip from Keith and then watch the clip from O'Reilly and see the difference. Then watch what Media Matters has to say about O'Reilly.



Now watch O'Reilly and see his rants and calling Dr. Tiller so many names and blaming his assassination on everyone but himself.



Among his many outrageous statements, quite possibly his most inaccurate was:

"I report honesty."


Yeah, Honesty and O'Reilly can't get in the same building let alone the same sentence.

Here is one piece where O'Reilly threatened Dr. Tiller. This was in 2006.



Again he went after him in 2007.



I could go on, but you get the picture. As Keith pointed out this was a continual thing. Dr. Tiller performed legal procedures. It is also worth noting that this was a small portion of his medical practice. He also did adoptions, C-Sections and all other types of normal deliveries.

And again, just to show the contrast. Here is Frank Schaeffer, who was a member of the so called religious right, in fact one of the founding members with his father, who is actually apologizing for his role in causing the assassination of Dr. Tiller. He is truly upset over this. Why can't O'Reilly step up like this?



To just define him and call him an abortion doctor is disingenuous at best and misleading at the least. He was considered a hero by a lot of people and performed a needed service to many couples. Yes, couples.

For O'Reilly or anyone to say this isn't an agonizing decision to have to go through this procedure during the latter stages of a pregnancy is just ignorance on their part. The thought of carrying a fetus for 7 months and then having to have it aborted due to complications beyond the control of the mother or the father, because of severe health conditions, which are very limited is just horrific.

Yet, O'Reilly and his ilk try to say that anyone who is willing to pay the money can go have this done. That is just a lie. It is not that easy to have it done and it has been proven in court that it is not done that way. So are they calling the men and women of the jury liars?

Please, think about it. This is a tough subject for anyone, but it is a personal decision and should be between the woman and her doctor. Not a television commentator or someone on the street protesting. Or some group that thinks they know what is best for me, when they don't even know me.

So, suck it Operation Rescue and all the rest of you jerks. Back off and leave me and my body alone. (Not just me but all women) I am tired of this crap. It is time we all stood up and took over this conversation. Stop being quiet, speak out, don't just sit there anymore.

One of the ways we can start taking back this conversation is to stop calling them Pro-Life. We are all Pro-Life. But we are also Pro-Choice. They are Anti-Choice. That's what we have to start calling them.... ANTI-CHOICE.

So, remember, That's your assignment, if you go somewhere and they are playing Fox News, ask them to change it, if they refuse, tell them you are leaving, tell them why you are leaving and then leave.

2nd, Stop calling these people Pro-Life.. Call it like it is.. ANTI-CHOICE!

Got it! Good.. thanks.. have a nice day!

Monday, June 1, 2009

DADT, Congress Needs To Act NOW, UPDATED/ UPDATE II



Image stolen from Willis @ Old & N The Way I think he got it from The Chive. But, I will credit it to Willis..
It just really touched me when I saw it. So I had to get it from him..

People, come on. We need to do something about this. Write, call, email, go to the offices of your Representatives or Senators and let them know you want this overturned.

Pres. Obama has stated, over and over he will sign this legislation to overturn this unfair and prejudicial law. Look what we are losing by having it still in effect. Here is a link to the letter he received from a service member and the answer he hand wrote and sent to her.

*************************************************************************
UPDATED
This morning in my mail from Progressive Review I received this.

Obama Won't Oppose Ruling Weakening "Don't Ask"
by: Bob Egelko
The San Francisco Chronicle

The Obama administration, criticized by gay rights
advocates for not following through on a campaign promise
to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on military
service, has taken a quiet step to allow a federal court
in San Francisco to limit enforcement of the policy.

Without fanfare, the Justice Department told congressional
leaders last month that it would not seek Supreme Court
review of a May 2008 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals. The ruling cast doubt on the constitutionality
of discharging gay and lesbian soldiers from the military
for revealing their sexual orientation and required
military officials to justify each dismissal.

President George W. Bush's administration had asked the
court to reconsider the ruling but fell short of the
majority vote needed for a new hearing in December. The
Obama administration was given extensions of time to file
a further appeal but let the deadline expire May 3.

The decision not to appeal was made "after extensive
consultation with the Department of Defense," Attorney
General Eric Holder said in the letter to Congress. He
said the Justice Department will defend the policy when
the case returns to a trial court to determine whether
an Air Force officer should be discharged because of a
lesbian relationship. In the meantime, the ruling is
binding on federal courts in California and eight other
Western states covered by the nation's largest appellate
circuit.

"This decision makes it significantly easier to strike down
at least the application of 'don't ask, don't tell' in many
if not most cases," gay rights attorney Jon Davidson, legal
director of Lambda Legal, said Tuesday. Davidson filed
arguments supporting the Air Force officer in the case.

"We're happy that this is not going forward to the Supreme
Court at this point," Davidson said. He said many opponents
of the policy would prefer to steer clear of the high court
during a period of international tension when the justices
are likely to defer to military decisions.

"Don't ask, don't tell," approved by Congress and President
Bill Clinton in 1993, replaced a ban on gays in the
military. It bars the armed services from asking members
about their sexual orientation but requires the military
to discharge those who acknowledge being gay or engage in
homosexual activity. At least 12,500 gays and lesbians have
been discharged since the policy took effect.

President Obama said during last year's campaign that gays
and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the
military. But he has not made the issue a priority, and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an interviewer in late
March that any change was "down the road a little bit."

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Tuesday that Obama
still wants the policy repealed and is consulting with
military officials to see that "this change is done in a
sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our
national security
."

But until Congress changes the law, LaBolt said, "the
administration will continue to defend the statute" in
court.


The appeals court ruling, the first of its kind in the
nation, came in the case of Maj. Margaret Witt of Spokane,
Wash., a decorated flight nurse, who was suspended without
pay in 2004 and discharged in 2007 after the Air Force
learned of her longtime relationship with a civilian woman.

In reinstating Witt's lawsuit challenging her discharge,
the appeals court relied on its interpretation of the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2003 ruling overturning state laws against
gay sex.

That ruling established a new level of constitutional
protection for gays and lesbians, the three-judge appellate
panel said. It said courts can no longer accept the govern-
ment's claim that all openly gay service members weaken the
armed forces, and instead must require the Air Force to
prove that discharging Witt would promote troop readiness
or unit cohesion.


But until Congress changes the law, LaBolt said, "the
administration will continue to defend the statute" in
court.


Let's look at that quote I pulled out right there.. That's what I keep talking about. congress has to change the law.. The Administration is BOUND BY LAW to defend this statute in court just as they are doing, until Congress changes this horrendous law. This was a flawed violation of the rights of LGBT service members from the day Clinton signed it into law.

I have heard people say it was better than nothing, but I am not so sure. Sometimes I think it was better before. This just made an excuse to kick out well qualified military individuals who otherwise were serving for years quietly. Yes, they served as liars and that's what Clinton was trying to fix. But is it any better now? I really don't think so. They either lie now or get kicked out.

We have lost so many because of this flawed law. I still think, if these high minded officers who say they support the overturning of this flawed law, really wanted to, they could and would just turn their backs and say they didn't hear a thing when soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel come to them and speak out. That would be one way to stop it until Congress gets brave enough to act.

But, if you fine people who expect to hold Pres. Obama to the fire, he has to have help. Hold your Congress people to the fire too. Get pro-active and get this done. Help support our military as you say you do. This is part of it. Show your support. Don't just put that yellow ribbon on your car like the Conservatives do, get involved. Do something.

************************************************************************

UPDATE II

This is from an interview with Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Q: THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE NO SECRET OF ITS DESIRE TO CHANGE THE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” POLICY. UNTIL RECENTLY, PENTAGON SPOKESPERSONS IN PUBLIC COMMENTS SAID NO ONE WAS DOING ANY SPECIFIC PLANNING TOWARDS THAT END, BUT THEN [PENTAGON SPOKESMAN] GEOFF MORRELL MADE SOME COMMENTS LAST WEEK THAT YOU AND SECRETARY GATES ARE WORKING TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S BROADLY STATED GOAL. WHAT ARE THOSE CHALLENGES? WHAT ARE YOU AND THE JOINT CHIEFS AND [THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] DOING TO ADDRESS THEM AND WHERE DOES THAT STAND NOW?
MULLEN: The President has made his intent very clear, that he wants to see this law and policy change. It’s important that we all constantly recognize this is a law so not even the President himself can change it. He’s got to go to Congress and ask that it be changed. And in recognizing that, I have had discussions with the chiefs about this and what it might mean.

I am the principal military advisor to the President, and I owe him two things on this. One is an assessment of the impact if and when the law changes, and two is an implementation plan, and I’ve done internal work on my staff with respect to that, but I haven’t created a study group, and I haven’t created a group to go out and survey or do anything like that.

So that’s really where we are right now. We’ll see, you know, I recognize again the intent of the commander in chief, and if and when the law changes, you know, we’ll follow the law, as we do now.

Q: WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, COULD YOU BROADLY CHARACTERIZE THE VIEWS OF THE CHIEFS ON THAT ISSUE?
MULLEN: No, I just wouldn’t do that. Those are [internal] discussions. I don’t discuss that stuff with anybody on any subject.

Q: IS IT CONTENTIOUS? OR IS IT, WITHOUT CHARACTERIZING THE SPECIFICS, IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT WILL GO, COULD GO RELATIVELY EASILY OR AN ISSUE THAT’S GOING TO BE VERY CONTENTIOUS AND DIFFICULT?
MULLEN: What I said this weekend, and I’ll just repeat, as the senior military leader of a force that is in its eighth year of war and pressed, as we’ve talked about, I think it’s important that as we move forward in this debate, that it not become a polarizing debate that has the force in the middle, and that’s going to take responsible leadership on every aspect of this discussion.

I want to emphasize” responsible leadership. … We’ve had preliminary discussions. I’ve had preliminary discussions with the President about this. And I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress, and that to me means in a measured, deliberate way over some time to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be.

Right now, again, we follow the law as it is obviously in place and we’ll continue to do that no matter what it is.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY EVERY ASPECT OF LEADERSHIP, YOU MEAN MILITARY, CIVILIAN, DEFENSE, CONGRESS, WHITE HOUSE?
MULLEN: Broader. I think —

Q: BROADER THAN THAT? BROADER THAN THAT WOULD BE WHAT?
MULLEN: We have a process in this country that I — I’m sure you all cherish — I cherish. We have laws. Those laws get passed by Congress. Those individuals are elected by the American people, and if the American people want to change this law, it comes up through them, they change the law, we comply.

Q: BUT IN YOUR VIEW AND AS SOMEONE WHO HAS TO ADVISE THE SECRETARY AND THE PRESIDENT, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE LAW AS IS?
MULLEN: My view, quite frankly, isn’t important here. My responsibility is to carry out the law. That’s what I’m doing. And that’s what I will do and that’s what the military does and will do.

Q: BUT YOUR VIEW IS IMPORTANT AS AN ADVISORY ROLE AND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE MILITARY.
MULLEN: But my advice is private advice. It’s private advice not just on this subject; it’s private advice on every subject. And you would ask me to give my private advice now on what I tell the President publicly. I’m not going to do that.

Q: HOW WOULD IT HAVE CHANGED YOUR TIME AS A SERVICE CHIEF HAD [“DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL”] BEEN REPEALED WHEN YOU WERE THE [CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS]? HOW WOULD IT HAVE CHANGED THE NAVY WHEN YOU WERE A SERVICE CHIEF IF YOU HAD HAD TO OPERATE UNDER THE NEW PLAN?
MULLEN: It’s a hypothetical. It didn’t.

Q: YOU SAY YOU THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO PROCEED IN A DELIBERATE WAY, ESPECIALLY DURING A TIME OF WAR, ON THIS ISSUE. IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, CAN YOU SAY WHETHER HE’S HEARD THAT? HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED THAT TO HIM IN TERMS OF PRESSURE TO MOVE THIS, CHANGE THIS POLICY, KNOWING HIS VIEWS, KNOWING, YOU KNOW, THAT HE WANTS THIS CHANGE?
MULLEN: Again, I’m not going to talk about what I talk to the President about, not on this subject or any other.

Q: DO YOU FIND HIM TO BE RESPONSIVE TO VIEWS THAT HE DOESN’T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH? IF HE WERE TO HEAR FROM THE TROOPS, FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE DON’T WANT TO CHANGE THIS, WOULD YOU SEE HIM CHANGING HIS MIND ABOUT HIS OPINION?
MULLEN: Let me not talk about “don’t ask, don’t tell” with respect to that. I have many opportunities to speak with him. He listens. He is a man who listens to a diversity of opinions. I think that’s pretty well known. I can only confirm that from my own personal experience he does, and then, and then takes all that in and like any president, he makes hard decisions.

That’s how he has approached it, and I’m very comfortable with that, that he does listen, and that I have an opportunity as a senior military advisor to advise him, and then he makes a decision, and we follow.

Q: YOU SAY YOU’VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE SERVICE CHIEFS, BUT YOU HAVEN’T GONE OUT AND DONE A GENERAL ASSESSMENT AMONG THE TROOPS. IS THERE MAYBE A PLAN TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO? CANVAS THE FORCE?
MULLEN: What I want to do, what I would like to achieve, is an objective assessment of the impact, and I think I owe that to him, and the specifics of how, I’ve made no decisions on exactly how to do that.

End of UPDATE



Again, I say call, write email, or go to the offices of your Representatives or Senators and let them know you want this overturned. That is the only way we can get this taken care of. Here is the link to find the contact information for your Representative or Senator.

Pres. Franklin Roosevelt told his supporters, to make him do the things he had promised to do. Well, maybe that's what we need to do with Pres. Obama too. He stated he wanted this overturned and that he was waiting for Congress. Congress is waiting on the sky to turn some color we have never seen before I guess.. or else they are waiting for Pres. Obama to write the bill for them, or hold their hand while they write it, or who really knows. So we have to force them too. Do it! If you care, if it's what you want, DO IT!

It only takes one to put forth a bill, then it just has to wind its way through the process... so lets get it done.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Did We Turn The Clock Back? The Hate Has Returned!

I thought the hatred and terrorism of the 1990's was over and we had gotten past this. But this morning it came back.

I remember during the campaign Brian Williams asked Sarah Palin if she thought a person who bombed an Abortion Clinic was a Domestic Terrorist. She would never really answer. Well I guess she has a chance again. It wasn't a bomb but we had a doctor murdered today. At church, of all places.

From the "Wichita Eagle":

President Obama said this afternoon that he was "shocked and outraged" by the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was shot while attending church in east Wichita.

Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said at a news conference late this afternoon that a suspect in the shooting was in custody and on his way back to Wichita.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," the president said in a statement issued by the White House.


The rest of the article can be accessed through the link above and has some biographical information about Dr. Tiller that is worth noting and a statement from his family.

Dr. George Tiller, 67 in the vestibule of the church waiting to perform his duties as usher, his wife in the choir, was shot once and killed this morning, while 3 or 4 others were standing nearby. According to the police no one else was injured, however when they tried to detain the suspect they were threatened and so were forced to let him go.

They did manage to get the license number and a description of the vehicle, and the shooter and so the police was able to identify the suspect and get out a bulletin and apprehend him fairly quickly. He was picked up in Johnson County, Kansas with no problems. He is 51 years old, and his name is Scott Roeder, but not much more is known at this time.



This is just not good folks. We don't need the hate. As Pres. Obama said when he was at Notre Dame, we can find common ground on this sensitive subject. There is no need for this.

Dr. Tiller has been the subject of many attacks before, mostly because he does procedures that a lot of doctors won't do. He performs some late term abortions when the mothers life is in jeopardy and has caught a lot of heat for that. He has been investigated many times and every time has come out clean. The most recent in March of this year.

Bill O'Reilly has been after him and called him terrible names, and riles up the hatred even more. This can only lead to problems when this happens. Here is what Sully's take on all of the O'Reilly mess including video's.

On Friday, November 3, 2006, Bill O'Reilly featured an exclusive segment on his show, The O'Reilly Factor, saying that he has an "inside source" with official clinic documentation indicating that George Tiller performs late-term abortions to alleviate "temporary depression" in the pregnant woman. According to reporting data provided to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts for the year 1998, all of the post-viable partial-birth (dilation and extraction) abortion procedures performed in Kansas during that year were performed because "the attending physician believe[d] that continuing the pregnancy [would] constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient's mental function." Tiller responded to O'Reilly's statements by demanding an investigation into the "inside source" through which the information was leaked, suggesting that Phill Kline, then the Kansas Attorney General, was responsible. Kline denied the charge.


Phill Kline has since been discredited and ran out of office in Kansas. This became a vendetta for him, to prove that Dr. Tiller and Planned Parenthood was doing something wrong and it ended up costing him. He is now disgraced and barely able to show his face in public.

Please go to Sully's site, and watch the video's. I believe he truly bears some responsibility for the hatred that is out there. All these right wing talkers can't keep this nonsense going and not bear some of it. It just has to matter. Between them and the preachers spouting off all the time.

I could go on, but I think I have done enough. Another place to go read to get another perspective is Shannyn Moore's blog, Just a Girl From Homer. Of course, she has Teh Crazy near her with her Governor Palin anyway...and she has some really wacky preachers up there too. So Shannyn has been dealing with some issues lately and this is just one more.

Let me hear how you feel. Good, Bad, Angry, Sad, Scared...whatever.. Let me hear from you..

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Military Commissions Act, Is there a Pardon in it?

When BushCo had Congress pass the War Crimes Act in Sept. 2006, was there a little known amendment in it about pardoning him and all the cronies of all crimes back to Sept. 11, 2001?

Watch this video then I will show you what I am talking about.



This is from Wikipedia:

Protections from criminal and civil prosecutions for previous instances of alleged torture
Two provisions of the MCA have been criticized for allegedly making it harder to prosecute and convict officers and employees of the US government for misconduct in office.
First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:
The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]
In 2005, a provision of the Detainee Treatment Act (section 1004(a)) had created a new defense as well as a provision to providing counsel for agents involved in the detention and interrogation of individuals “believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity”. The 2006 MCA amended section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act to guarantee free counsel in the event of civil or criminal prosecution and applied the above mentioned legal defense to prosecutions for conduct that occurred during the period September 11, 2001 to December 30, 2005. Although the provision recognizes the possibility of civil and or criminal proceedings, the Center for Constitutional Rights has criticised this claiming that "The MCA retroactively immunizes some U.S. officials who have engaged in illegal actions which have been authorized by the Executive."


I am not a lawyer, and not very smart.. and these things worry me. They were snuck in and not very many people were even aware of them. This happens in bills all the time and they get passed.

I think someone needs to really check into it and see what it means and if there is a real problem here or if I and others who have heard about this now are just being paranoid.

We were so totally screwed over the last 8 years of the Bush Mis-Administration, this just adds one more instance of it. This bill, also known as HR-6166 was signed into law on October 17, 2006.

I hope everyone reads the entire bill or law, and gives your opinion of it. I am really confused and would just like to know exactly where we stand on this.