Thanks E.O. much appreciated sir

Jet

You report as fact words uttered by Jack Cafferty on CNN?

Wheres the proof..this is a public document why cant you quote the page and paragraph...because it may it exist...

1. Why does President Bush so urgently need pardon/blanket immunity for crimes dating back to September 11th 2001 that no one has proven that he's committed yet?

Well duh. Because the Dems are on the warpath and some of them are crazy enough to try to impeach him AND try him for war crimes. But it's interesting to note that it doesn't include a pardon going back fatther than 9/11, suggesting that there's nothing to the conspiracy theories about Bush being behind the WTC attack.

Dave

A simpe internet search would have debunked this story. Heres the link to NPR - Heres what the bill actually states

War Crimes Act

The legislation would narrow the range of offenses prohibited under the War Crimes Act. This would protect civilians (such as CIA interrogators and White House officials) from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition. The change is retroactive to 1997, which means any crimes committed since 1997 would be prosecuted under the new standard, not the old one.

I'm flabbergasted. Sounds like the end of The Third Reich. Or maybe the Nixon administration.

What exactly does this have to do with the Beaver Brown Band?

Thank's for bringing this up for thought and discussion. I still find it problematic personally that any court in America would grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to terrorists. I suppose I'm waxing nostalgic for the day's when gentlemen waged war in a civilized fashion. I wonder when that was?

Actually Dave I found one article/source that has it retroactive to 1997

DesMoinesRegister.com
one paragraph of an artlcle reads

A little-discussed provision of the legislation President Bush wants from Congress would preclude anyone from ever being held accountable for possible violations of the law in the treatment of detainees. No one could be held liable, criminally or civilly, retroactive to 1997.

It's sort of like issuing a preemptive pardon to everyone in the Bush administration, even though no one has yet been charged with any crime.


I could only find one source for this so I went with the 9/11 date.


Thanks for keeping me honest
JEt

So am I Bliff, so am I.

Thanks Suss, I knew I could count on you...

Love hugs and kisses
Jet

Donnie, certainly before this President

Thanks Dave Nalle, I re-researched it and the date is 1997

From Newsweek-May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes--and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves-- is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002,memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes--defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions--such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners--was "undefined."
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.
"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision--then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell-- to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.

"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The memo--and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV--are among hundreds of pages of internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online today.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004

what is this a history class -- May 19, 2004??

I bet someone in here has had a copy of the May 19, 2004 Newsweek hidden between their matress since May of 2004...and every single night before they go to bed they reread the Michael Isikoff article while they fantasize and pleasure themselves.....but guess what..it aint never gonna happen in real life...

Too bad

Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House

Jet,
I'm sorry man, but you're acting like we're talking about any old president of the United States here.

You best straighten up (not that way) here and watch where you step. "W"s boys are gonna start commin out of the wordwork for you. I don't know where you get off tryin to muddy up the "Man's" life, like he hasn't got enough things to worry about already.

Do you know how long it's been since the "Big Guy's" been down to Crawford? That brush don't clear itself y'know!

All you damn lefty's think being a dic,,,I mean a president is easy stuff, well, he just don't have time to be checkin all them little laws about a bunch of towel,,I mean, terrorist low lifes.

We need to step aside and leave ole George alone, he's got a heap on his plate.

And of course he wasn't guilty of conspiracy in the 9-11 fiasco, unless you count clueless and reckless as crimes.

Lighten up you guys, willya? The man's doin a lot of work, hard work, he's rootin em out, trackin'em down.

Having now looked at the text I don't see how this has anything to do with the president. The protections seem to apply specificcally to lower-level government agents who actually do the torturing - if that's even what you can call these activities.

Dave

Is this even possible? The president has absolute pardon power. Does Congress even have the authority to work pardons into legislation?

Peter J... head 'em up and move 'em out?

Michael... Apparently two of the best minds in news and their sources seem to think so, who am I to argue?

Their knowledge may trump yours and mine, Jet (certainly mine), but they're not exactly constitutional law experts. I WOULD like to hear from someone who really does know his stuff before I make a judgement on this one.

"best minds in news" Wolf Blitzer and Cafferty

What about Katie Couric?

Fair enough Michael, Do you know of wone? I'm man enough to admit if I'm wrong, or in this case my sources are wrong.

I've never claimed to be infalable...

SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.

(a) Counsel and Investigations- Section 1004(b) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1(b)) is amended--

(1) by striking `may provide' and inserting `shall provide';

(2) by inserting `or investigation' after `criminal prosecution'; and

(3) by inserting `whether before United States courts or agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or agencies,' after `described in that subsection'.

(b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section;

(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.

SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including--

(1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and

(2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

H.R.6054
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including--

(1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and

(2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Therefore the president, his administration, any military personel etc are immune from prosecution concerning their actions.

Or at least that's how I read it...

The last paragraph of section b reads as follows...
(b) Retroactive Applicability- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002 of Public Law 107-273).

And finally section 5 which pretty much sums it up...

SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement.

Any Questions????

Yes. What is the context? In this case:

(b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

What is Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?

(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

What is section 2441(c) of title 18, United States Code?

Granted, I should be looking these up myself, but it's 11:45 at night and I have a 6:30 alarm tomorrow morning. Hopefully I'll ahve opportunity to find them tomorrow.

and anybody is suprised that the Administration is doing this......

why?

c'mon... in an "ends justify the means" mentality, where the "ends" are the retention of absolute Power, any and all "means" will be attempted...

this is just par for the course

Excelsior?

All of the above is contained
in H.R.6054
Military Commissions Act of 2006
down near the bottom of the page in each listed section from above comments.

Geez you just can't take my word for it?

No Gonzo I hope no one's suprised, I do hope a few are outraged. The text of the bill is actually easy to read though lengthy. you can read the parts that pertain to this article above or click the link and read it yourself.


To quote Mr Cafferty...

"You want to know the real disgrace of what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this."

Michael, I hope the above link helps. If I can understand it anyone can...

Jet

it's a fucking black day in America...too bad our do nothing Congress didn't do nothing

Too bad the MSM doesn't take their responsibility to warn America seriously & hasn't pointed any of this out. They should be trumpeting it from the rooftops, hammering on it night & day. Jet is absolutely right: if crimes weren't committed, there shouldn't be any need for this sort of charade. Of course, our craven, do-nothing, lickspittle GOP-packed congress as usual is crawling to Bush's bidding. As I said on another thread, Bush is far worse than Nixon ever was. When are Republicans going to wake up & realize he's made them by association into the same kind of sleazebag he himself is?

Troll, the problem is that they actually DID something for a change...This!!!

Nancy, unfortunately Bush and the republican party are also in the process of trying to take away a lot of the Supreme Court's power to do anything about this too.

Sandra Day O'Connor is so disgusted, she's started touring the country giving talks on how the Bush Administration is trying to weaken the judicial branch of the government from its role in checks and balances.

As the Bush administration tries different things the Supreme Court has ruled against him (this bushit is an example of what he does when the Supreme Court wouldn't let him have his way) along with several lower courts. Rather than take it like a man, he's started a smear campaign branding them as reactionary and legislating from the bench when he doesn't get his way.

Considering it was the Supreme Court that put him office in the first place, that makes him an ungrateful basterd in my eyes.

I wonder if Bush has a "Nixon style" enemy's list and if I'm on it yet? Might explain the IRS hassle!

Oh, I'm sure we both are. Actually, I'm quite sure that the NSA has been wiretapping far more than just "foreign terrorists" ... like, US journalists, Dem congressmen, McCain - and anybody else who has the guts to stand up to that lying cowardly bastard, Bush. I'm also quite sure that the GOP is going to fix the midterm elections via the Diebold machines. You watch: I'll bet congress will stay pretty much the same, and the GOP will retain it's hold on the majority, MIRACULOUSLY. Now, whether this will entail election day problems at the polls & the primaries in Maryland were just a dry run for the GOP/Diebold folks or what, is anybody's guess, but considering Karl Rove has actively been stating that stealing elections is the only way to keep a permanent Republican majority, draw your own conclusions. Betcha $5 they manage somehow to keep the House & Senate beyond all odds. There will be voting machine problems, and then the GOP/government will resist/refuse to allow investigations.

I think we need a revolution.

Several governors have already started one (except Florida and Ohio... I wonder why) to make it manditory to have a paper trail of votes.

I wrote an article on Ohio Attorney General (now candidate for governor) Ken Blackwell actually owning stock in Diebold and picking them as the vendor for Ohio's voting machines, the same guy who was Bush's co-chairman for his reelection campaign in Ohio..... Duh

Hmmmm after posting the actual legislation, I notice an odd silence from the right....Hmmmmmm

Kinda hard to refute what's in black & white, ain't it?

I think all this is staging for 2008 when BushCo suspends the elections by claiming a national emergency (real or manufactured; I'm sure he'll come up with something), and refuses to leave office on the grounds that we're engaged in war - even if it's a fake war HE manufactured. The suspension of habeas corpus is for foreigners right now, but you watch: come 2008 it will be extended to ANYBODY to dares to criticize or protest Dubya's planned coup. I'm also 100% sure the problems of the September primaries - all involving Diebolds, you notice - are just a run-up to 'problems' that are going to occur nationwide, which are going to allow the GOP to steal the elections & retain hold of congress. They will, of course, refuse to allow any kind of investigations, or if they do, the investigation will be so rigged - a la the 9/11 Commission - that it will be meaningless. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize in this website.

An aspect you may not have considered Nancy is that this legislation is a ploy by Repbulican encumbants to use in campaign commercials against opponents as soft on the war on terror, which is why it was so urgent to get passed before they recessed for november elections.

This legislation is clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged in the supreme court because it denys due process for the accused, and denys the accused to see the evidence against them because it's been conveniently classified secret by the administration.

It got passed last night & there's already been something filed against it w/the courts, so Bush's so-called 'victory' won't last long, I hope.

I'm confused -- How can they apply this new legislation retroactively? In the legal system, for example, a person cannot be punished for a act he committed which was NOT a crime at the time he committed that act.

It seems to me that if this legislation passes, Bush should be held accountable under the CURRENT laws for any acts committed up until the moment the new legislation is signed into law.

This is ridiculous. While Bush is at it, why doesn't he retroactively lower the tax rate so we can all receive refunds going back 20 years or so?

I heard on CNN that this was so secret its written on lemon juice and you need a decoder ring to translate it....

Lady....the government can do it in fact the feds have implemented retroactive tax increaseses....

Nancy, What can I tell you? Now all someone has to do is explain why it was so all fired important that Bush be protected against war crimes he hasn't been accused of yet.

If he didn't do anything wrong what's the problem?

Congress would never find an innocent man guilty would they Mr. Clinton?

Lady DragonFrye it's all spelled out in comments 24-27 or the entire bill can be read via the link on comment 30...

A republican Congress can get away with that stuff with King George II.

...when BushCo suspends the elections by claiming a national emergency.

Nancy, sounds like it's time for you to write an article?

Jet

You'll not the silence? Kinda refreshing I think

#50...huh?

I was possessed by Yoda...For asking thank you

The comments is here are sort of like a left wing looney fantasy wet dream...alas your poor souls it is but a dream....

Take note of the bold text contained in comments 24-27, then find a new reality

This article has been published at Published on AfterDowningStreet.org

Hmmmm after posting the actual legislation, I notice an odd silence from the right....Hmmmmmm

Sorry, Jet. I haven't been following this thread. What did you want me to say about the MCA? People seem to be doing a find job of misreading and misrepresenting it without my help, and they clearly aren't interested in having it explained to them.

Dave

Thanks Dave, I knew I could count on you.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all...

Because it's more fun than the alternative, Jet. Now go read my article endorsing public gay underage sex for Republican congressmen - at least that's the way some people are interpreting it.

And the real reason I haven't commented here is that there are now 4 or 5 posts on this subject and I'm probably going to have to write one of my own as well, so it's nothing personal. You've done a fine job of stirring the pot.

Dave

Jet, thanks for the compliment, but what would I write an article about? All I really do is rage against Adolph Bush. Besides, I don't have the sort of talent to marshall really good arguments when it comes to writing. Too much emotion, as others have noted before. Wish I could, but perhaps better not. I know my limits ;) Thanks anyway.

Dave, my problem seems to be that I write my news articles too soon and by the time the news organizations finally catch up, it's old news.

someday I'll learn better timing.

Apparently this article is spreading like wildfire in England and Australia using my exact words but under other's bylines.

alas.

I'm just having a down day...

Thanks Dave

Nancy, so write an opinion piece.
P.S. I think a better name would be King George II.

I still say that "when BushCo suspends the elections by claiming a national emergency " would make a good article for you to write Nancy.

'cmon put up or shut up!

I think you can do it, and do it well...

I cant beleive "someone" in here is claiming to have broke (back) the story...this is the same inane blathering that NPR, WaPo and NYT have been puking about for the past several weeks...

The real story is - Dems weak on terrorist! If Jet and his ilk get their way


We will be giving Muslim suicide bombers a ticket and asking them to appear in court....sounds like strong decisive action just like Mr." I did not have sex, and came closer to killing him" Clinton.

"We will be giving Muslim suicide bombers a ticket and asking them to appear in court"

That would be fairly redundant since they would already be dead.

Yes Scott, but think of all the virgins you'd get to see in court!

So what if the muslim suicide bombers appear in court? Personally, I much prefer to have my suicide bombers tried and convicted in a court of law before the whole world rather than shut up and tortured so that the entire world can pity the injustice. Do you have a problem with proving the guilty guilty before treating them guilty JOM?

With your reactionist ideology we should torture bathtub manufacturers in secret prisons.

Could you imagine using your foolish and naieeve method with Germans on the battlefield of WWII...pretty funny...save the court stuff till after we get all the info out them...I would have much prefered if our nuetered ploiticians would have voted for a "take no prisoners" policy than at least we would have a chance....

I also heard the Dems were lobbying for a something much more humane..First terrorist offenders get off with a warning and $300 fine....but the majority of Dems thought the $300 was much too harsh...

PETI, there was a great political cartoon in Newsweek this week that had a picture of "Tjckle me Elmo" in a box and he was tied up and gagged with wide eyes. The caption read "New from the White House... Torture me Gitmo!"

PETI-68, yes and Bush was just given congressional protection against prosecution!

WOW....70 & 71 really show how tough the Dems are on terror!

Well... it's nice to see the press finally catching up to me...

News Advisory

Reporters and bloggers correctly observe the new bill guts the War Crimes Act, flouts key aspects of the Geneva Conventions and legalizes past and future abuses of detainees. But they ignore the bill's key aspect: it stealthily confers immunity from prosecution for offenses like the ones committed at Abu Ghraib, not only on CIA officials, but more importantly, on the president and cabinet members, retroactive to 9/11/2001.

Now Congress has passed the bill with its retroactive immunity provisions, Holtzman is available for interviews to discuss how it might affect President Bush, future detainees, and future congresses and presidents. She foresees a backlash when the "stealth pardon" feature of the bill is discovered, which could fuel impeachment inquiries if Democrats gain control of Congress.

Holtzman's new book, co-authored with Cynthia L. Cooper, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" ( http://www.impeachbushbook.com ) argues that impeaching President Bush is not only justified, but Constitutionally required, given his record of failure to uphold the law. Permitting and condoning torture or cruel treatment of detainees is one possible ground for impeachment that demands serious adjudication. Others include directing illegal domestic wiretapping, indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina and in ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for Iraq's occupation, deceiving Congress and Americans in taking the country to war in Iraq, and seeking to cover up war deceptions by leaking misleading classified information which led to outing a CIA agent.

These actions have disturbing parallels with offenses for which the Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon. The Nixon precedent, which Holtzman helped establish, means that even if a president invokes immunity from criminal prosecution for certain abuses, nonetheless that president can still be impeached for them. Abuses of presidential power which aren't technically crimes may still meet the Constitutional standard for impeachment of "high crimes and misdemeanors."


/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

We get it, Jet--"Of course, that's just my opinion" is your new buzzphrase, replete with large type and screaming blue color.

Nothing about the article Ray?

It's a link Ray, if you click it it'll turn purple if you don't like blue...

That's true blue, not screaming blue...

So.... it appears as if congress got away with this scott free?

JOM - why do you insist on misoverestroginating Jet's ideas - ? (run for it - the vicious BAP ...that's the Bare Assed Posse for those not in the know...has its eye on you)

"Well... it's nice to see the press finally catching up to me..."

Please lets not take credit for something that the left has been blathering about for the past several months.....you guys are all reading from the same moveon.org script....

Thanks Troll...

Troll...its obvious that the poster in question doesnt have any original "ideas" unless you define rewriting 3 week old stories and taking credit for it.

The urgency of this legislation is that there is an election next month and now the Dumboscrats on on record for their weak stand on terrorism....

#80 - in this postmodern world, what really is 'original'? Don't take my word for it - find Jean Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra.

Would you care to share the links to these supposed 3-week old stories you're claiming the author of this article has rehashed? So what if the current author writes an article with his slant? Is this not the very backbone of journalism?

Or perhaps you could spare everyone your...'feedback' and write an 'original' piece of your own? I'm sure there would be many who'd be interested in reading it.

I am a registered republican, and i voted for George Bush in 2000. Fortunately I am not a mindless buffoon who follows the designated opinion of his officially declared party. I am able to think on my own and come up with my own opinions.

After reading things that Justoneman has posted I believe that if Prominent republicans came out saying that eating feces everyday for breakfest is the true republican thing to do, he would be enjoying a shit sandwich by the next time the sun came up.

Bush is a terrible president. I wish more republicans would realize that instead of blindly supporting every single moronic act of arrogance that this guy makes.

Thanks Snark & thanks OGjimbo
Much appreciated
Jet

well at least we know that Bush's self-pardon covers him if we start torturing Koreans!

Personally I don't care if we torture enemy combatants, but I don't like that Bush is willing to write off or exempt himself from obeying US laws. THAT does bother me. Otherwise, I'd say torture is just a risk anyone engaging in war takes. Besides, as Clavos pointed out in another thread, our guys aren't given any rights or protections when they're captured by the enemy & never have, so why should we be the only fools holding back? I don't buy this 'we have to be superior' schtick where we're the only ones playing by the rules and having to make nice to captures.

The reason for all this is simple. Bush and his associates (or more precisely superiors) have committed war crimes and anticipate doing so in the future. While they do not necessarily expect to be brought to justice, there is always the chance that this may happen. At that point, they trot out this law and say they are absolved...

Nancy 86...I don't buy this 'we have to be superior' schtick

Neither do I, but our president seems to have a superiority complex

Jet

Ruvy will you PLEASE SHUT UP-Cheney's monitoring you and I don't want him to order Israel bombed by the U.S. as an ememy combatant now that he has the poser to say what that is!!!

Don't worry, Jet. When you are done answering idiots our fine fellow commenters elsewhere, pick up that Bible and read Isaiah 60. That part about the riches from the west coming here - that's you guys. Guys like Cheney's buddies.

Scary thought there Ruvy...Scary thought

An amusing thought: if the Dems take over, & BushCo is impeached, then he & Cheney could be tortured to obtain their confessions. I'll bet ol' Smilin' Dick would get off on that. Or maybe he only gets off on torturing others, just like he only is brave when others are doing the fighting.

Caution: threatening to torture King George III could get you in trouble with the Secret Service.

...it wouldn't outlaw such practices as simulating drowning -- known as water boarding -- sleep deprivation or putting detainees in stress positions. Senate John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a key architect of the bill, said the intent is to outlaw such practices. McCain's opposition to the president's original proposal for the tribunals forced the administration to compromise on its provisions.

Bush sought the legislation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not authorized tribunals for bringing terrorism suspects to trial.

Tribunals will provide ``far more rights than any system in history to try suspected war criminals,'' Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner said during House debate last month. ``None of the people who have been beheaded by terrorists have had any of those rights.''



For the rest of this article click anywhere in the colored section

Of course you realise that President Bush actually signed his own war crimes pardon today?

I wonder if the immunity extends to the vice president, now that he's advocating water torture?

U.S. Voters said "We made a mistake re-electing Bush in 2004" last night. Let's hope they repeal this legislation as a priority.

Jet

As of this moment, only the election results in Montana are still in doubt; it's pretty sure that recounts in VA will confirm the victory of Webb (D) over Allen (R); both Missouri & the other very close senatorial races have been taken by the Dems. If they can after all carry Montana, then it is a sure thing the inevitable next step will be investigations with TEETH into the doings of BushCo, including not just Iraq & WMDs, but Halliburton, the NSA spying, and a host of other Bush/Cheney abuses. I hope & pray that I will live to see Rove in a federal pen where he belongs, and both Bush & Cheney impeached, convicted, and dismissed in disgrace, together with those in their train who carried out their warped commands & policies.

Heh heh - already Bush is trying to make nice with Ms. Pelosi, after all these months of smears & lies about her & the Dems should anyone vote for them instead of his GOP stooges & minions. I hope she smiles nicely - then kicks him in the nuts. Hard.

Won't it be comical Nancy? Maryland is a state without a paper trail, therefore their computer can only spit out the exact numbers that it already has for a recount, and counting the provisional ballots and absentee ballots won't help fix the difference.

It came back to bite them in the ass!!!

How sweet justice can sometimes be.

The trouble is that even Bush isn't dumb enough to sign the repeal of his own custom pardon, and congress won't have a veto-proof margin of votes.

Just a reminder, folks. Nobody has been sworn in yet. The house of representatives remains under Republican control until the seats turn over in 2007.

There is no reason to assume that the new congress will actually meet until it actually meets...

Why? Do you think someone is planning on bombing the place before Jan, just to keep the Dems out of power? While I wouldn't put it past some nutcases, I don't see it as likely. Besides, as I mentioned elsewhere, if Pelosi follows thru as she's making noises she will, she'll be smart enough to avoid the GOP/Hastert mistake of shutting out the opposition, and invite them in to participate fully. Most of the GOP real lowlifes are gone (with the exception of Hastert); shutting them out would be unjust, unAmerican, unfair, and unwise, besides being a waste of a lot of talent, smarts, and experience. With any luck, the Dems will behave better than the Repubs, & get everybody involved in governing. Besides, the Dems have no direction. They have ideals, but no drive or cohesion to achieve them, while the GOP has no ethical ideals, but a helluva lot of drive to achieving what they want; each side can contribute its strength to a truly superior congress, if they can & will try.

Let's hope, anyway.

Again, Ruvy, I say America has resoundly said we made a mistake reelecting George Bush. That and the "get out the far-right" vote by bringing up a bunch of gay rights legislation in key states, may have been defeats for us, but didn't have the desired effect for them either.

But there's also the delicious slow torture of Bush sitting in the oval office for a couple months worrying about what they'll do.

That and him kissing her ass and trying to suck up, hoping she'll fall for it.

Unfortunately Nancy, he's still Commander in Chief, and the Dems son't have enough of a majority to override vetos.

Their new priorities should be

Getting the budget deficit under control
Putting New Orleans back together
Betting Rumsfeld out of there, or cutting him off bugetarily.

and most important
Making Bush the lame-duck he deserves to be.

I do believe the immediate goal she's put forth once she's Speaker is substantial & substantive ethics overhaul, first & foremost. I didn't get to catch the rest of it, & haven't had time to check it out yet to see what the balance is. Personally, I do hope some sort of hard-nosed REAL investigation of BushCo (especially Cheney) policies involving WMDs, Iraq, & 9/11 - where Cheney & Bush won't be allowed to connive & coordinate their answers, NO questions will be forbidden or submitted previously, they'll BOTH be under oath (not that I think for a moment either one of them would give a rat's ass for being under oath, but it vastly improves prosecution if they lie while under oath), & bullshit evasions like the legalistic crap Gonzalez dishes out when being questioned will not be tolerated, failure to answer being rewarded by time in prison, a la the same way BushCo proposed doing to the media. Waterboarding, even. Then Cheney & Junior can determine personally if it's torture or not, hey?

You have a big "Why?" in the title of this article.

Jet, please do me a favor and read the links in my piece on the Imminence of War.

Your president has pardoned himself in advance, signed an act that allows HIS administration to define enemies without rights, virtually abolished the right of habeus corpus for you folks, and given himself the authority to declare what amounts to martial law there.

In addition, there are quite a numbert of empty prisons that were built during the administration of his father and Clinton, along with three story boxcars with hadncuffs and chains inside.

Why?

He has a dictatorship to go in the bag. All he has to do is pull up to the drive-thru window and pick it up.

I'll throw your question back at you.

Why?

Ruvy, the "Why" is a rhetorical question... but you knew that didn't you?

You realize of course if Bush is impeached and Chenney has a heart attack over it, she's president?

I didn't ask a rhtorical question. You might have to look at that article again, and check those links. You came close to the truth than you realiozed in the article. Don't let excitement over what could prove empty posturing distract you from the real dangers your republic faces...

Ruvy, it appears that your fears for our Republic are not as grounded in reality as you may think.
Just check the election results.

Yes Ruvy, yes, I know. We shouldn't be lulled into a mode of complacency and stop paying attention. After all the man is still commander in chief...

for now

Yes John, I agree, today is the day manly democrats and shewomen beat their chests and gloat and roar.

ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

I'm still trying to pick out a sympathy card for a few people... forgive me if I seem distracted

It's now 9 November; at least it is here in Israel. It's time to stop gloating and start looking over your shoulders again. The battle is nowhere near over for you.

The point, JQP is not the choices that Americans have made, but rather the danger that a Democratic-controlled congress presents to the sitting president. Intense and embarassing investigations likely leading to impeachment.

That is why the fact that the president can declare a state of martial law with the stroke of a pen is so important. It nullifies these choices, makes them as if they were never made.

I repeat - a Bush dictatorship is in the bag. All he has to do is pull up to the drive-thru window and pick it up - just like getting a pizza or a whopper combo! At this point, it is that easy.

That is what my article is all about. In the mind of an administration operative, the decisive time is between now and Christmas - there will be an event that will prevent this threat to the administration from realizing itself.

Ruvy, your fast-food background is showing!

BTW, OT except not really -- does anyone else find it impossible to access comments via the leaderboard etc? Or is it just me?

Jet, you stuck this in the wrong article, the one about the abortion initiative in South Dakota. You must have been tired, or maybe your eye was hurting you...

Ruvy, you know I love and admire you, but here you're wrong. Based on rumblings coming from soldiers in Iraq, now that Rumsfeld is gone and they think they can speak freely, I'm convinced that Bush's martial law would never be backed by his military, nor the national guard, nor local police.

As low as his approval ratings are, he'd be thrown in jail by his own people before that happened.

Yes he's deluded himself that he has absolute power assigned by GOD, but so did Saddam, and look what happened to him.

If Bush thinks he can pull off martial law, he's delusional.

I rarely diagree with you my friend, but here I do.

Love
Jet

I'm going to ask you to think about a rather interesting occurrence last year when severe hurricanes struck Texas and Louisiana. As if out of nowhere, German soldiers popped up with loads and loads of food - so did Mexicans. I found this extremely enlightening. It gave proof to allegations that I've been reading about and hearing about that there are all sorts of foreign troops on American soil, in addition to "black helicopters," "regional police" cars and the like. All this in addition to the empty jails and three story rail transport cars with handcuffs and chains inside...

It won't be American soldiers backing a martial law declaration. They will be shipped out or disarmed. It will be foreign soldiers already in place in the States moving to prepositioned arms caches with lists of arrestees to be picked up.

Ruvy is that really you? Where is all this coming from?...

It gave proof to allegations that I've been reading about and hearing about that there are all sorts of foreign troops on American soil, in addition to "black helicopters," "regional police" cars and the like. All this in addition to the empty jails and three story rail transport cars with handcuffs and chains inside...

It won't be American soldiers backing a martial law declaration. They will be shipped out or disarmed. It will be foreign soldiers already in place in the States moving to prepositioned arms caches with lists of arrestees to be picked up.

Any german and or mexican soldiers on our soil had to come by invitation.

The rail cars are something I've never heard of.
please give me a news source I can look this stuff up at. Three story tall rail cars would be impossible to move around the country. most overpasses in rural areas barely admit the two story car transports.
Jet

70% JET NEWS UPDATE... The unintended results of allowing Bush to get away with this legislation is an example of giving him an inch and him taking a mile...

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.

Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.


For the rest of this FORBES article click anywhere in the underlined section

This buletin is brought to you by 70% Jet News, where all my articles are mostly my bullshit feable attempts to get attention... according to some.

Jet,

I thought this might interest you.

"The Department of Homeland Security proposed new rules back in July that would fundamentally undermine the right of American citizens to travel abroad. Public carriers--airlines, cruise lines, even fishing boats--will be required to submit the names of all passengers to Homeland Security prior to departure and to obtain permission from Homeland Security to board those passengers. These new rules will take effect January 14, 2007".

this is the link where this was pulled from originally, I think.

Shabbat shalom and Thanks Ruvy, It looks like we're turning into a police state more and more every day. Appreciate the update my friend.

Blessings
Jet

You realize that as Bush's lies become apparent, this will protect him from being impeached or prosecuted...

You know, looking back at this article I'm still wondering why Bush needed this protection...

Newsflash: A "Mr. Hayney" of Hooterville donated 25 gen-u-ine imitation tempered steel fire axes from his local volunteer fire department toward the "brave patriotic stuggle" in Iraq.

President Bush had to be physically restrained from announcing his great pleasure in accepting the donation... especially when Mr. Hayney said there was a $1,175 shipping and handling charge for each each of them...

NewsFlash: Hooterville... Another "donation" from Mr. Hayney is also being praised for promising metal "to be shipped at a minimal cost" was donated by his local towns folk to be melted down for body armour for our "brave fighting boys" in Italy.

In a related story the Hooterville World Guardian reported several residences called into the local police department to report their garbage can lids had been stolen some time during the night...

Today, with the stock market in freefall, Bush is trying to palm off blame for problems his administration couldn't solve with when the GOP was in charge of both houses of congress for 14 years and his own inept administration couldn't solve in almost 8.

But it's the democrats fault for not kissing his ass!


Year right.