Yes we have no bananas.
Mood:  incredulous

One of the funnier abuses of the English language is the careful misapplication of the double negative. Yes we have no Bananas. A critical issue in the testimony of the Atorney General when he spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committe on Tue of this week, seemed to be Constitionality of presidential action and constitutionality of congregional oversight. "Judge" Gonzales seems to be committed to the stress of symantics regarding constitutionality in the context of just such distortions.

 

He repeatedly used a peculiar definition of the semantics when making a primary point and in the next sentence he would dynamically define the same term in a contradictory manner then combine these points to produce a conclusion that is based on two contradictory opinions. When boolean logic is used to diagram a logic argument or dialectic this works out to: A= B and C=D therefore A=D. This sort of syllogistic tap dance is the basis of much of the communist political doctrine as well as occuring in mein kampf. It certainly is not sound thinking.

 

The main way this plays out in the "General's" dialogue is his oblique statement that Article 2 of the constitution gives the president and his direct employees the right to do anything to pursue the prosecution of a war without accepting the dictates of the congress, unless a specific law passed by congress covers specific details of a specific operation. This disregards the fact that operational details of an ongoing campaign MUST change to meet the circumstances that arise in the heat of battle. Mr. Gonzales would contend that when a plan goes ary, the president and the entire chain of command are exonerated by virtue of Article 2.

 

The "general" argues for instance that FISA courts have no jurisdiction over the action against `al Qaeda and cannot apply limitations such as the 15 days limit on wiretapping of US persons in contact with suspected members. This limitation essentially states that wiretaps must cease within 15 days of a declaration of war. The General claims no declaration of war on `al Qaeda exists. Yet when he describes the president's powers under Article two he refers specifically to wartime powers. This is exactly the sort of dual definition cited above.

 

When asked if he agreed that the decision in Hamdi vs the US Government, restricted the CIA to abide by the articles of the Geneva convention with a minimum standard of always in every circumstance being held to the standards of Title 18 of the US Service code and Article 3 of the Geneva convention, firmly stated that he didn't agree that the intelligence services must be bound to abide by this article in any action other than action against Afghanistan. This is most troubling.

 

The clear intention is to preserve the right to violate US LAW and constitution as well as US treaties, including the third geneva convention. It is clear that he believes it is acceptable to use US Intelligence agencies, which by definition are military assets and NOT legally empowered and constiutionally supported law enforcement agencies, to prosecute civilians. He clearly intends that the president he supports should do so likewise.

 

It all comes back to this Article 2 issue.  Does the president have the authority to protect the US from foreign threats? Sure he does. Article 2 says so. Thus far, any reasoning person would agree with the Attorney General. However, the only document that gives the president the authority to do this is the Constitution that contains that article. No article of the constitution abrogates the remaining constitution. So of course: ALL ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE VARIOUS BRANCHES AND DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT EVEN THOSE TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2 MUST BE BOUND BY THE RESTRICTRIONS OF EVERY OTHER ARTICLE AND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

 

If the president authorizes or fails to end and publicly punish any activity which violates the explicit constiution, he is in violation of the constitution and makes his own appeal to Article 2 null and makes himself guilty of criminal activity with regard to the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments and possibly others besides. In addtion, such activity makes him guilty of violations of law with regard to Titles 14, 17 and 18 of the USSC. So clearly specific laws DO govern the current activities.

Pickled Erring
Since the more disengenuous elements on the President's side of the debate over how to deal with detainees in Guantanamo Bay have begun to be overridden in favor of a more direct approach from the DOD, I'll try to keep the irony and sarcasm to a minimum. That said, the current round of testimony before congress has been instructive in more than one way. It's facinating to observe the vast gulf in corporate culture of the house is so very different from that of the Senate.

The Senate has demonstrated a reserve and an intelligence in dealing with this issue that is quite encouraging. The testimony from their panel as well as the comments of the Senators seems like a reasoned debate on the practical issue of how to proceed. The house however seems intent on simply codifying the will of the president on war crime tribunals without regard to the long term precident such decisions will have.

The main sticking point that both sides seem to have is the problem of POW status. Currently, the law supports the indefinite detention of POWs, without trial until the end of hostilities, at which point the POW is released without prejudice and returned to there native community.

The Executive insists on calling the "war" on terrorism a war, however it is military action sanctioned by congress, but without the legally and constitutionally mandated requisite of a discreet military enemy.

Instead, the US congress, at the urging of the president, has declared war on a civilian religious institution. This action violates the first amendment injunction against making a "law regarding [religion]".

If the activities of muslim religious institutions are criminal, and the US wishes to prosecute them then the Laws of War are inapplicable. If the persons targeted are a legitimate military objective, then declaring war on them gives them defacto status as a foreign power and as such makes their combatant members, regardless of uniform status, soldiers and entitled to treatment as POWs.

Instead, the congress and the Executive are trying to find a means of legitimizing the decision to try and have things both ways. They declare that the "members of 'al Qaeda" are civilians not soldiers yet they wish to use military assets to target and capture them. In addition they wish to deny these "illegal enemy combatants" the right to civilian trial because of their combatant status.

On the other hand they wish to prevent these "non soldiers" the right to fair and adequate treatment as soldiers. Worse this "un-War" against terrorism, is not declared versus a single enemy but against all terrorist organizations. Since such an amorphous and illegal declaration of war can continually be retargeted for upwards of 100s of years, the effective sentence of combatants so detained will be a life sentence.

As POWs whis would be tantamount to a gulag or life imprisonment without benifit of properly constituted trial. This is forbidden by American law and custom and may well violate the constitution. More importantly if one religious group can be targeted, any other can as well. It is a dangerous and untenable solution, nothing less than an end run around the constitution, regardless of the legitimacy of the current target.

What is the solution? First off the assertion that what US citzens or US troups do when not within the contiguous 48 states, is somehow no longer governed by the US Service code and the Constitutions needs to be put to bed with extreme prejudice. Those proposing such a farce need to have their ears ringing from the force of the congressional censure.

Secondly persons detained because of combatant status in time or war need to be treated like soldiers. Persons detained for war crimes need to be treated like soldiers guilty of war crimes. Nuermburg is a good example. Persons detained for NOT being soldiers or for not properly wearing a uniform should be treated like spies, or like criminals and be tried in a habeous court.

If evidence is so sensitive that a defendant defending himself can't be exposed to it, it isn't evidence. Hearsay is not evidence in any territory under the control of the US government. No soldier should have to consider whether he is maintaining a legitimate chain of custody, unless he is a criminal investigator. No soldier should have to worry about illegal entry on a battlefield. No civilian should EVER be the target of a US soldier.

There is no legitimate cause for changing these standards. The ONLY purpose to changing these standards is to allow what the constitution was drafted to prevent.

The Daily Escher
Yesterday a commentator on Fox News Network, accused the New York Times of being traitors for revealing the broad spectrum surviellence being done by the Federal Government.

Truthfully the great deal of bruhaha that has risen over this issue could be intended to produce a paradoxical effect (like when they give speed to minors in order to calm them down, while telling them to just say no to drugs...). We see an example of this kind of thinking in the protests of Uncle Remus' character Brother Rabbit, who begged so fervently not to be thown into the briars. But assuming the Times got the story right and assuming that all the controversy is ligitmate, where is the harm? The article was congradulatory, and the Wall Street Journal published much the same story.

Treason is a slippery issue in some cases. If the war had gone differently Benidict Arnold might have been a hero, who history recorded as Duke of New Jersey or some such nonsense. To his mind he was a Loyal American and a British Subject trying the protect North Americas place in the British Commonwealth. We think he was shortsighted and made the wrong choice, as did Canada. The winners write the history, so even if the facts support multiple conclusions, the story told will be the one that favors the winner. Interpreting facts into meaning is where the real lying is done.

So the question remains is it traitorous to report that the government is spying on private citizens of the United States, or worse, getting foreign governements and credit agencies to do for them what the constitution strictly forbids? Is it traitorous and immoral to report your findings when you learn that a branch or agency of the Federal government is waving the only document giving them ligitimacy, in order to perform actions that are illegal and constitute a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States? Wouldn't the traitorous News agency be the one that quashed a story to earn the good graces of a corrupt government?

Say rather that entering into collusion with uniformed felons is immoral. Say rather that threatening the foundation of the constitution and the ligitmacy of the Federal Government by performing civil rights violations and theft while under the color of authority violates the oath taken by every member of the armed forces and that of the members of the executive branch. Last I checked it still read: "to defend the Constitution of the Unitied States against all enemies... domestic."

The reason for posse Comitatus is to prevent the Federal Government from making war against citizens of the United States. A US citizen is subject to legal action but NEVER military action. The use of espionage against a US citizen is a crime. Use of secret warrants and refusal to notify a Citizen who is suspected of a crime is violation of several points in the Constitution but one that seems most overlooked is the basic right to face and discredit an accuser with full disclosure of evidence and even footing in a court of law. Another is the right to avoid self incimination.

Use of military assets, including federal intelligence agencies, whether civilian; contract; or military/naval, against civilian targets is military action. Cloaking such activities in secrecy, so that a victim of this illegal surviellence is made unaware and unable to respond with legal instruments is the very essence of what the founding fathers bled and died to prevent. It is nothing less than a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States and any person or agency odering or engaging in such behavior is a traitor. Anyone advcating it is immoral. Don't we execute traitors in time of War?

A one legged man at. politics and religion.
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Politics
If you grew up in an English speaking country, you probably have heard some variation on the tired simile, "Its like a one leg'ed man at an arse kicking contest". I recognize it's crude, in fact it probably is more popular the cruder your environment, with military or naval service being the most avid consumer. Why bring up tired and oafish (Oeffischer?) idiom? Simple. I've seen an upsurge of just the sort of anti-intellectual absurdity that this saying intends to illustrate.

The rise of outspoken anti-religious figures has been a disturbing trend in the media. I say anti religion because their methodology is clearly an attempt to replace and therby erradicate religion rather than having a reasoned discussion. One spokesman actually stated that unless a religious community is willing to allow dissenting opinions to be expressed from the religion's own venues, then that religion should be subject to persecution and concerted attack.

In other words, he claims a church of scientology should invite pentecostals to speak against scientology from the platform in a church of scientology. He claims a synogogue must be willing to allow klansmen to present religious discussions regarding the God given inferiority of other races to themselves.

But mostly his claim (and I think he would agree on this point) is a transparent attempt to intimidate the theistic majority into allowing him a bully pulpit wherein to attack and slander their God and their faith. He would characterize strong polemic as reasoned discussion rather than slander. But a polemic that asserts a falsehood about another person, God for instance, such as "he does exist", is slander. (identity theft?)

The amazing thing was that this demogogue was so openly candid about this intention. Hitler was similarly candid and no-one gave him real credibility regarding his intentions until it was too late.

Bearing in mind that the majority of the 6 or so odd billion people on earth are ardently religious, this can be nothing less than an elitist minority trying to shape and dominate the population through propaganda. Or, baring that, the short sighted attempts at social planning that have caused every war since 1890 -- are once again attempting to mold people against their will.

Either way, it is a disturbing tend that can only end in global conflict, and this time we don't need nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to destroy the environment. Carpet bombing and the application of aerial and conventional weapons can sufficiently wreck the ecosphere. Who needs nukes when you have the sixth fleet and a couple of virus ridden, friendly firing Halifax cruisers?

Okay we've gone from crude idiom to world war III. Is that rational. Yeah it is and it comes back to that proverbial one legged man. Who's the unipelagaic? (palagian?) Answer: The atheistic spokesmen who are being called on to comment on so called "fundamentalists".

Fundamentalist is a pejorative. The ever so enlightened social planners who claim to be trying to build an egalitarian world through enlightened atheism are in fact tainting their movement by it's use. How can one claim to be reforming the inner city if they are constantly using the terms spic, chink, wasp, cracker, beaner and nigger. It "ain't" gonna happen that way.

Beyond that, the term fundamentalist or even protestant is only properly used when referring to those who are theologically linked with the Dutch Reformed or Calvinist Christian churches. Made up terms like "Muslim Fundamentalist" are born in the same ignorance that spawned gems like wigga and zebra.

I'm a Christian. I'm not Roman Catholic, I am from a Western Traditional Christian movement, I'm not a protestant, and I'm not Eastern Orthodox. Does that leave me with no choices? Sorry, that belief only holds for those who let the news media or behavioral science professors think for them.

This leads us back to the brilliant atheist who feels "lead" (by whom?) to become a critic or analyst of religion. Goodness, who could be less qualified. By definition, when talking about religion we are talking about things that are esoteric at their most mundane. They are truly mystical in some of the more extreme expressions.

In order to BE a commentator on any subject, you have to have be capable of empathizing with the subject of the commentary. While, it's true a sort of clinical objectivity is needed to be a good commentator, at the same time no non human would be able to adequately comment on the human condition. Only we know what it's like to feel human, and to experience life as a human.

This principle translates nicley to the question of religion. Only an initiate can adequately comment on the ins and outs of a given religion. Some objective tests may give the outside observer an inkling, but only the initiate can truly comprehend and comment on religion. Now sectarianism aside, it's clear that only a theist can comment on the experience of a theist. Hiring an atheist to comment on Christianity or Islam, is like being that one leg'ed man.

Hiring an atheist commentator on religion and philosophy is roughly like hiring a blind makeup artist for CNN. While certain bow-tie bedecked male commentators look at times like they do in fact have a blind makeup artist, it's not a likelihood.

Entrapment on Black Ice
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Politics
In the beginning they told us 9-11 was an expected but unpredictable eventuality. Then we found that it was preventable but no one tried. Then we were told the only means of preventing a recurrence was to institute national ID cards, traveling papers and a Gestapo.

After people began to SLOWLY wake to the insanity of these measures and their requisite destruction of American Civil Rights, we were told the scale and scope of these measures would be reduced and only known terrorists would be targeted.

When the issue of using FISA came up, we were told that all civilian and joint operations would be run through FISA but purely security related issues would go through a set of secret operations that are only the purview of military intelligence acting under the authority of the commander in chief and that it would never entail criminal prosecution. (except it would first go through FISA then get renamed criminal after the searches, seizures and incarceration had already been an accomplished fact and the fruit of the poison tree was extant)

Then we hear that the new greatest evil is child molestation and we have to suspend the constitution to get pedophiles. No one except a pedophile wants to be associated with a pedophile and, certainly, NO one else would want to defend their crimes. But here lies the sticky margin of the proverbial slippery slope.

If one crime can be singled out for peculiar measures, and then a second more heinous crime can be singled out for peculiar measures, then inertia can begin to drag the whole country into the cesspit of National Socialism or effective oligarchy. One step at a time, it?s dragging us down to a point where people are imprisoned in there own homes just as they were in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

The Postal inspectors were heard on CSPAN telling us that "preemptive searches" had been upheld in court as being constitutional. Now the thing to remember is that the only court with the authority to judge a law, regulation or practice as being constitutional is the Supreme Court of the United States. Whatever court they went to, it hadn't the requisite authority to TELL them they were OK.

The other issue is that a lot of people are telling us, the American people, a lot of things that the American People object to are constitutional. This is the most troubling trend of all. The constitution is the written down (codified) will of the people made into the highest law of the land. This law stands supreme above treaty law, Federal Law, UCMJ, State Law, and County and Municipal Codes, and verbal or written orders of the executive or of a lawful military superior. There is no higher law, except perhaps canon law, governing the lives of American Citizens and any Rights that we have not specifically ceded to the Federal Government or the State government in writing belong to us as individuals and corporately. Another way of saying that is, you have the right to do ANYTHING unless your constitution or state constitution expressly forbids it.

Now, the constitution was framed as a way of protecting the people from the ravages of big government and of organized movements. And it was framed in the common language instead of legalese. The ever expanding US Service Code and the ever expanding body of Executive Orders and departmental regulations are at odds with the purpose and lawful function of the Government.

The People, not their Representatives or their president, are the ultimate arbiters of policy. And when Policy opposes the will of the people it is a crime. Some would argue that the will of the people is in line with the activities of the government today.

"No one likes childmolestors. No one likes a 'terrorist'"

But really the threat of terrorism is not new. It was here in the seventies. In fact in the 1970's communists were constantly hijacking aircraft and going to Havana for coffee. The fact is, the current hysteria over terrorism and over child protection is nothing more than a ploy used to disarm the American People of their greatest weapon for self preservation: conscious will.

By splashing the Media and Internet with a constant flow of propaganda and lies, the government has left the people fearful and feral. In that state, people are willing to accept measures that are insanely beyond the pail of OUR Constitutional WILL.

The founding fathers insisted that the people be able to rise up with weapons and militia, not only to defend the country from invaders and terrorists, but also to defend against the formation of Gestapos and the imposition of taxation without representation (for example British Sales Tax on liquor and cloth).

Fred