July 05, 2006

What You've Heard About His Weapons Is True

From the AP:

North Korea tests 7th missile amid furor

North Korea test-fired another missile Wednesday, intensifying the furor ignited when the reclusive regime launched at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong, earlier in the day.

Seven firings, none apparently lasting longer than six minutes, and the keystone was a spectacular failure that expired 40 seconds after launch.

Is this an impoverished Asisan dictatorship trying to project power, or Ron Jeremy's comeback tour?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 04, 2006

The More Things Change...

...the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"What July Fourth Means to Me"

For one who was born and grew up in the small towns of the Midwest, there is a special kind of nostalgia about the Fourth of July.

I remember it as a day almost as long-anticipated as Christmas. This was helped along by the appearance in store windows of all kinds of fireworks and colorful posters advertising them with vivid pictures.

No later than the third of July – sometimes earlier – Dad would bring home what he felt he could afford to see go up in smoke and flame. We'd count and recount the number of firecrackers, display pieces and other things and go to bed determined to be up with the sun so as to offer the first, thunderous notice of the Fourth of July.

I'm afraid we didn't give too much thought to the meaning of the day. And, yes, there were tragic accidents to mar it, resulting from careless handling of the fireworks. I'm sure we're better off today with fireworks largely handled by professionals. Yet there was a thrill never to be forgotten in seeing a tin can blown 30 feet in the air by a giant "cracker" – giant meaning it was about 4 inches long.

But enough of nostalgia. Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth.

There is a legend about the day of our nation's birth in the little hall in Philadelphia, a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words "treason, the gallows, the headsman's axe," and the issue remained in doubt.

The legend says that at that point a man rose and spoke. He is described as not a young man, but one who had to summon all his energy for an impassioned plea. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment and finally, his voice falling, he said, "They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever."

He fell back exhausted. The 56 delegates, swept up by his eloquence, rushed forward and signed that document destined to be as immortal as a work of man can be. When they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he was not to be found, nor could any be found who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, that is the legend. But we do know for certain that 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor.

What manner of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, and nine were farmers. They were soft-spoken men of means and education; they were not an unwashed rabble. They had achieved security but valued freedom more. Their stories have not been told nearly enough.

John Hart was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. For more than a year he lived in the forest and in caves before he returned to find his wife dead, his children vanished, his property destroyed. He died of exhaustion and a broken heart.

Carter Braxton of Virginia lost all his ships, sold his home to pay his debts, and died in rags. And so it was with Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Rutledge, Morris, Livingston and Middleton.

Nelson personally urged Washington to fire on his home and destroy it when it became the headquarters for General Cornwallis. Nelson died bankrupt.

But they sired a nation that grew from sea to shining sea. Five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep, 3 million square miles of forest, field, mountain and desert, 227 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines of all the world.

In recent years, however, I've come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.

It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.

Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.

We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.

Happy Fourth of July.

Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
1981

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:42 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 03, 2006

Mount Misery Mind Games

Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald is having a grand old time pointing fingers at some conservative bloggers who blasted the New York Times from running a fairly detailed puff piece about the St. Michaels, MD area that is home to Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld:

As I documented at length this weekend, Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Red State, David Horowitz and many others of that sort spent the weekend engaged in the most vicious and self-evidently misguided attacks on The New York Times based on a puff piece in this weekend's "Escapes" section. Because the article contained a photograph of Don Rumsfeld's vacation home, they insisted that this was reckless and even retaliatory-- i.e., done with the intent to enable Al Qaeda operatives and other assassins to murder Rumsfeld (as well as Dick Cheney), and that it was further evidence of the war being waged by the NYT and its employees on the Bush administration and the U.S.

For so many obvious reasons, based on easily obtainable information -- including the fact that multiple right-wing news outlets such as NewsMax and Fox and others had previously disclosed this same information months earlier, that this information is commonly reported about government leaders in both parties, and the fact that we always know where our top government officials live and spend their weekends because they have Secret Service protection -- these accusations were as false as they were hysterical.

And let's face it—Greenwald knows hysterical, so I bow to his expertise. Unfortunately, I was too busy moving into my own country estate this weekend to comment at the time, but I still have some Monday morning quarterbacking to do all the same.

A large part of the controversy seems to revolve around the fact that Times artile not only spoke of the two homes, it actually provided a partial picture of the Rumsfeld home "Mount Misery" as shot from the street.

Here it is a bit closer, magnified as much as the JPG format will allow.

It is interesting to see how the house has changed over time. The photo of the home below was take back when Mount Misery was a bed and breakfast.

Here it is a bit closer, once again magnified as much as the JPG format will allow.

Interesting how things change over time, isn't it? The red brick Rumsfeld home (top photo) has taken on a new window over the front door since its days as a B&B (below).

Certainly, red brick federal homes all certainly look an aweful lot a like... you don't think that the Rumsfeld's might have used a "decoy house" to prevent the Times from revealing more "classified information," do you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:21 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Iraq War Rape/Murder Suspect Arrested in Western NC

Via the News & Observer:

Federal prosecutors charged a veteran of the Iraq war with murder and rape Monday following an investigation into the killing of an Iraqi woman and members of her family.
Steven D. Green, a 21-year-old former private first class who was discharged from the Army, appeared in a federal magistrate's courtroom in Charlotte Monday. Prosecutors said Green and other soldiers entered the home of a family of Iraqi civilians, where he and others raped a member of the family before Green shot her and three of her relatives to death.

The FBI said its agents arrested Green on Friday in Marion, N.C., and he is being held without bond pending a transfer to Louisville, Ky. Green had served with the 101st Airborne, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

The case is being handled by federal prosecutors because Green has been discharged from the Army. According to an affidavit filed along with the criminal complaint, Green was discharged "before this incident came to light. Green was discharged due to a personality disorder."

Green was alleged to have killed three of the four family members, and participated in the rape. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He is the only soldier beign investigated in the Mahmudiyah rape/murder case to have been discharged.

Marion, NC is a small town near Lake James, west of Morganton.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

This Sounds Familiar Somehow...

It's a regular Bush vs. Gordita:

Mexico's presidential election was too close to call Sunday, with a leftist offering himself as a savior to the poor and a conservative free-trader both declaring themselves the winner. Officials said they won't know who won for days.

Electoral officials said they could not release the results of Sunday night's quick count of the votes, which they previously said would happen only if the leading candidates were within one percentage point of each other. Luis Carlos Ugalde, president of the Federal Electoral Institute, said an official count would begin Wednesday, and a winner will be declared once it's complete.

As Dafydd notes at Big Lizards, the leftist candidate says that according to his figures he won, while the more conservative candidate notes the official preliminary count is showing him with a slim but important lead.

Under Mexican law, in the event of a tie, a winner is selected based upon the best human sacrifice to Aztec god of civilization Quetzalcoatl.*

* Not actually true, but it would be considered by most international observers to be a more humane way to settle a presidential election that the U.S. court system.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Amontillado Option

It was an affront to common sense, a willful and undermining misreading of the Geneva Conventions, and a blatantly unconstitutional stab at grabbing power from both the Legislative and Executive branches, but the Supreme Court's much disputed and reviled Hamdan decision—which some have stated is on par with Dredd Scott and Pessy vs. Ferguson as "a great 'self-inflicted wound'"—might actually have a silver lining after all, as pointed out briefly by Captain Ed:

The ruling from the Supreme Court that essentially grants terrorists Geneva Convention protections needs to get reversed as quickly as possible. The court's majority decision declared that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress in 2001 somehow did not cover the establishment of military tribunals for unlawful combatants, which leaves Congress the opening to fill the gap.

I actually prefer the method that Justice Stevens explicitly left open to the Bush administration in his opinion: leave them detained until hostilities cease in the war on terror. Radical Islam does not leave many deterrents to its lunatic pawns. Death in combat or a summary execution suits them fine. Public trials give them the opportunity to exploit our civil justice system as platforms for their screeds, as Zacarias Moussaoui showed. However, the perpetual and anonymous detention offered by Stevens does give the terrorists the one situation they find most repellent -- and that could persuade at least a few of them that taking on the US holds nothing but a miserable stretch of decades in an iron cage, with no public outlet for their hatred.

I've mentioned in the past that if we are going to extend Geneva Protections to terrorists (who are disbarred from Geneva Protections due to Article 4.1.2, no matter what Justice Stevens says), then we should specifically use the portion of the Geneva Conventions that favors us the most.

The world has been at war with Islamic fundementalists at shifting borders for almost 1,400 years. More than millennia of precedent indicates that Islam—which divides the world into the House of War and House of Submission—will be at war with the rest of the world as long as it exists.

While President Bush was taking steps with the tribunals struck down by Hamdan to provide some sort of attempt at providing trials, perhaps he shouldn't have bothered.

Ironically, the Supreme Court now gives us a containment option straight out of a horror story.

Edgar Alan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado is perhaps one of the most classic horror stories; a man repeatedly wronged by another lures his victim into a dank catacombs where he first chains him, and then proceeds to wall him up alive.

Justice John Paul Stevens and the four other prevailing members of the Court have now set the stage for the terrorists we've captured to remain under U.S. custody without any sort of trial whatsoever for decades to come. They may conceivably be confined as prisoners of war—in good health, not bound in catacombs, mind you—until either they expire or jihad against the West ceases.

The Court has created the chance for the perpetual internment of captured terrorists without the mess of a jury trial. Somehow, I doubt liberals will be as happy with the Hamdan decision as they once were if this or following Administrations uses this option.

Frankly, I prefer tribunals, but I could force myself to live with this.

In pace requiescat!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Fly Like a Butterfly...

...sting like General Ali.

Via the Real Ugly American.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Random Acts?

On March 12, five soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Division allegedly raped a 15-year-old Iraqi girl killed her and her family, and then burned her body in an apparent attempt to hide the evidence of their crime.

Roughly three months later, on June 23, one of those soldiers confessed after soldiers from the same platoon were ambushed, and two GIs captured in the ambush were horrifically tortured and killed. Was there a cause-and-effect, tit-for-tat exchange of atrocities south of Baghdad? At least one key player seems to think so:

The official in Iraq whom the wire service quoted said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one of them to reveal the rape and slaying on June 22.

Would "feelings of guilt" mean that this soldier felt the torture and murder of men from his platoon was in retaliation for his own acts? Absent any other explanation, it seems a plausible assumption.

It is, of course, quite possible and even probable that the ambush and capture of Menchaca and Tucker at their Yusifiyah checkpoint was an act completely unassociated with the rape and murders down the road at Mahmudiyah. It seems that most of the neighbors were willing to believe this was a sectarian killing performed by Shiite militiamen.

But there was at least one notable exception.

Omar Janabi, a neighbor of the slain family, seems to be the star witness of this case, not only having conversations with the mother about here fears of a potential assault before the incident, but was also among the first to see the bodies.:

Janabi was one of the first people to arrive at the house after the attack, he said Saturday, speaking to a Washington Post special correspondent at the home of local tribal leaders. He said he found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck.
"I was sure from the first glance that she had been raped," he said.
Despite the reassurances he had given the girl's mother earlier, Janabi said, "I wasn't surprised what had happened, when I found that the suspicion of the mother was correct."

And yet, three months passed without any indication that Janabi went to the Iraqi military or police to report his suspicions. Perhaps it was a cultural difference; perhaps it was fear of possible retribution, but in any event he believed U.S. soldiers from this unit was responsible for the capital crimes against his neighbors.

A Sunni in the heart of the Sunni insurgency, Janabi most likely "knew somebody who knew somebody" who would be capable of a retaliatory strike—perhaps a strike that took three months to reconnoiter, plan, and execute—that might send a message to the soldiers who committed these rapes.

Perhaps the tortuous deaths of men from Company B, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment weren't quite a random act of barbarity after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 02, 2006

Bloodthirsty Knave Gets Unmarked Grave

He's worm food now:

Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told The Associated Press that al-Zarqawi had been buried in a "secret location" in Baghdad.

The U.S. military confirmed the burial but declined to give more details.

"The remains of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi were turned over to the appropriate government of Iraq officials and buried in accordance with Muslim customs and traditions," the military said in an e-mailed statement. "Anything further than that would be addressed by the Iraqi government."

al-Zarqawi died approximately an hour after sustaining catastrophic injuries in a June 7 airstrike. The cause of death was listed as a primary (blast) injury to the lung.

The last thing he saw on this earthly plain was American and Iraqi soldiers standing over him, side-by-side. I take some small satisfaction in that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 30, 2006

Curses! Foiled Again

It looks like one of them college edumacated fellers over at the Daily Kos musta figgered us out.

With smart folks like that, how are we ever going to keep those negroes out of office?

They's too swift for us.

I wonder what going to happen come the 'lections?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Further Thoughts on Hamdan

From a comment left on this post:

Without law to govern our actions, we are no better than the terrorist who's objective is to destroy our way of life.

And therein lies a key thought of many American liberals. He—and others like him—truly believe that courts protect our liberties and our lives.

He will never understand that the Supreme Court did not have the legal authority to rule on Hamdan (Congress passed DCA '05, legally stripping them of jurisdiction, which SCOTUS then illegally usurped back from Congress). He will never understand that the Constitutionally defined Commander in Chief powers outweigh those powers the Court unilaterally gives itself.

He will not bother to understand the Court trampled on the Constitution in Hamdan with a murky application of international law, nor will he admit that they ignored the plain meaning of the Geneva Convention, which all but specifically exempts terrorists from Geneva protections under Article 4.1.2. To people like him, the Supreme Court, an un-elected body of political appointees, is the ultimate and unquestioned law of the land.

This is not how this nation was set up. The Court is but one of three co-equal branches of government, and it does not rule over the others. But my, oh my, it tries.

The Court in this decision pulls a trifecta. It ignores Congress, overreaches into the President's executive powers as Commander in Chief, and not content to stop there, decided a case based upon international law instead of following the U.S. Constitution.

And yet, people view the court to be infallible with an almost religious fervor, and actually think that the court protects our lives and liberties.

It doesn"t.

Tens of millions of men have protected our lives and liberties by putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle to stop the barbarians crashing the gates, while judges simply sat.

Don't tell me who guards my liberty. Is isn't a sleepy Ginsberg, or a decrepit Stevens, or a gesturing Scalia, or any other Supreme Court judge through the history of a Court that misunderstood for nearly 200 years the simple phrase, "that all men are created equal."

The people protecting my liberties are 20-year-olds with guts and guns.

In the end, the law is just a piece of paper, reflecting the ideas of a culture, and those ideas are not always just or fair or true. Often, despite the veneer of precedent and legalese, court decisions are arbitrary, capricious, dangerous and cruel.

The Hamdan decision is one such poor example, and highly why the Supreme Court is anything but infallible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:09 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Tour De Turtle Bay

Isn't it an almost perfect metaphor?

American power dominates for years over European interests, and is then accused of using underhanded nefarious means to achieve the pinnacle of success. We find out later that it was the Americans won because of our unmatched work ethic, while the Europeans who cried that we were cheating, were actually guilty themselves the entire time.

Sounds a bit like the Oil for Food Scandal, doesn"t it? Guess again:

France — Favorites Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and other cyclists were barred Friday from the Tour de France in the biggest doping scandal to hit cycling in years.
The decision to prevent Ullrich, Basso and others from racing threw the sport's premier race into upheaval the day before it begins.

Tour director Christian Prudhomme said the organizers' determination to fight doping was "total."

"The enemy is not cycling, the enemy is doping," he said.

Doping of course, is what seven-time American Tour De France Winner Lance Armstrong has repeatedly been accused of, and a charge he has repeatedly denied. Every time he has been vindicated, the latest time just four days ago.

Americans win, and continue to win, through unrelenting work, while soft, decadent western Europeans break the rules and still continue to come up short.

Someone please tell me why American liberals (John Kerry would be a prime example) so aspire to be like these people. Is cheating to lose that much fun?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 29, 2006

Defenders of Oppressors

Via U.S. Newswire:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

"The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."

Translates PunditGuy (via Hot Air):

'If you plan terrorist attacks against America, if you kill Americans in a successful terrorist attack, if you kill our troops in Iraq or on any battlefield, we, the Democratic Party, will defend your right to be defended.'

If terrorists maim and murder innocents by the thousands, anywhere on earth, the Democratic Party will rush to defend their rights under American law.

White flag. Yellow back. Brown pants. Your Democratic Party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:15 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Bush Loses Hamdan, SCOTUS Loses Its Mind

According to the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

I'm familiar with a saying that goes, “if you can keep your head, while everyone around you is losing theirs, then clearly, you don't understand the situation.”

When it comes to Hamdan, that is certainly the case for me.

Quite frankly, I've never been sure about the military tribunal route for terrorism suspects captured overseas. To me it either makes sense to try them as criminals in a federal court, hold them until hostilities were over (if we deem the Geneva Conventions apply), or execute them like rabid dogs (if we deem the Geneva Conventions don't apply). The tribunal route just seemed odd to my sensibilities.

Over at Hot Air, Allah seems confused:

So if they try him, they have to take him to federal court — but they don't have to try him? What?

He also notes this from SCOTUSBlog:

As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war -- and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons).

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Quite frankly, if SCOTUSBlog is correct in that SCOTUS is saying the Geneva Conventions apply to non-state terrorist entities, then the court is out of it's ever-lovin' mind.

What is then to keep them from applying the Conventions to other non-state groups? Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?

The message to the soldier in the field seems clear: Take no prisoners, and collect whatever intel you can gather off the bodies.

Great job, Stevens. I think it's time you retire.

Update: Stop the ACLU has a roundup.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:29 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 "This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia"

False. The CIA are not part of the US Armed Forces. The UCMJ and all relevant international treaties regarding the behavior of armed forces do not apply to them.

And what I got from the ruling this morning (I was on duty when the news broke) was that they could be tried by the military, but would have to be granted all rights and priveleges customary to a military trial, i.e. a court-martial, complete with judge, jury, and a defense lawyer. I'm perfectly ok with this and I think that CNN touting the ruling as "a huge defeat for the administration" is warped.

Posted by: Dawnfire82 at June 29, 2006 11:14 AM (RvTAf)

2 To paraphrase President Andrew Jackson, Justice John Paul Stevens has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at June 29, 2006 11:41 AM (lNB+R)

3 CY,

"What is then to keep them from applying the Conventions to other non-state groups? Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?"

We don't hold members of drug cartels in offshore prisons. We try them, convict them and put them in jail. Same for serial killers. Not so for our guests at Gitmo. This is about the separation of powers between the three branches of government.

Posted by: jordan at June 29, 2006 01:24 PM (vgzEN)

4 I agree with CY. There is no reason why we, the United States of America, the leader of the FREE world, should have a higher standard of humane treatment when it comes to prisoners then terrorist groups and drug cartels. Lowest common denominator and all that...Amazing how fragile our resolution to our own standards becomes when faced with someone who doesn't hold those same standards in regard and our eagerness to adopt their lower ones.

Posted by: matt a at June 29, 2006 02:57 PM (IHMpz)

5 This ruling is unconstitutional! For all intents and purposes, the Supreme
Court has entered the US into a treaty with a foreign, non-governmental entity.
The constitution expressly gives this authority to the President and congress.
Also this sets up a constitutional crisis because congress
passed the Detainee Treatment act which expressly
said that no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider

`(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or

`(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--

`(A) is currently in military custody; or

`(B) has been determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.'

I believe the president should follow the actions of Andrew Jackson and tell
Justice Stevens to stick it were the sun don’t shine.

Posted by: Radical Centrist at June 29, 2006 03:04 PM (iWRYt)

6 Great article, Bob.

Your trackbacks hate me. Called me a fruitcake

Posted by: William Teach at June 29, 2006 05:43 PM (doAuV)

7 I think Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters) hit on something here when he said, "SCOTUS seems to argue that we must violate the Geneva Conventions in order to uphold them."

Posted by: Jim at June 29, 2006 06:52 PM (YkmII)

8 So it's a matter of 'treaty obligation'. Could someone refresh my memory? When exactly did Al Qaeda sign a treaty? Did they sign it with us? Who signed it? I guess the only response to this is to order the military to shoot any and all enemy combatants who fail to wear an identifiable enemy uniform. That ought to clear out Gitmo, right quick. Geneva Convention says we can do it; USSC says we have to. Works for me.

Posted by: Tim at June 29, 2006 07:42 PM (WiHUE)

9 Can drug cartels now claim to be protected under Geneva? How about serial killers?

This resolves the debate. You are, in fact, that stupid.

Posted by: jpe at June 29, 2006 11:28 PM (qWiph)

10 Who's the stupid one, the one that writes blatent sarcasm or the one that runs with it that can't tell?

Posted by: Retired Navy at June 30, 2006 07:18 AM (elhVA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

WMD fired at Israel...Or Not?

Or so a Palestinian militant group claims (via Drudge):

A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.
The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.
The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.
"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

Silly al-Reuters reporters. They weren't supposed to release that story until tomorrow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 28, 2006

Resurrecting Ghosts

"Mothball Fleet."

Just hearing those words conjures up images of worn down, obsolete rusty freighters, decrepit warships, and sepia-tone pictures of half-sunken Liberty ships whose glory days have long since past.

They are the abandoned hulks and hulls no longer wanted or needed, destined for an ignoble end at the bottom of the sea after being used as a naval target, or at the end of a scrapyard's cutting torch.

But what if some of these grizzled veterans of wars past still had a story left to tell? What if some of these salt-flecked graybeards of the fleet still have a purpose, and can be called forth once more?

Finding that purpose is the calling of Ward Brewer, CEO of a little-known and unheralded non-profit Beauchamp Tower Corporation (BTC). Operation Enduring Service, the program started to press these aging ships back into service, began with a glance at a picture on a wall. As the Operation Enduring Service web site explains:

A 1944 Will Cressy lithograph of the USS Orion, which hung on James Gulley's living room wall since he returned from the war, now hangs on his grandson's office wall. In April of 2002, while working on his company's National Emergency Urban Interface Program, a momentary glance at that picture drew Ward's attention.

Taking a break from working on the company's emergency response program, Ward began searching for the USS Orion on the Internet to find out more about her. Several sites had pictures and brief histories of the USS Orion as well as other Fulton Class Submarine Tenders. There was one site, however, that would dramatically change future events. The USS Torsk Volunteers had been aboard the USS Orion in order to obtain various parts that were needed for the continued restoration of their submarine. While searching the ship, the "Torsk Bandits" as they called themselves, took numerous pictures of the USS Orion. It was these pictures that caught Ward Brewer's eye.

The USS Orion was built like a small city, carrying with her everything she could possibly need to perform her mission. It was all there, Machine Shops, Foundry, Electronics, Utilities, Berthing, Galleys, etc. This incredible concentration of capabilities made the USS Orion and her Fulton Class sister ships efficient, effective, and one of the most versatile assets in the United States Navy. It was the versatility and unique assets of these ships that resulted in Ward Brewer considering a project design so bold and unusual that few would believe it was even possible.

Brewer's general concept was simple; save these aging ships from the scrapyard, and refit them with the most modern technologies this generation can bring to bear to create a small fleet of ultra-capable disaster response and recovery ships.

The Fulton-class of Submarine Tenders was Brewer's first choice for this mission, but as more modern ships began to retire, the Mars-class Combat Stores Ship became the most logical choice to be refitted as the very first purpose-built Fast Attack Disaster Response Ships.

The former USNS San Diego may be the very first of this new breed of ships.

Outfitted with an emergency response center, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations center and a land/sea/air communications center than can coordinate across military, law enforcement and civilian radio frequencies, this ship will be the coordinating hub of disaster response in coming hurricane seasons, working with FEMA, the Coast Guard, Salvation Army and other organizations that response to the worse storms Mother Nature can throw at Gulf and East Coast states.

Able to provide food, water, fuel and emergency supplies to an area measuring of thousands of square miles, these ships will be able to do what no agency in any country has ever been capable of doing.

The problem, of course, is securing these aging vessels and finding a way to finance their refitting and return to duty.

Operation Enduring Service has long been pushing the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) to release a substantial number of ships to Beauchamp Tower Corporation from the James River and Suisun Bay National Defense Reserve Fleets.

National Defense Reserve Fleet, Suisian Bay, California

National Defense Reserve Fleet, James River, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

Ships of historical significance—particularly World War II-era ships—would be brought back to period standards and used as museum ships, providing future generations insights into how the Greatest Generation fought to preserve this nation's freedoms. A handful of vessels such as the USNS San Diego would be refitted for emergency response.

A substantial part of the operation—both museum ships and modernized disaster response vessels—would be financed by selling the salvage and scrapping rights to other vessels too far gone to be of further use except for as recycled raw materials. The total cost of this program to taxpayers?

Not one dime.

The salvage and scrapping of those vessels beyond their useful days will partially finance both the historical and rescue operations, with the rest of the costs being absorbed by the deep pockets of major corporate donors already committed to Beauchamp Tower Corporation.

As fantastic as it sounds, the operation will actually save the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars that the Maritime Administration has been paying to companies across the Atlantic to tow away and dispose of ships as American shipyards want for work.

* * *

Long-time readers of this site know that I've been trying to do my small part to help make Operation Enduring Service a reality, as I've been writing posts advocating readers to help pressure Congressmen and Senators for support about it off and on since early November of last year.

Back in March I had something of an idea, an alternative to harassing Congressmen, and being in near daily contact with Brewer (who I have since come to regard as a long-distance friend) I passed that idea along. I then more or less stopped my public advocacy for this project, even as that idea went to the right people and things began to get a bit more interesting (to put it mildly) behind the scenes.

It pains me as a blogger to sit on a good idea, but I've done just that thus far. If things go as planned, I should be able to break that silence very, very soon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 27, 2006

A Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

Poor Glenn Greenwald. It seems that he has once and for all stepped away from the land of the credible, and his latest missive on reaction to the New York Times banking story blowback makes that painfully obvious:

Any doubts about whether the Bush administration intends to imprison unfriendly journalists (defined as "journalists who fail to obey the Bush administration's orders about what to publish") were completely dispelled this weekend. As I have noted many times before, one of the most significant dangers our country faces is the all-out war now being waged on our nation's media -- and thereby on the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press -- by the Bush administration and its supporters, who are furious that the media continues to expose controversial government policies and thereby subject them to democratic debate. After the unlimited outpouring of venomous attacks on the Times this weekend, I believe these attacks on our free press have become the country's most pressing political issue.

Any doubts have been dispelled, eh, Glenn? By this, I would be so bold as to infer that you have concrete proof of your allegation that the President has the intention to thrown journalists in jail. Certainly, you would not be so bold as to make such a wild accusation without so much as a shred of proof. Why, such a strong claim, without any evidentiary support whatsoever, would be absolutely Leopoldian.

Sadly, the condition seems degenerative:

Documenting the violent rhetoric and truly extremist calls for imprisonment against the Times is unnecessary for anyone paying even minimal attention the last few days. On every cable news show, pundits and even journalists talked openly about whether the editors and reporters of the Times were traitors deserving criminal punishment. The Weekly Standard, always a bellwether of Bush administration thinking, is now actively crusading for criminal prosecution against the Times. And dark insinuations that the Times ought to be physically attacked are no longer the exclusive province of best-selling right-wing author Ann Coulter, but -- as Hume's Ghost recently documented -- are now commonly expressed sentiments among all sorts of "mainstream" Bush supporters. Bush supporters are now engaged in all-out, unlimited warfare against journalists who are hostile to the administration and who fail to adhere to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief about what to print.

"All-out, unlimited warfare against journalists..." Well, that would certainly explain why the CNN Building in downtown Atlanta was just leveled by Tomahawk cruise missiles, and why Navy SEAL 13.5 (Documents and Records) are presently engaged in a fierce, close-quarters battle against the Times editorial staff in the brie cooler.

Oh wait... none of that is happening.

Greenwald's article presumably continues after that point, but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would care.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Biodegradable Journalism

I see the AP's Laurie Kellman has an article up today about the President's use of signing statements.

Compared to the earlier works that unsuccessfully attempted to gin up controversy on this subject, I find Kellman's recycling attempt to be uninspired.

Personally, I found the April 30 story in the Boston Globe to be better written from the liberal hysteria point-of-view, and so I'm a little disappointed that Kellman didn't improve it. Material collected from the April Globe article, Lithwick's timeless hyperventilating on January 30 in Slate, or the snarky January 2 article in the Washington Post, really should have enabled her to come out with a stronger post-consumer recycled product.

Instead, it appears that far from being 100% recyclable, this attempt seems destined for composting. I guess some media stories aren't all that recyclable after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:09 PM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Taking Money From Crackers

That seems to be the "sin" that so shocked Washington Post staff writer Mathew Mosk. A black conservative candidate actually accepted campaign contributions from white conservative donors. Oh, Bartleby! Oh, Humanity!

Not one to waste time, Mosk starts race-baiting out of the gate:

The fundraiser thrown for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele on Thursday night, while ordinary in most ways, struck some African American leaders as notable because of the host.

Unlike the dozens of high-dollar events across the country in his U.S. Senate bid, this event was thrown by the producer of the famous "Willie Horton" ad, the 1988 commercial that came to symbolize the cynical use of skin color as a political wedge.

It seemed a most unusual choice for Steele, the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland and a Republican whose strategy for winning a Senate seat in a state dominated by Democrats has involved the aggressive courtship of black voters.

I was in high school when the Horton commercial came out and honestly don't remember it, but this is what Wikipedia had to say about Mr. Horton:

William R. Horton Jr. (born August 12, 1951 in Chesterfield, South Carolina) is a convicted felon who was the subject of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program that released him while serving a life sentence for murder, without the possibility of parole, providing him the opportunity to commit a rape and armed robbery. A political advertisement during the 1988 U.S. Presidential race was critical of the Democratic nominee and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis for his support of the program.

[snip]

Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running an attack ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menacing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image "every suburban mother's greatest fear." The ad was run as an independent expenditure, separate from the Bush campaign, which claimed, as is legally required, not to have had any role in its production.

On October 5, a day after the "Weekend Passes" ad was taken off the airwaves, and also the date of the infamous Bentsen-Quayle debate, the Bush campaign ran its own ad, "Revolving Door," which also attacked Dukakis over the weekend furlough program. While the advertisement did not mention Horton or feature his photograph, it depicted a variety of intimidating-looking men walking in and out of prison through a revolving door.

The commercial was filmed at an actual state prison in Draper, Utah, but the persons depicted - thirty in all, including three African-Americans and two Hispanics - were all paid actors. Attempting to counter-attack, Dukakis's campaign ran a similar ad about a Hispanic murderer named Angel Medrano who murdered a pregnant mother of two while on furlough from a federal, rather than state, prison, the idea being that this would reflect negatively on Bush, who was the sitting Vice-President. Dukakis's ad stated Medrano's name and showed his photograph.

So while the effectiveness of the Horton commercial made Americans remember it as a symbol of using race as a wedge, both Parties were guilty of using racism in their 1988 campaigns. Republicans just had the more memorable commercial. It is interesting how the Post writer chose not to cover both sides of this low point in American politics, but considering his already obvious agenda, it should hardly be surprising.

Mosk makes his angle even more apparent just a few paragraphs down:

Nor, Steele said, was there anything incongruous about donations he took from others who have offended black audiences in the past, including Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.) as well as Alex Castellanos, the man behind the racially charged "White Hands" ad that then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) used to attack his black challenger.

It featured a close-up shot of a pair of white hands crumpling a letter as the narrator says, "You needed that job . . . but they had to give it to a minority."

Perhaps the Washington Post could find a more thinly-veiled way to attempt to label Michael Steele as a race traitor, but short of directly calling him "Uncle Tom" (as Maryland Democrats have already done), I'm not sure that they could.

Having gone so far to smear Steele, Mosk apparently felt no compunction to maintain historical accuracy when the opportunity arises to smear others.

Democrats said there are several names on Steele's donor list that won't help him. It includes Lott, who lost his leadership post for seeming to endorse Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential candidacy, and Burns, who drew sharp criticism for saying he found it "a hell of a challenge" to live among all the blacks in Washington, D.C.

Steele also has received support from former Reagan administration education secretary William J. Bennett, who was criticized for suggesting that aborting black babies would help reduce crime, and former first lady Barbara Bush, who turned heads when she mused that mostly African American evacuees from Katrina living at a Houston shelter "were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Steele accepted $1,000 from Castellanos, the man behind the "White Hands" ad.

"Having that kind of support sends mixed messages and are going to make it very difficult for him to make inroads with African American voters," said Isiah Leggett, a former state Democratic Party chairman. "He should be smart enough to see the inconsistency there."

Mixed messages? Inconsistency? Mr. Mosk, you have no shame.

Trent Lott's comments on Thurmond's 100th birthday rightfully cost him his seat as the Senate Republican Leader, in a Senate that today counts Democratic Senator and former Klansman Robert Byrd as its longest serving member.

Burns was hammered and rightfully so, for the way he responded to an elderly racist rancher's question about how he could live in Washington, D.C.. Perhaps he simply should have ignored him.

The attack on William Bennett, however, was dishonest. Bennett did not suggest aborting black babies would reduce crime, he pointed out how ridiculous it would be to abort black children to reduce crime. For that matter, if you aborted all children, your crime rate would go down to zero because there would be no people to commit crimes. Common sense, ripped completely out of context, trotted out by Mosk to continue a reprehensible line of attack. He may be morally bankrupt, but at least he's consistent.

After a half-hearted feint at objectivity that was quickly revealed as a strawman, and a vague warning to black voters that "People are going to want to know where he stands, and who stands with him [my emphasis]," Mosk concludes:

To this point, Democrats vying to challenge Steele in the Senate race have focused on the money Steele has received from those with ties to President Bush. Their accusation: that Steele is campaigning as someone without partisan ties but is being bankrolled by Bush and his supporters.

Steele has countered that the money does not make the man -- that Bush's name won't be on the ballot in Maryland and Bush won't occupy the Senate seat if Steele wins. The same holds true for such donors as Lott and Burns, Steele said last week.

The important message he has for black voters, he said, "is that it will make a difference for them to have me at the table."

Not to belabor the pot-and-kettle too much, Democrats aren't the only people focusing on contributors to Steel's campaign. That is after all, the very idea that Mosk's article seeks to advance. How much further could he reveal his strong Democratic bias?

Liberal blogger Steve Gilliard is perfectly content to be led to follow Mosk's script. He puts up a picture of Steele with the caption, "I take money from racists."

Gilliard would know. He is, after all something of an expert on racism.

Either you're a black Democrat, o you're a race traitor, says Gilliard.

We learned from Clarence Thomas about how skin color doesn't equal loyalty.

I think Matthew Mosk just found his reader base.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:44 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3517 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.3381 seconds, 137 records returned.
Page size 152 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.