Greenwald's been sounding the erosion-of-our-civil-liberties alarm for years -- maybe now folks will pay attention

Glenn Greenwald's been truth-telling ever since I found him at Salon years ago. He was one of few real journalists willing to "tell the truth and shame the devil" -- and he spared no one, from the MSM puppets to the politricksters themselves. It was refreshing as hell!

Since he's always been unafraid to speak truth to power, I fully expected his swift, succinct and no-nonsense response to the detention and questioning of his partner, David Miranda at London's Heathrow airport. And in his, Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation, he doesn't disappoint:

If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world - when they prevent the Bolivian President's plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today - all they do is helpfully underscore why it's so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark.

I also expected this:



You'd think the UK would know by now, that the US will always quickly and most certainly throw them under the bus, particularly when it comes to anything Snowden (gotta keep up the appearance of steady, clean hands, even as they franticly flail about trying to catch this guy with hands not even approaching anything resembling "clean").  It's not like there isn't recent precedent to remind them.

When FUKUS et al., forced down the plane of a sitting president of a sovereign nation, the US said, "It wasn't me," then too, leaving its lackeys scrambling to make up lame excuses and having to apologize.  Why in the world would the UK give the US a "heads up" that they'd be detaining Glenn's partner if they'd not already colluded to do so?  Please.  And I guess we're to believe the US had nothing to do with this either:  UK ordered Guardian to destroy hard drives in effort to stop Snowden revelations:

UK authorities reportedly raided the Guardian’s office in London to destroy hard drives in an effort to stop future publications of leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden...

Mr. "Earnest," stop insulting our intelligence.  Even Stevie Wonder can see Snowden's whistle blowing is the one constant in all of these criminal and jack-booted acts of intimidation.   Earnestly guy, this is what I think of your press conference:

The Changeling will go to great lengths to serve white supremacy -- and himself (forget about all those folk, who thought "Change You Can Believe In" meant just that). Mr. "To know him, is to love him" over there, is more than okay with allowing Shrub & Co. to skate, totally free from prosecution for all the murderous atrocities and attacks on civil liberties they committed during their administration yet he's pulling out all the stops to not only capture Snowden, but to intimidate anyone else associated with him?  How crazy is that?

Certainly his other motivation is the fact that anything leaked, will implicate him even more horribly since he chose to sell his soul to be the first Black deus ex machina.  Now, the real powers-that-be can continue to perpetuate the aforementioned atrocities and attacks at an even higher level through him.  And when the shit hits the fan, he'll be left holding the proverbial bag.  It's already happening.  He will suffer the repercussions of all these world-dominating actions for a lifetime -- and so will his daughters (but they'll be rich, that's all that matters I guess).  There's just something really insecure or worse, megalomaniacal about that to me.  He reminds me of the power-lusting, Martin Sheen character, Stilson, bent on creating "his destiny" by destroying the world in the movie "Dead Zone."  It didn't end well for him.

Like the others before him, he raised his right hand and took the following oath and didn't mean one word of it:

Presidential Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In stark contrast, Snowden, Poitras and Greenwald, like Bradley Manning and others before them,  are doing way more preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution than those who routinely raise that right hand. Knowing this government's reach however, my prayers are with them.

New York Times reporter, Pete Maass recently published a comprehensive, day-late-and-dollar-short account of how it all got to this point. His, How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets reads like a spy thriller (he is, according to the piece, working on a book about surveillance and privacy, after all) -- you should check it out.

Related:
- NSA collected non-terrorism related emails
- What NSA Transparency Looks Like
- Miranda threatens legal action over detention, confiscation
- ‘More aggressive': Greenwald vows to publish more secrets after UK detains partner
- Latin America Condemns US Espionage at United Nations Security Council
- Email service used by Snowden shuts itself down, warns against using US-based companies

Glenn Greenwald: diplomatically on point -- on both sides of The Pond

I can't say what caused the attacks on the American embassies in both Libya and Cairo.  Was it the  film?  Was it the, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" response to the destruction of a sovereign nation and the decimation of its people by America and the "usual suspects?"  No one can say definitively.  But, Glenn Greenwald has, as Brother Asa over at AfroSpear said to me once, "hit the nail right on the head and through the wall" with his, The tragic consulate killings in Libya and America's hierarchy of human life.

3) It is hard not to notice, and be disturbed by, the vastly different reactions whenever innocent Americans are killed, as opposed to when Americans are doing the killing of innocents. All the rage and denunciations of these murders in Benghazi are fully justified, but one wishes that even a fraction of that rage would be expressed when the US kills innocent men, women and children in the Muslim world, as it frequently does. Typically, though, those deaths are ignored, or at best justified with amoral bureaucratic phrases ("collateral damage") or self-justifying cliches ("war is hell"), which Americans have been trained to recite.

It is understandable that the senseless killing of an ambassador is bigger news than the senseless killing of an unknown, obscure Yemeni or Pakistani child. But it's anything but understandable to regard the former as more tragic than the latter. Yet there's no denying that the same people today most vocally condemning the Benghazi killings are quick and eager to find justification when the killing of innocents is done by their government, rather than aimed at it.

It's as though there are two types of crimes: killing, and then the killing of Americans. The way in which that latter phrase is so often invoked, with such intensity, emotion and scorn, reveals that it is viewed as the supreme crime: this is not just the tragic deaths of individuals, but a blow against the Empire; it therefore sparks particular offense. It is redolent of those in conquered lands being told they will be severely punished because they have raised their hand against a citizen of Rome.

Just compare the way in which the deaths of Americans on 9/11, even more than a decade later, are commemorated with borderline religious solemnity, as opposed to the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of foreign Muslims caused by the US, which are barely ever acknowledged. There is a clear hierarchy of human life being constantly reinforced by this mentality, and it is deeply consequential. (emphasis mine)

Just as we can hardly deny the callousness of Qur'an-burning enthusiast, Terry Jones, nor Hilary Clinton's smirking, "We came, we saw, he died" (I must say again, I can't even believe how stupid I was, to lend any credence to the idea that this woman gave two shits about the rightness or wrongness of anything) -- we've no choice but to accept Glenn's dead-on observation about the killing of Americans being considered a "supreme crime" (with the exception of the murder of Rachel Corrie in Gaza by those who believe that, "America is a thing you can move very easily..."  The U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv declined to comment on Israel's "accidental" verdict, and her courageous stand for the Palestinian "Other" has been all but forgotten, except by maybe her family and the true humanitarians among us).

Greenwald is, for the most part, good at peeling away the most partisan of scales.  Here, he points out the sick folly of both Democrat and Republican supporters:

4) The two political parties in the US wasted no time in displaying their vulgar attributes by rushing to squeeze these events for political gain. Democratic partisans immediately announced that "exploiting US deaths" – by which they mean criticizing President Obama – "is ugly, unwise".

That standard is as ludicrous as it is hypocritical. Democrats routinely "exploited US deaths" – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and from 9/11 – in order to attack President Bush and the Republican party, and they were perfectly within their rights to do so. When bad things happen involving US foreign policy, it is perfectly legitimate to speak out against the president and to identify his actions or inaction that one believes are to blame for those outcomes. These are political events, and they are inherently and necessarily "politicized".

It's one thing to object to specific criticisms of Obama here as illegitimate and ugly, as some of those criticisms undoubtedly were (see below). But trying to impose some sort of general prohibition on criticizing Obama – on the ground that Americans have died and this is a crisis – smacks of the worst debate-suppressing tactics of the GOP circa 2003...

But in this case, what the GOP and Mitt Romney did is substantially worse. As the attacks unfolded, Romney quickly issued a statement, based on the response of the US embassy in Egypt, accusing Obama of "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks" (the Obama White House repudiated the statement from the embassy in Cairo)....

These accusations were all pure fiction and self-evidently ugly; they prompted incredulous condemnations even from media figures who pride themselves on their own neutrality.

But this is the story of the GOP.  Faced with a president whose record is inept and horrible in many key respects, they somehow find a way to be even more inept and horrible themselves. Here, they had a real political opportunity to attack Obama – if US diplomats are killed and embassies stormed, it makes the president appear weak and ineffectual – but they are so drowning in their own blinding extremism and hate-driven bile, so wedded to their tired and moronic political attacks (unpatriotic Democrats love America's Muslim enemies!), that they cannot avoid instantly self-destructing. Within a matter of hours, they managed to turn a politically dangerous situation for Obama into yet more evidence of their unhinged, undisciplined radicalism. (emphasis mine)

Can't disagree with any of that! Nor, any of this:

In sum, one should by all means condemn and mourn the tragic deaths of these Americans in Benghazi. But the deaths would not be in vain if they caused us to pause and reflect much more than we normally do on the impact of the deaths of innocents which America itself routinely causes. (emphasis mine)

IMHO, Salon's loss was The Guardian's gain in Glenn Greenwald.  Hopefully those across The Pond will listen to what he has to say.

~#~

UPDATE: In this discussion on Al-Jazeera's Inside Story, Greenwald, along with former National Security Council official Hillary Mann Levitt and the Muslim scholar at Georgetown, Jonathan Brown is worth watching (at least this "Hillary" has some damned sense!):

Related:
- “The Quiet American”: the death of J. Christopher Stevens
- US deploying warships to Libyan coast (Hmmm)

The Changeling and "Brother Ass-Coverer"

From Glenn Greenwald's, as usual and spot on:  "Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded":

Over 100 detainees died during U.S. interrogations, dozens due directly to interrogation abuse. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said: "We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A." Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the official investigation into detainee abuse, wrote: "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Thanks to the Obama DOJ, that is no longer in question.

Given the Changeling is neck-deep-complicit, not only in the murder of the white folks' "sand niggers" (Oh, don't act like you don't know that's what they call them!) -  Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi's son and grands, as well as the continued attempts to assassinate Qaddafi himself - I'm not surprised at Brother-Ass-Coverer's announcement.

Considering our history in this country, from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to today, coupled with his, and Brother-Ass-Coverer's actions to date - the whole, "Black enough" debate (for which others in the Black, non-leadership class have been excoriated) seems to me, more than justified.

CBC a long way from being "real tigers" at this point

Back in December, I wrote - Congressional Black Caucus got juice??? - Ah, No...  - and they still don't.  This two-fer of a Politico piece (managing a stab at both "kinfolk and skinfolk"), Congressional Black Caucus: President Obama's not listening, makes that fact perfectly clear. Here we have, the Black CBC begging plaintively asking for attention, while the first, society-identified-cum-self-identified-when-it's expedient Black president pretty much ignores them.  From the piece:

But unlike previous presidents, Obama doesn't need to win over the CBC in order to pick up support in the black community. Polls show that 96 percent of black voters view him favorably - a number the CBC members probably can’t match themselves...

...That point isn’t lost on Obama, who brought up his polling numbers when April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network asked him in December about grumblings among the black leadership."

“I think if you look at the polling, in terms of the attitudes of the African-American community, there’s overwhelming support for what we’ve tried to do,” said Obama. (emphasis mine)

After reading that piece and listening to them, during the health care debate - and after the bill passed, I couldn't help but think about that "Killed by a Tiger" stand-up bit from Katt Williams.  Yeah I know Katt offends a whole lotta folk and does some stupid shit - like getting arrested for burglary of all things - but that doesn't mean he's not saying something real [WARNING - I RATE THE VIDEO:  TV-MA (Mature Audience Only -- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.) This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activi ty (S), or crude indecent language (L)].

I'm willing to bet there are plenty CBC members who've asked (among themselves of course) - "Are you SURE I'm a Tiger?" - especially after nothing happened after they (through anonymous aides) "roared" in that Politico piece.

Let's be clear.  With the passage of this "health care industry bonanza" of a bill, I am well aware that CBC members aren't the only ones - "juice-less."  In his - Has Rahm's assumption about progressives been vindicated? - Glenn Greenwald makes it pretty plain who has been, and will continue to be, irrelevant to this Administration (Hell, Shrub didn't even pay them any mind - even when THEY had the majority!) and I concur:

What's not debatable is that this process highlighted -- and worsened -- the virtually complete powerlessness of the Left and progressives generally in Washington. If you were in Washington negotiating a bill, would you take seriously the threats of progressive House members in the future that they will withhold support for a Party-endorsed bill if their demands for improvements are not met? Of course not. No rational person would.

Moreover, everyone who has ever been involved in negotiations knows that those who did what most progressive DC pundits did here from the start -- namely, announce: we have certain things we'd like you to change in this bill, but we'll go along with this even if you give us nothing -- are making themselves completely irrelevant in the negotiating progress. People who signal in advance that they will accept a deal even if all of their demands are rejected will always be completely impotent, for reasons too obvious to explain. (emphasis mine). 

I just wish the CBC would take responsibility for their complicity in their own legislative impotency as it relates to issues affecting the Black community.  They are, after all, the Congressional Black Caucus.

But just like sufferers of Battered Woman Syndrome, they fell in love with a man who smelled "insecure neediness" all over them - and set out to exploit every bit of it.  And so happy to have someone "like him," love "someone like them," they denied all the warning signs of the "abuse" to come.  From the link:

FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

DENIAL - The woman refuses to admit--even to herself--that she has been beaten or that there is a "problem" in her marriage. She may call each incident an "accident". She offers excuses for her husband's violence and each time firmly believes it will never happen again.

GUILT - She now acknowledges there is a problem, but considers herself responsible for it. She "deserves" to be beaten, she feels, because she has defects in her character and is not living up to her husband's expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT - The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband's abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be beaten. She is still committed to her marriage, though, and stays with her husband, hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY - Accepting the fact that her husband will not, or can not, stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she will no longer submit to it and starts a new life. 

Once the very short "honeymoon period" of the inauguration was over, and the gushing tears (shed to further their "first-Black-president-as-realization-of-Martin's-dream" meme) were dried  - he promptly and continues to let them know, as PatriotDems so eloquently and succinctly put it:  Black People: Obama Is Just Not That Into You (h/t to Cin over at Cinie's World for this gem).

And they heard him.

Then, just like Katt said in the video, they kept "tryin' shit and tryin' shit - don't work - tryin' shit and tryin' shit - switch it up" - quickly moving from the Denial stage to the Enlightenment stage, all the while hoping they could "work things out." 
 
Now I know PTSD of any kind (Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder included) is hard to work through.  Hell, some people never get through it.  But what I know to be true is, unless and until the members of the CBC decide they've had enough of the Changeling's "abusive" behavior and become "real tigers" - the Responsibility stage will never come and there won't be any legislative "new life" - for any of us.

"When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again" - he'll see some familiar faces

On my Friday, December 4 post about the impotency of the CBC, I commented to my Blog Sister Cinie:

"But let me see, what results have we gotten from them so far? Obama & Co; More war; fucked up health care reform; record unemployment and home foreclosures; homelessness; fatter Wall St. cats; continued disparity in crack and cocaine sentencing (Hell, IL has a brand-spanking, new, super-max prison that's been sitting empty for about 8 years, just waiting for new residents!); more separate and unequal, corporatized education, etc. , etc."

I was talking about Black and Brown U.S. residents at the time.  But I'd heard the story about the new digs - twice on NPR - around Thanksgiving time and had filed it away under - "Keep an eye on this shit":






I should've known then, that this was coming.  It had the Changeling's often-alluded-to, "pragmatic" fingerprints all over it (Me, I just call it throwback House Negro behavior):

• Closing Gitmo by January was huge plank in his campaign.  Thomson had been built, and lay vacant - for eight years.  Lights on, nobody home (pun intended) - taxpayers - of whom there are less and less due to the economy - are paying the minimum, $1 million dollar per year price tag.  That had to have been in his three-year-Senator-from-Illinois mind when he made the closure "guarantee" - or should have.  Just had to figure out a way to head-fake the Republicans and "REAL" Americans about bringing Gitmo detainees on U.S. soil  (Am I giving him too much credit?). 
• Once in, he faked right, convincing the Pacific island nation of Palau to take 17 non-combatant Uighurs "at $11.7 million for each detainee" (according to the WSJ) and sending four non-combatant detainees to Bermuda, pissing of the UK (and China who's saying, "What?  No "extraordinary rendition" for us considering all that debt of yours we hold?).  But so what if Bermuda's a British territory?  They're so close, they feel like ours!  Besides, I'm sure he figured he could pimp Gordon Brown just as well, if not better than Shrub pimped Tony Blair (based on Brown's popularity to date, I'd say that was a safe bet).  And just to make sure the stage was set, he rubber-stamped Shrub & Co.'s indefinite, preventive detention with an Executive Order which gave him the added benefit of getting around the Keystone Cops in Congress.
• Then, as if on cue (as noted in the Guardian piece above), global NIMBY mutterings (even from Palauans) got louder - and rightfully so, seeing as we started this shit!:

Critics accuse Obama of dumping a sensitive problem in the middle of nowhere rather than accepting that the US should take responsibility for prisoners it has abused.

According to the Associated Press, the United States has contacted about 100 governments, but has not been able to persuade any country to take the 50 detainees cleared for transfer.
Britain and France have accepted one each...

• And then - he faked left.  With a Glinda-like wave of his magic wand, he clicked his ruby red slippers thrice, bringing jobs home to Illinois residents, a double-fisted "Screw you!" to the Republicans and "REAL" Americans, an arrogant - "Call me irresponsible now!" - to the global community and oodles of pats on the back from the Kool-Aid Kids who again, are conveniently forgetting that, just like Shrub, he's continuing human rights violations about which the Constitution is very clear - HE'S STILL LOCKING PEOPLE UP WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THEY'VE COMMITTED A DAMN CRIME - ONLY HE'S DOING IT HERE!!

Nobody does it better than Glenn Greenwald when it comes to this topic.  In his Welcome to Gitmo North, he said succinctly:

Critically, none of those moved to Thomson will receive a trial in a real American court, and some will not be charged with any crime at all. The detainees who will be given trials won't go to Thomson; they'll be moved directly to the jurisdiction where they'll be tried. The ones moved to Thomson will either (a) be put before a military commission or (b) held indefinitely without charges of any kind. In other words, they'll have exactly the same rights -- or lack thereof -- as they have now at Guantanamo.

But Glenn, it's all brand-spanking-new and junk!!!  Shouldn't they just be tickled pink??  Pardon the snark, but mark my words, that's what plenty of his supporters will be saying.  In the letter to which Glenn linked from the Changeling's Administration (Hillary included) to Gov. Quinn, please DO note how the "change agents" cover their asses in the first paragraph - too funny! 

And that conveniently-delivered-today list of answers to (what seems to me, some hastily drawn-up) questions from Mark Kirk (R-IL) representing the "Illinois delegation" is pretty priceless too.  I'll bet you a nickel they never got a reply from the Big House in less than 30 days - EVAH (as Cinie would say)!!!

One thing's for sure, if our high-and-mighty attempts at imperialism overseas hasn't pissed off those who would fly planes into buildings on U.S. soil enough, this surely ought to get their motor running. Just sayin'...

So that's what the "Magical Mystery Tour" was all about!

Man!  Cinie's "Magical Mystery Tour" description of the Changeling's, right-out-of-the-blocks foray overseas just jumped up and slapped me in the head when I got up this moring!  For some reason, the draft about Afghanistan was weighing heavily on my mind and I wanted to work on it, so I decided I'd get the hell up - early - and write a little bit.  Yes, along with others, it has been sitting for some time.

Imagine my horror surprise when my husband came out of the bathroom saying, "Did you see your boy won the Nobel Peace Prize?"

"Who?" I asked, really not having a clue, but just by the way he said "your boy," I knew I wasn't going to like the answer.  "Barack Obama," he said, with a shit-eatin' grin on his face.  I felt my head starting to swell.

"You kiddin' me???  For what????" (seems Joan Walsh over at Salon isn't the only one for whom being a little brown is a major civil rights contribution!)

With thumb and index finger firmly implanted on my shakin' damn head, and as my youngest walked through the kitchen heading out to work as well, I started my diatribe - listing the reasons why the Changeling has not done a damn thing in the interest of - Peace!  (Could that have been why Afghanistan was on my mind??) 

As they walked out, he said, "See, that's why none of that shit really matters!" 

His words stung.  But I let it go, because I had no wise, motherly come-back that would hold water in the face of yet another,  Bad Guys - 1, Good Guys - 0 scenario.  I thought to myself, "Whatever works.  This, is what having a Barack Obama for president is teaching Black men - kiss ass, lie, be egotistical, sexist, dishonest, megalomaniacal, manipulative, calculating, greedy and posturing - and you too can have it all!"   

I decided not to turn on the TV, radio or anything.  Frankly, I couldn't stomach the drivel I knew the mainstream media would be regurgitatng all day long.  Instead, I searched online for something that would at least let me know that the whole world hadn't lost its damn mind.

I found this, "Obama's Nobel Prize Is More of a Burden than an Honor" at Der Spiegel.  And this Reuter's piece, "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize to mixed reviews," (along with the comment section) was heartening.  And then of course, Glenn Greenwald summed it up nicely with this, IMHO, very honest and sobering, "Obama's Nobel Peace Prize."  I felt better, but only a little (I swear!  It just gnaws at me why crooks and liars always prosper!).

Because it seems to matter not, I won't drone on and on about why IN THE HELL the Changeling meets these requirements as laid out in Alfred Nobel's will:

"The whole of my remaining realisable estate shall be disposed of in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually awarded as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

Suffice it to say that I prefer my Nobel Peace Prize winners this way:

Not this way:

(compliments of sister, Cinie awhile back - let me go see what SHE's got to say about this!  Should be good!)

Hamdi, Padilla, al-Marri and the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh

Reading Glenn Greenwald's, "Al-Marri and the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," reminded me of this column I wrote back on June 16, 2002:

"Enemy combatant" tag is administration end-run around the Constitution"

The Justice Department's June 13 announcement regarding American terrorist suspect Jose Padilla indicates that the Bush administration thinks it has finally found the formula to bypass the fundamental rights guaranteed every American citizen by the Constitution. But, the method to its madness and the repercussions of it, may be even more far-reaching than any of us dare to imagine.

Learning from the mistakes made with "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, who is scheduled for a trial by jury in an Alexandria, Va., courtroom Aug. 26, the U.S. government will not attempt to bring Padilla before a military tribunal. Not exactly anyway.

Instead, President Bush, by the powers vested in the executive branch, has decided to classify Padilla as an "enemy combatant" and has had him transferred into military custody at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. There, according to Justice Department officials, he can be held indefinitely with neither charges nor trial, conceivably until the president decides the war against terrorism is over.

Upon what is the Justice Department and the administration basing those powers you ask? On a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the World War II case, Ex Parte Quirin. Quirin, a U.S. citizen, along with seven other Nazi saboteurs were landed by submarine on beaches on Long Island and Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. The FBI arrested them all and handed them over to the military, which tried and subsequently executed them. The court held that they were "unlawful combatants" who had entered the country secretly like spies. Defending the right of the president (executive branch), "in time of war and of grave national danger," to order the eight to be tried by military tribunals, it stated: "All citizens of nations at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."

According to government officials, Padilla fits all of the criteria of an enemy combatant because he allegedly met with a senior al-Qaida official, learned how to blow up a dirty bomb, received training and financing and then came to the United States with the intent to do harm. But the administration still must show evidence that he at least planned to do harm to the U.S.

Unlike U.S. citizen, John Walker Lindh, charged with conspiracy to kill Americans abroad and French citizen, Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with conspiring to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks, the government's evidence against Padilla may be a little weak. Hence this "enemy combatant" classification. Does anyone hear the strains of that "In the interest of national security" song being tuned up? What better way to hold him indefinitely.

Now normally, a U.S. citizen, would be afforded typical legal rights such as presumption of innocence, grand jury indictment, due process, legal representation - those pesky little things. However, Padilla's classification as an "enemy combatant," allows the government to interrogate him more aggressively, hold him indefinitely and reduces his legal rights to less than an ordinary civilian defendant in a criminal case.

Justice Department officials have magnanimously offered that he will have "limited" access to an attorney. We are certain to hear repeatedly about the delicate balance between the rights of one to justice versus the rights of many to security before this is all over. More frightening than the premise itself is the ease with which our government appears to be able to dispense with those basic, fundamental rights of one to justice merely by saying it should be so. We have seen many times - in South America, in Africa and Asia - where this dark and secretive path can lead.

If Padilla is guilty of treason or other acts of betrayal against the United States of America, give him a trial in a public court where Americans can see the strength of the government's case and know with certainty the acts of treachery committed. Only then will we truly know that justice has been done.

Pretty prescient in the context of Glenn's piece, I thought. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if there'd be more rumblings from the legal team of the young, white, California-raised "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh to free their client. There are.

Seems a petition to Shrub for commutation is in the works. Never mind, once it became known that he was a U.S. citizen, he (unlike his decidedly darker-hued, more foreign-looking, Louisiana-born fellow citizen, Hamdi - captured at the same time, in the same place) received all the rights afforded Americans under the Constitution and was brought to Virginia to launch a defense for himself in the American criminal justice system, while Hamdi was declared an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo. Never mind, he pled guilty to providing service to the Taliban and carrying explosives while doing so (other charges in the 10-count indictment against him, including conspiring to kill Americans and engaging in terrorism, were dropped by the government. A governmental strategy to keep the lid on our military's involvement in torture perhaps?).

Considering the fact that Shrub was almost forgiving back in 2001 when Lindh was captured, calling Lindh a "poor fellow" who had been "misled," I'll bet you a nickel, Lindh will be on his list of pardons as he sashays on out of the White House in 2009. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and you get the nickel!

Now, we're re-e-e-ally "Off To See the Wizard"

I'd decided to post less about the campaign because I'm just worn the hell out with all the double-talking bullshit. But Glenn Greenwald kicked me in the shins and I had to post this. As I've been told that I am long-winded (like I didn't already know that!), I'm only saying what I said to Glenn regarding his, "Obama, telecoms and the Beltway system" article.

####

Bravo Glenn!!! I've seen no one more dogged than you in covering this FISA sham by the HPIC (Head Party In Charge)!!! Oh, and to your question, "Has anybody seen Obama?" and your statement, "Several readers have emailed to say that they called the Obama campaign and were told that Obama and his staff are "literally reviewing the bill right now and will make a statement shortly." - not to worry, just like no flag pin, now flag pin/Rev. Wright & Trinity, no Rev. Wright & Trinity/NAFTA, no NAFTA/Hamas, No Hamas, etc., etc., etc. - the senator from Illinois and his crew will hold their finger up, test which way the wind is blowing and comment accordingly - I promise you ( remember, the goal is the first Black president, period)! He didn't move most of the DNC OPS to Chicago for nothing! The Daleys are seasoned in this kind of two-step! But I think you may have put his proverbial "ass in a sling" by pointing out his support of Barrow over Thomas. I'm not laying any bets, but I guarantee "Orator the Great" will come up with something that at least sounds a little more coherent than Pelosi's babble. And if he doesn't? Oh well. Now that he's anointed and the presidency is in the grasp, nobody will really hear what he is or isn't saying anyway.

Mr. Obama Comes to Florida

I just love Maxine!!!! She's probably who I'll be whenever I decide to grow the hell up! On second thought, we're already "more alike than we are different!" This speaks volumes, not only to that similarity, but to my feelings about the senator from Illinois coming here glad-handing, skinnin' and grinnin' and asking not only for more money - but for our support. I find this the worst of his "audacities." But I'm not surprised. Hubris is his second skin. Blocking our 1.7 million votes because the majority weren't cast for him may be a great political strategy in the eyes of those to whom strategy matters. But strategy doesn't matter to me -democracy does. I think primaries are the one, real chance for citizens to have their say about whom they want to represent them in the general election. As far as he's concerned, our say doesn't matter. This Herculean effort by him and his "crew" has been, and continues to be, nothing more than giving this Pied Piper time to hoodwink and bamboozle his way to a tainted nomination (I have got to find that blog I read the other day with the 48-star Old Glory and see if I can borrow it for my sidebar!) Magnanimously seating our delegates at the convention once the DNC gives him the nomination (yes I said it!) is no consolation for not counting our votes - as they stand. As a Black woman, there's surely nothing there of which to be proud. I expected better. Anyway. I'm sitting at the computer, listening to the news and they cut to a rally at which Sir Lie-A-Lot is scheduled to appear. I wasn't really paying attention at first, so I can't give you the exact location of this particular stop on his whirlwind, "Give Me More Money" tour of South Florida this weekend. I know the Cuban American National Foundation invited him to speak at the Independence Day celebration being held at the Intercontinental Hotel in Miami. I'm sure the "I stand with you against Castro and the Bush embargo" speech is fired up and ready to go. When I did look up, I saw the reporter, outside in the sweltering heat with a microphone in the face of one of the supporters who'd dutifully shown up - sign in hand. Confused that the senator was not there, she said, "I tried to call around to get more information about tickets to this and nobody knew much about it!" As it turns out, instead of his usual "present" or not at all votes, he'd flown back to D.C. to vote "Aye" on Senator Webb's bill (gotta keep the armed forces at least thinking he has their best interest at heart). He was late getting back so the town hall meeting at the B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, was rescheduled for a later time.

When the town hall meeting finally did happen, as much as I'm worn out listening to his bullshit - I did. Rather than rehash it point-by-point, here's a video I found sans the Q & A portion:

What do I say about this? PAN-DER-ER! Was that enough? No? Then, DAMN PAN-DER-ER!!

Now I know that's politics and all, so don't get your panties in a knot. They all have to play to the emotions of the crowd to whom they are speaking. Each of them has to make promises of both domestic and international policy changes - most of which they have no way of keeping without the legislative branch being fully on board. For the most part, every one of them must be adept at shining up shit and calling it gold. I get that. But really, this is something!

It was apparent the professor had reviewed his lesson plan before class. After all, he had a great reference in his AIPAC speech from March of 2007 (some of this is plucked right from it!). There is a slight, but very noticeable change in this one, however. He added how it pains him "to see the strains between the African-American community and the Jewish community." I guess back then, he needed to get that money with no distractions whatsoever. But he writes a good speech. Just don't ask him to debate because he's really not good on the fly - too ill-prepared, defensive and petulant when he doesn't get the material before class.

In any event, he said everything a Jewish person might want to hear. But in my humble opinion, his delivery was somewhat stiff and very tentative. Kind of like a young comic testing his material out on an unfamiliar audience hoping not to bomb. Actually, it was quite entertaining to watch him give his lecture on Jewish History to Jewish people who know their history far better than most of us. It just seemed like a, "See, I know all about y'all!" moment." And what was that, "I know how much Israelis crave freedom, uh, crave peace" about? A Freudian slip?

And somebody please explain again why Sen. Clinton's statement, "Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," sent almost everybody into such a hissy fit? Why did so many take that truth, blow it way the hell out of proportion, splash it all across the mainstream media and twist it into the most racist thing ever? Because she's white? Does that negate the truth? Reread Joe Califano Jr.'s, "It Took a Partnership" - he was there.

Now comes the "Repairer of the Breach" (hey, he referenced the Prophet Isaiah not me) with, "...because I know, Dr. King could not have done everything that he did, were it not for the support of the Jewish community." Somebody please tell me why no one, not a single person Black or white, took umbrage to this truth? Is it because he's Black? Is it because his audience, no doubt had the cash to fill his coffers? This hypocrisy is not only daunting, it's laughable.

After dedicating 15 minutes of his speech to:

1. The Jewish History lesson
2. Assurances he'd be the one to recognize the Jewish state of Israel
3. Promising to "defend Israel from any attack whether it's from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran (remember that tiny country he said posed a major threat during his AIPAC speech, then didn't pose a serious threat during his Portland speech last Sunday, but again poses a major threat during his B'nai Torah Congregation speech?),"

Almost as an afterthought, he devoted the last two minutes and 37 seconds to those pesky little domestic issues that are in "violation of the spirit of justice" he'd found in the Jewish faith and for which he expressed his deep affinity. You know those issues - substandard schools, underpaid teachers, college that's not affordable and Oh! Health care. Two minutes and 37 seconds! Somebody please give this man a damned napkin so he can wipe his mouth!

UPDATE: I read this very interesting post from Glenn Greenwald at Salon and since the senator from Illinois was waxing so philosophical about what "Israelis need" and sharing his "fundmental difference with former President Carter" about meeting with Hamas, I thought I'd share: "Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas"