jrtom: (Default)

I grant you that some of them are a bit sparse in description, but hell, there are 400 of them.

Sadly, we've got enough other crap going on right now--much of which due to the above--that I'm not sure he'll ever get the indictments, much less the jail time, he deserves.
jrtom: (Default)

Senator John McCain, now the Republican presidential nominee, has been an outspoken opponent of torture from his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In this case, however, he supported the administration’s position, arguing as Mr. Bush did on Saturday that legislation would have limited the C.I.A.’s ability to gather intelligence.

Not so much, any more.

(This isn't really news. But it's a nice, concise, recent example.)
jrtom: (Default)

"I thought long and hard about what it is like to be a leader of a country that has been torn asunder by a tyrant...broke up families to stay in power..."


*sardonic look*
jrtom: (Default)

linking to

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/ (currently soaked as of this writing)



quoting from the article:

"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."

Any questions? Anyone still don't think they need to vote this coming Tuesday?

(Some have suggested that this is being done in case another Katrina happens, to address the supposed problem in which no one had both the will and the authority to call in the troops to help out. If I had any reason to believe that the Bush administration had taken Katrina seriously ahead of time, I might buy this. I don't.)
jrtom: (Default)
"...They are lies, that imperil us all."

"And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?"

jrtom: (Default)

Not really surprising when phrased that way, but nevertheless I find the policy statements made a bit alarming for a couple of reasons:

(1) It sounds like it's setting the stage for a belligerent response the next time that someone messes with one of our satellites (which I believe that the PRC may do on a regular basis).

(2) We're essentially reserving the right to blow someone else's space capability out of the sky if we feel like it.

(3) This quote I find particularly concerning because of its phrasing: "The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests," the policy said.

_That_ sounds like they're expecting an attack on our launching facilities (or some other ground-based space-related installation), and are, again, positioning themselves to have a pre-rolled excuse. (Possibly an October Surprise, if it's not too late for that.)

Or am I just being paranoid? (Bush certainly makes that stance an easy one to fall into...)


jrtom: (Default)

May 2011

1516 1718192021
29 3031    


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 18 April 2019 12:27
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios