Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality - oh, wait a minute - yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really - to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate - by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point - he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud - from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow - where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barrack Obama/June 2008

Yup, the Democratic National Committee has outdone themselves with their preparations for their upcoming National Convention in a few weeks. They thought of everything… balloons, barbed wire cages, confetti, stun guns, and those funny hats we all love to see! The Convention will also have lot of speeches extolling the lofty visions of civil rights and personal liberties the Democratic party is so fond of protecting, you know, liberties like free speech, the right to protest, that kind warm and fuzzy democracy stuff. My heart just swells with pride when I read this stuff on their blog:
& lt;h3>The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Civil Rights

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

The Party Platform

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.

Wait…did someone say something about stun guns and cages? No, that can’t be…not the party of freedom and liberty!

The problem is, old Howie didn’t think this through…he didn’t think that rounding up hundreds or thousands of protesters and throwing them in a barbed wire cage in a warehouse on the outskirts of town might not be the message they want to send to those wanting to donate to their party . Not to mention, it goes against all those so-called principals and “visions” of theirs. He also didn’t think his dirty little secret about these cages would be made public.

Damned reporters! Damned free speech!

Not to worry, Howard Dean has this all figured out, he’ll let the Denver Police handle this. They will be passing out flyer’s to all the protesters so they can be told of their rights. So, there ya go! The pretty little piece of paper says we DO have rights to protest! Ain’t America great?

YOUR RIGHTS TO DEMONSTRATE AND PROTEST

Can my free speech rights be restricted
because of what I want to say – even if it’s
controversial ?

No. The First Amendment prohibits
restrictions based on the content of speech.
Police and government officials are allowed
to place non-discriminatory and narrowly
drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions
on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are
constitutionally protected in traditional
“public forums” such as public sidewalks
and parks. Public streets can be used for
marches subject to compliance with the
City’s permitting process.

Where can you engage in free speech activity? Anywhere you want as long as you freely state that you are going to vote for Obama, otherwise…get in the cage until you’re ready to act like an American, dammit!

Let’s see what other rights the demonstrators will have….

What other types of free speech activity are
constitutionally protected?

The First Amendment can, under certain
circumstances, protect communication such
as theater, music, film and dance. Symbolic
acts and civil disobedience that involve
illegal conduct may be outside the realm of
constitutional protection and may lead to
0Acitation and/or arrest. This may include, but
is not limited to, blocking streets, sidewalks
or parades or disrupting public assemblies.

Hmmm…so it sounds like a large group of people protesting could not be on the streets or the sidewalks or they can given a citation/and or arrest. So, they have two choices. They can either levitate so they’re not on the streets or sidewalks, or come wearing costumes and tell the cops they’re doing street theater.

Can I be cited or arrested during a

demonstration?

Yes, if you engage in unlawful behavior
including, but not limited to, such as
blocking streets, sidewalks or parades,
disrupting public assemblies or ignoring
lawful orders to disperse.

Okey-Dokey, so unlawful behavior is defined as blocking streets…check, sidewalks or parades…check, disrupting public assemblies…check, or ignoring lawful order to disperse…check. I’ve got it now. Let’s not forget the vague text that arrest is not limited to just that, they can also arrest you if you look like you aren’t “unified” with the DNC. In other words, you have no civil liberties in the eyes of the Denver Police or in the eyes of Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, Donna Brazille, or Nancy Pelosi. Check and double check.

The American Civil Liberties Union seemed to be a bit dismayed. They want to know where the bathrooms are, will the “prisoners” have something to eat or drink (they were not told how long they will hold the protesters in these barbed wire cages), will they have access to their lawyers, and will they have telephones? Details….details, who needs details when you have flyer’s, police in riot gear, and barbed wire cages?

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!”-The Untouchables/1987

NOTES ABOUT THE DNC: It seems that after Obama took over the DNC and got his hands on their mailing list, he sent out an e-mail telling Democrats to give to his campaign and not the DNC. Well, since he decided that he didn’t want their public funding, they are now virtually broke. The money they have will barely cover the payroll and a few field advisor’s. There will not be enough cash to be able to fund thousands of field offices, like they have in the past. Ooops! Larry Johnson has a post that tells you all about it.

More bad news for the DNC….

Sen. John McCain has so much spare cash on hand — he collected a record $27 million in July — that the Republican candidate plans to run campaign ads during the networks’ coverage of the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Because Mr. McCain has agreed to accept $84 million in public financing for the general election, the presumptive presidential nominee has only until Sept. 4, when he accepts his party’s nomination, to spend the more than $21 million he has on hand.

“We continue to have record months of fundraising. This is now the fifth month in a row that we have exceeded the month before,” said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. The candidate’s advertising budget for August is expected to exceed $20 million, he said, and, by the Republican convention, Mr. McCain is on track to spend some $60 million on TV advertising during the whole primary campaign.

Hat tip to Pat Racimora of No Quarter for the info on the Denver Police flyer.

Another hat tip to Uppity Woman who also wrote about Gitmo on the Platte, her blog is always chock full of up to the moment news about this election.

(NOTE: I’m sorry, but due to a family emergency, I will not be here to respond to your comments, please forgive my absence and thank you for reading my post!)

First off, many hearty congratulations to Sidney Blumenthal on being part of an Oscar-winning team. Mazel tov from your admirers and well-wishers.

With those sunny words out of the way, on to the meat of the matter.

What a powerful, sickening, maddening, and thoroughly disturbing experience this film is. As a journalist, I’m amazed at the access Alex Gibney and his people were given to interview subjects — how the hell did he convince those soldiers to talk?? — and to the footage from the groteque gulags otherwise known as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Most of all, however, this is a film that induces not only anger and disgust but profound shame - shame that we live in a country whose leaders could condone such activity, shame that so few were willing to stand up and say “no more”; shame that “American justice” is now synonymous with suspension of habeas corpus, torture, homicide by interrogation; shame that the press has been so slow to shine a light on who these prisoners, labeled “the worst of the worst” so often that the public swallows this propaganda like mother’s milk, actually are…the list goes on and on.

But perhaps one of the most bitterly ironic images in the film is that of a young John McCain, his body so broken and ravaged by torture that he was barely able to speak. Fast forward 30 years and look at where we are as a country, using techniques that were perfected during the Spanish Inquisition on men who were, for the most part, in the wrong place at the wrong time, sold into captivity by warlords and corrupt soldiers and other crooks to the Americans for money.

Which means America has become a party to one of the grimmest human trafficking rings on the planet.

Watch this film. Get angry. And then do something. Anything.

Anyway, let’s say that this alien wanted to get the lowdown on the presidential race so far. Let’s also say that it (the alien) isn’t satisfied with the “change” slogan. Remember, this species is clever. The alien doesn’t understand why it’s necessary to repeat the word “change” over and over again when it stands to reason that when one President leaves office and another takes his/her place that constitutes “change”. So forget change.<>

The alien would like someone to provide five simple bullet points summarizing Obama’s platform, and perhaps a few words on how the Senator plans to achieve his goals (i.e., tax cuts, tax increases, troop withdrawal timetable, Guantanamo closure timetable). Remember, the Zortonian wants to know solely about Barack Obama, and it wants specifics. So please help our friend from Zorton. And hey, if you’re an Obama supporter trying to trawl for converts, maybe you’ll accomplish that as well. You never know.

The comment section is open and ready for your input.

UPDATED COMMENT FROM LARRY JOHNSON:  Man, DCMedia Girl, you rock.  What a funny but insightful piece.  Kudos to jacek and grannyhelen for making serious efforts to have a substantive policy discussion.  Worth reading what both had to say.  Bad on Banquos Ghost.  Dude, seriously, calm down and simply answer DCMedia Girl’s challenge.  It is very simple and reasonable.  Your refusal to accept the challenge suggests that you don’t know what to say or that there is really no substance on the part of Obama.  Thanks to jacek, at least some substance can be attributed to Obama.

Finally, the truth is seeping out. Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily—if inadvertently—admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors “enduring”) military bases.

He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law’s prohibition against expending funds:

“(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or

“(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

But, if you have been asleep for the past five years, you may ask, what about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its ties to al-Qaeda? A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that Bush made 260 false claims about these in the two years following 9/11. He was followed closely by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell with 254. Nor can they any longer pretend they were deceived by faulty intelligence, since hard evidence that continues to accumulate shows they knew exactly what they were doing.

Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that the “surge” of 30,000 troops into Iraq was aimed—pure and simple—at staving off definitive defeat until Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are safely out of office. Some, but not all, of those 30,000 troops are slated for withdrawal, but those who still expect more sizable withdrawals have not been reading the tea leaves. It is altogether likely there will still be 150,000 U.S. troops, and even more than that number of contractors, in Iraq a year from now.

In the administration’s view, the oil-and-bases prize is well worth the indignity of refereeing a civil war and additional troop casualties. That view was reflected recently in the words of a well-heeled suburbanite, who suggested to me, “You must concede that a few GIs killed every week is a small price to pay for the oil we need. Many more died in Vietnam, and there wasn’t even any oil there.”

That person was unusually blunt, but I believe his thinking may be widely shared, at least subconsciously, by those Americans who are not directly affected by the war—which is to say he vast majority. It is easier to assimilate and parrot the administration’s dishonesty than to confront the reality that these are consequential lies. They bring untold death and destruction—and not only in Iraq, where several hundred thousand civilians are dead and one out of six families have been displaced—but to thousands of our fellow citizens as well.

The Human Cost

Not only have almost 4,000 American troops been killed, but another 30,000 have been wounded in action. Veterans Administration documents obtained by Veterans for Common Sense show that nearly 264,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans already have been treated at VA hospitals, including more than 100,000 for mental health conditions.

According to a Harvard University report, the VA is projected to spend up to $700 billion over the next 40 years for medical care and disability payments for veterans of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add the billions sunk every week into the quagmire of Iraq—it is madness.

We are approaching a trillion-dollar war, while our Treasury is bankrupt, our economy is in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbles. The only things on an upward swing are the profits of oil companies…and suicides in the military.

For a fraction of the money wasted on an un-winnable occupation-cum-armed-referee-duty in Iraq, premium health care could be provided to every American, including veterans, whom we owe big time, and the almost 50 million of our brothers and sisters who lack health insurance.

The iniquities of war have widened the inequities in our society, stretching the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is not right for me, one of the haves, to have so disproportionate a share of the nation’s wealth and opportunity. Nowhere is this more obvious than the access to excellent health care to which privilege has “entitled” me. A recently discovered challenge to my health brought this home to me like a ton of bricks.

Why Me?

The doctors said they needed more tissue from what they called the “mass” in my lower abdomen, so they could determine what kind of cancer had set up shop there. There was some sense of urgency, so just days later a surgeon made room for me at the end of a very busy New Year’s Eve.

The cutting was over; the stitches were in; the pain was slight; and there I was, wide awake in a comfortable hospital room, welcoming 2008 with painful questions.

For the hundredth time I found myself asking, Why me?

But wait—it may not be what you’re thinking.

The troubling question was why was I privileged to have prompt access to the best in medical care, when such is not available to most of our veterans and some 50 million other Americans. We are called to be concerned about our brothers and sisters. It did not seem fair.

Why was it that I could expect excellent doctors to plan a therapy regime that would probably shrink the grapefruit-sized cancerous “mass” and add still more years to my 68? What about the others? Without access to good doctors and advanced medical technology, is it likely that they would not become of their “mass” until it was the size of a melon—and perhaps too late?

Waking Up

The anesthesia had worn off, and the only real discomfort came from the dangling questions. December had brought surprise and new awareness. I needed some quiet time to process it all, and the turn of the year seemed appropriate. So I turned off the TV and scribbled what follows.

To hear I had been invaded by cancer was a bummer. But from the very start that unwelcome surprise was softened by awareness that I was one of the lucky ones. No, not “lucky”—privileged.

A health insurance card lay in the white knapsack full of privilege that I carry around with me, usually without much awareness on my part. The voice of conscience was whispering that it is not right to be unaware. One out of six Americans have no insurance card in their knapsack or in the plastic bag that serves as their chest of drawers. Is that the America of which we were once so proud?

It started with my swollen right leg. No big deal, I thought; I had simply sprained that ankle too many times playing basketball. And besides, varicose veins run in my family. Small wonder my blood was having trouble circulating down that way.

But at my annual physical my doctor saw it differently. We needed to find out what was causing the swelling. Sclerotherapy, a sophisticated, expensive procedure seemed indicated, but would my insurance cover it? It would, so we went ahead.

But the swelling got worse, suggesting some kind of blockage higher up. Enter the world of multimillion-dollar technology—CT-scan, PET-scan, and pinpointing of the mass, followed quickly by a needle biopsy. All covered by insurance.

It looked like lymphoma. But the oncologist wanted to be sure of exactly what variety of lymphoma it was before he decided what the optimum treatment regime might be. Hence, the New Year’s Eve surgery and extraction of tissue immediately dispatched to the Mayo Clinic for a thorough pathology report. See what I mean about privileged?

Stress Tests…

My thoughts went back to the thallium stress test before the surgery. The nurses injected some dye and measured my heart on an accelerating treadmill to induce stress. They encouraged me, and stood ready to catch me if I fell off. I found myself thinking of less benign ways to induce stress—stress positions, sensory deprivation, and what President Bush calls “an alternative set of procedures.” And my thoughts went to Guantanamo and the hundreds of prisoners flown there in shackles with no assurance they would survive the kind of deliberately induced stress they would encounter there.

And then they strapped me onto a narrow gurney where I had to remain still for twenty minutes while another million-dollar machine hovered low over my chest and took pictures. There were two technicians and nurses there to ensure my comfort and allay my concerns. And I thought of the gurneys of Guantanamo and the strapped-in prisoners surrounded by other kinds of folks, including physicians and psychologists who, in a mockery of the Hippocratic oath, do their best to inflict, not alleviate pain.

…and Suicide

I also thought of the two dozen Guantanamo detainees who tried to starve themselves to death two and a half years ago. They, too, were strapped onto gurneys, while thick plastic tubes were forced through their noses to force-feed enough nourishment to keep them alive, lest the Bush administration be embarrassed. On June 10, 2006 three detainees did succeed in hanging themselves, the first successful suicides after 41attempts by some 25 individual detainees.

Those detainees’ hope was for the release that comes with death; I could hope for healing.

The three who killed themselves incurred the wrath of Guantanamo commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., who announced that the suicides were “not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare against us.” In similar spirit, Colleen Graffy, deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC that the suicides “certainly (are) a good PR move to draw attention.”

I wonder how Graffy would describe the actions of those U.S. veterans experiencing such suffering that they, too, commit suicide. A CBS study showed that in 2005 alone, 6,256 veterans of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan took their own lives, many of them after experiencing very long waiting lines for medical treatment. That is an average of 17 suicides a day. Shame on us!

As for those on active duty, “Soldier Suicide at Record Level,” a report by the Washington Post’s Dana Priest on Jan. 31, shows that in 2007 suicides among active duty soldiers reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980.

Army 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, 25, made the most recent known suicide attempt. On Monday evening, as the president gave his State-of-the-Union address, Whiteside swallowed dozens of antidepressants and other pills, after leaving a note expressing the hope that “this will help other soldiers.” Thanks to a Good Samaritan neighbor, who quickly called Walter Reed Army Medical Center authorities, Whiteside’s survived. She has now been transferred from the intensive care unit to the psychiatric ward.

Lt. Whiteside is a high achieving graduate of the University of Virginia and had been given high ratings by her Army superiors. She decided to talk to Dana Priest late last year, after a soldier Whiteside had befriended at the psychiatric ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center hanged herself after being discharged without benefits.

Blame

Many U.S. servicemen and women can blame their cancer on contamination from the depleted uranium used in artillery and other shells and toxic chemicals that have saturated regions of Iraq, including populated areas, leading to a spurt of cancer illnesses.

Against this background, I reflected on how fortunate I was that the cause of the cancer that had invaded me would probably remain a mystery. I wondered how it would feel to be able to trace a fatal disease to the instruments of war; how it would feel to be an Iraqi parent watching a child die of cancer, or living in fear that a new child might be born with serious birth defects.

No, I cannot blame my illness on someone’s negligence, or cavalier disregard of the consequences of highly toxic weaponry. But thousands of Iraqis can. And so, too, can those U.S. troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq—including in the virtually “casualty-less” Gulf War in 1991. How many Americans are aware that, of the almost 700,000 deployed to theater during the 1991 Gulf War, roughly one in three has sought medical care from the VA?

You didn’t know that? Please ask yourself why.

Higher Powers and Favorite Philosophers

President Bush has recently taken to talking again about his “higher power” and redemption.

The higher power with whom I try to stay in touch is concerned first and foremost with justice and then (only then) peace. In the biblical sense, peace is no more nor less than the experience of justice.

I would guess the Bush’s higher power was appalled at the Coliseum-type spectacle Monday evening, as the President of the United States played cheerleader for Team America killing still more people—to standing ovations from his supporters in Congress.

Nor would the person President Bush has called his “favorite political philosopher,” Jesus of Nazareth, be likely to endorse the spectacle, much less join in. He had a pretty clear take on all this.

As we reflect on the growing inequality in this country, manifested so clearly in whether or not one has access to quality health care, we might remind the president of what his favorite philosopher had to say about goats—not as in “My Pet Goat,” but goats portrayed as lining up for a serious, long-term “alternative set of procedures.”

And the goats will turn and ask: ‘Lord, when did we see you…ill…and not attend to your needs?’
And he will answer: ‘As often as you neglected to do it for the least of these, you neglected to do it for me.’ (Matthew 25)
————————————————
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the Sixties and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. In Jan. 2003, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

A shorter version of this article was posted Thursday on Consortiumnews.com.

EVENING UPDATES:

     (1) “[T]he Senate-House Intelligence Conference voted today to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all detainee issues in interrogation and detention methods — or ‘the law of the land’ as my source told me. That means for the CIA and all branches of the national security, military, and intelligence establishment.” - Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
     (2) Tomorrow, Steve Clemons will write about “the powerful and disturbing film Taxi to the Dark Side and the discussion we had this evening with director Alex Gibney, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, former Abu Ghraib and Bergram* military intelligence interrogator Damian Corsetti, and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.” (I remember the story of the horrific, incalculably cruel torture and murder of the hapless, innocent Afghan taxi driver, but didn’t know a documentary has been filmed, with interviews of several military personnel.) The documentary’s creator also did Enron.
     The author of Salon’s review, “Beyond the Multiplex,” notes that the documentary’s creator hoped that showing how the “[Bush] administration has eviscerated the Constitution, and abandoned basic tenets of human rights and human dignity, [would provoke] some constructive rage. But right there on the sidewalk, my rage was not constructive. I wanted to get stinking drunk in some dead-end bar. …” U.S. premiere dates via IMDB: 11 January 2008 (New York City, New York) and 18 January 2008 (Los Angeles, California).
     [*Susan's Note: I think Steve meant to type Bagram, the base in Afghanistan where the taxi driver was beaten for days before he died.]

ORIGINAL: The Supreme Court, and the number FIVE. Here are the ages of the current nine justices:

What was it that reminded me that the next president will very likely appoint one, perhaps two, new justices? Last night, I watched BBC World News America’s and PBS Newshour’s coverage of the court’s hearing of arguments yesterday on “whether terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in court.”

I listened to the commentary of Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. Professor Katyai “successfully argued the 2006 Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the Bush administration’s military tribunals system.” About yesterday’s arguments, Prof. Katyai observed:

NEAL KATYAL, Professor, Georgetown University: Yes, I think that the Supreme Court took this case to answer the big meta-question, which is, does the Constitution give any rights to the people at Guantanamo Bay?

The Bush administration for years has said no. That’s, after all, why they put them there. They put them there because they thought that Guantanamo was a Constitution-free zone.

The Supreme Court has been pushing back at that incrementally for years, but I think today’s hearing, despite all the arcane, technical acronyms and so on, is about that basic, fundamental question: Can the government do whatever its wants to these 300 or so detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or does the Constitution protect them?

Here’s where Prof. Katyai mentioned the critical number FIVE:

[W]hat I understood the Supreme Court to basically be saying today through their questioning was that there are five justices who believe that big question — “Does the Constitution apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, at least its fundamental guarantees?” — the answer to that is yes.

And then the question becomes, what should the court do then? Should they then settle some of the detainees’ claims themselves, or should they send it back to the lower court for further proceedings?

But my sense is that’s really where the debate is going to lie and not where the Bush administration would like it to be, which is to say Guantanamo is a Constitution-free zone. …

We can quibble and bemoan the various records and traits of the presidential candidates.

But, come November 2008, please think of the number FIVE when you vote for president.

All of us who have followed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the African embassy bombings know that the U.S. justice system — even with all of its protections for defendants and its guarantee that the accused may face their accusers — worked. It worked.

All of us know that there is no logical or security-related reason for extra-Constitutional treatment of detainees.

And all of us know that the mere existence of Guantanamo stains the reputation and standing of the United States around the world, and denies all that our Founding Fathers created and envisioned for this country.

:::::::::::::::::::::

P.S. If you choose not to vote, or to vote for some third-party candidate, you may be handing the presidency to a candidate who promises to appoint another Scalia or Thomas. Such a candidate would be, say, Mitt Romney who today decried the “religion” of secularism. Here’s that table again:

NOTE that the two justices that Pres. George W. Bush has appointed are both in their 50s. They’re going to be kickin’ around for probably another 20 to 30 years.