The Arab Unification Movement?

Arabs are gravitating toward their historic track of unifying in the interest of a common ideology. And it is important to truly understand that these ideological aspirations are largely religious and not political. For the Arab nations, the price for a democratic society is a commitment to peace. Do we really see coming to fruition, an Arab nation that trades an ingrained ideological governance for a political structure that opposes it? It would be wonderful, if possible. The reality being, this notion has great power in theory - and near impossible hurdles in practical application. We are surgically implanting democracy and the body Arab is rejecting it.

It is simply a fact that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has changed the landscape in the Arab nations, re-igniting their ultimate goal to obliterate Israel and militant goals to spread the disease that is terrorism. Even moderate Arab states are already riding the fence and beginning to fall squarely on the side of Arab demand to rise up against Israel and the United States.

A highly significant dynamic is occurring now in Iraq. Perhaps they are an Arab nation before and above being a newborn democracy. Sunni Arabs are prioritizing their opposition to Shiite and their grander ideology that denies Israel's right to exist. The grander ideology is winning. Hamas has joined with Hezbollah as Sunni militants are now likely to do. Iraqis are taking to the streets with banners that read "Shiites and Sunnis unite". The Iraqi Prime Minister minces no words in denouncing Israel. The 275 member Iraqi Parliament - united in denouncing Israel and making claims that they will not "sit by with folded hands". This detour by Iraqi officials spells out a clear unification - not as a U.S. ally but in a huge separation from U.S. policy regarding Israel.

We certainly had, at one time, provided building blocks for Osama Bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein. Have we now trained Iraq to rise up with Arab militants against Israel? Will that lead to the fall of another attempt at forced democracy in the middle-east?

A Grand Gathering And A Hot Microphone

Oh I know you expect me to make incredible fodder of this. The Pres said 'sh*t". I am not bothered by that, it made him appear more human than he ever has to me. My only observations (that I have determined are worth blogging on) are:

1. He made these statements in such a questioning manner and with darting eyes as if he were thinking "does what I just said make sense?"

And

2. He incessantly chews with his mouth open - an action that would constitute grounds for impeachment if it were up to me. Since that is not likely to happen, I will just add "tacky" and "ill-mannered" to my select adjectives for Dubya.

**YAWN**

Let's move on.

JUSTICE IS A RELATIVE TERM

A Virginia man was just sentenced to 150 years in prison for the distribution of child pornography.

Virginia Man Gets 150-Year Term in Child Pornography Case

And child rapists are being sentenced to 30 days in prison, 60 days in prison, a sentence of (basically) "say you're sorry and you are on probation for a little while".

Someone has to explain this to me like I am a three year old...Rape a child, you go home with a slap on the wrist and the opportunity to choose the next victim --- Distribute pictures of it and you go down for 150 years. Now, don't get me wrong, in my world the guy who took the pictures would indeed get the 150 years and the guy who raped that child would be tortured every year of his life except the last year when we were merciful enough to give him the needle.

Simply put...there is NO explanation for this judicial anomaly.

I am going to share something personal - which is not in my nature to do. My daughter (now a wonderful, bright and healthy young adult) was molested when she was 11 years old. A judge and a jury decided she was not worthy of justice because her mother was a lesbian. When I was on the stand I was not asked what I knew about this horrific crime committed against my daughter. I was aksed If I had girly magazines or dildos in my house. It is safe to say that I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to the dispensation of justice in the case of child rape.

I now play a large role in the raising of my nephew (11 years old). And trust that I micromanage his activity. I have researched the sexual predator list in our area. I talk to him - honestly about what constitutes violations against him emotionally and physically. And I have (on more than one occation) gone to adults in our neighborhood who make me uneasy and told them flat out..."I am uncomfortable with your interaction with my nephew, stay away from him and leave him alone or I will call the police"

I suppose what I am doing now is using my little space here to encourage everyone to be ultra aware. To fully understand how vulnerable children are. To go to great and extraordinary lengths to protect them and to get involved in any and all movements that demand the severe punishment of ANYONE who in ANY WAY harms a child.

Just Close Homeland Security

This administration has NO right pointing a finger to anyone as putting us at risk. The Department of Homeland Security does a good job of that all on their own by letting the evil-doers see JUST how on the ball we are. "Nix's Check Cashing;" "Mall at Sears"; "Ice Cream Parlor"; "Tackle Shop"; "Donut Shop"; "Anti-Cruelty Society"; "Bean Fest"; Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo; the Amish Country Popcorn factory; the Mule Day Parade; the Sweetwater Flea Market and an unspecified "Beach at End of a Street", now have the full protection of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

With THIS coming out, I am sure some petrified terrorist somewhere in the world is crossing the Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo right off his list and muttering "Foiled again! DAMN those clever Americans".

Frisch Attack On Jeff At Protein Wisdom

I am coming into this debacle a little late (in Internet terms), but have reviewed the flood of information on it this morning.

Debbie Frisch, adjunct instructor of psychology at University of Arizona and blogger, in what can only be thought of as a complete display of clinical insanity, posted vile threats of molestation and murder against Jeff's (Protein Wisdom) 2 year old child. I choose not to copy and paste the disturbing postings here but you can review them for yourself at any number of places.

It appears as though "Dr" Frisch has been pushed into resigning her position at the University following the flood of email to her superior. She made an attempt at damage control in her "White Flag" blog post yesterday. This post unfortunately lacks sincerity as it is filled with denial and self proclaimed victimization.

I would like to address this becoming yet another right -v- left issue. I have already heard comments such as "where is the left on this issue?", "Dr Frisch will now be a martyr for the left", and the like. By slicing up an issue like this into "right" and "left" you give a wholly disturbed human being like "Dr" Frisch a stronger voice, you give her credibility - as though she belongs to some larger group that would subscribe to her maniacal and disgraceful behavior. Don't give her that.

I not only support Jeff Goldstein's right to espouse his political views (in opposition of mine) but would, at any time stand at his side in defending him against unspeakable attacks like this. I also believe Jeff should absolutely seek any and all criminal and civil remedies available to him.

I would also like to say that a very small part of what "Dr" Frisch is learning is that the Internet and it's offering of the Blogosphere is not some small vacuum where reprehensible actions can disappear with a click. It is permanent, it is forever. It actually forces a higher level of accountability. Her actions should be treated as we would treat any other criminal behavior.

I encourage everyone to click "post" or "send" only after saying to themselves:
"This will be a part of my permanent record"
"This will live forever"
"I can and will be judged by a global community based on what I write here"
"This will forever serve as an example of my character".

My Interview At Basil's

This is just to let you all know that my interview at Basil's has been scheduled. I was unsure about the response, if any that it was getting so I was very excited to hear that it had indeed been scheduled.

Questions can be submitted until 7-23-06. If you would like to submit any questions, please do. You can do that by heading over here to Basil's. Questions will close on 7-23 and the interview will be posted on 7-30-06.

Thanks, it should be fun!

Treasonous Transparency?

What an impossible distinction we are meant to make here. The New York Times is currently under fire for outing a "secret program" this administration currently uses to track the financial movements of suspected terrorists. All current information seems to indicate, unlike the other "secret programs" outed, that this program actually acted within the law. I admit that because I am so trained to becoming aware of criminal behavior by this administration, it took some time to digest this and look at it objectively.

We are at war, albeit a criminal and atrocious act of war, war nevertheless. Given that, the fact remains we have a nation and young troops to protect. This forces the execution of covert actions that must be protected as a matter of national security. The New York Times published such US action claiming it was "in the public's interest" to know. I can only say that it is not in my interest to know information on U.S. covert actions (with the exception of where it violates U.S. law and/or the U.S. Constitution) when the cost of that information is sharing it with Osama bin Laden.

Now, here is where the conundrum comes in. This administration is wholly responsible for ushering in the demand and the expectation of complete transparency. Because of their duplicity, many Americans are now in a "we are going to know EVERYthing you are up to" mode. If this administration needs a culprit, they are going to have to look in their own house. The Times made a terrible error in judgment, in my opinion. Had this information been disseminated in another manner, it would likely easily constitute treason. However, the constitution protects these judgment calls made by the press. If one life is lost, if one terrorist succeeds in an attack on our soil as a result, they have that blood on their hands. But make no mistake, that blood flows right to the White House as well. They carved that path and have left us little room...for trust.

I am trying to be objective, but if this turns out to be yet another illegal program...

UPDATE: You have to go to my great friend Gun Toting Liberal for the latest and a "shoot from the hip" perspective.

Hayden Would Run The CIA With The Expectation Of Impunity?

There is much review of these confirmation hearings to follow but I wanted to single out this point.

"It's time to move past what seems to me to be an endless picking apart of the archaeology of every past intelligence success or failure," Hayden said. "CIA officers . . . deserve recognition of their efforts, and they also deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed and criticized on the front pages of the morning paper."

Well that about "confirms" it for me. Who in their right mind would want anyone at the head of the CIA who states so clearly that the agency "deserves" a free pass on any and all actions? No one should analyze their actions? Do not presume to second-guess them? The CIA is a conduit for the long arm of the administration. I don't think anyone would argue with that. They follow orders. And they are under some blanket of impunity? Why doesn't he just come out and say "The CIA is bigger than all of you and I would sit at the helm as master of all secrets and wield my power at the pleasure of the President without you pesky journalists bothering me with some silly issue of legality"

He goes on to say that he, of course, agrees with a level of accountability but that, General Hayden, is an empty statement when your (the agency's) actions are consistent with the wishes of the administration and the administration is grossly unfamiliar with being forthright. You don't tell Congress (in any real way) what you are up to. That leaves only the media as well as other American citizens to hold you accountable and we will.

Do not tell me I don't have the right to question you.


Technorati Tags:bush NSA CIA Hayden confirmation hearing politics

Add to: Technorati Digg del.icio.us Yahoo BlinkList Spurl reddit Furl

Welcome To My New Renter!

Squib of "Shooting In The Dark" was a very easy decision for me. Before I even really looked through the blog I see "rabid online poker player". Me too, Me too! (I am a shameful addict). Then I see "marketing professional". Wow, two for two now! Although, I am careful about mentioning that I run a small marketing / merchant services firm - Marketers are persona non grata lately. Where ever did we go wrong? Then I see "politically active". Well, that seals it.

I love that he devotes a small post to a Bush quote that still slays me. When Bush was asked what the best moment of his Presidency was, he said: "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake," (scroll down a bit to his post "Another Great Moment during the "W" Presidency").

Don't miss his "4 Years ago today" post. Here he talks to us about losing his father. He is so wonderfully honest about his relationship with his father; how siblings have the same parents but far different relationships with them; the complications of family dynamics; and sacrifices that were made in navigating the loss.

Yes, this too struck a very familiar chord with me but can be appreciated by all.

Shooting In The Dark has so much to offer. Squib is politically motivated but his blog is not myopic. His tag line is "represents the random thoughts of a man who is beginning to move slightly to the other side of the fulcrum of life." You can feel him doing this with a variety of tones - serious thoughts, honesty, wit, humor and soft sarcasm.

Pay him a visit...I am very glad I did.

US: The Largest Target In The War On Terror

The nation with the largest number of individuals under the umbrella of suspicion? The United States. Tens of millions of US citizens, trillions - I said trillions of calls being tracked. Mr. Maniacal's President's largest effort in his "Imma gonna get me sum evil-doers" plan is right here at home. He might be the only sitting President to be at war with his own country. But hey, this guy is all about pushing the envelope.

The 2001 Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Military Force (AUMF)

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Just before the Senate acted on (AUMF), the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas - where we all understood he wanted authority to act - but right here in the United States. It wasn't granted.

See: Power We Didn't Grant

While we were still collecting our dead from the 9-11 attacks, the occupier the oval office was trying to structure his "war powers" to include using this country and its people as personal playthings in his war games.

I read somewhere yesterday that we are on "outrage overload". I think that is such an accurate description. We may find it easier to just put our heads in our hands and resign ourselves to complete powerlessness when it comes to this administration. Instead, it is my hope that we will take a deep breath, remind ourselves that this will require arduous review of all the information, and to remind ourselves that our greatest display patriotism is to make a firm commitment to support the protection of US citizens and our democracy.

The following represents the requisite study in determining whether US citizens have legal and Constitutional protections against the actions of this administration:

Fourth Amendment

Unanimously, the Court has held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. The Government's duty to preserve the national security does not override the guarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.

FCC
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 222)
Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2702(c), 2703 (c).)

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal agency responsible directly to Congress. Established by the Communications Act of 1934.

Under this Act, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation.

FISA

While the law provides several means for the government to obtain records showing what phone numbers were called or dialed by a particular phone number, in every instance, either a subpoena or court order is required. If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq. Under the electronic surveillance provisions, the NSA would have to show the court that the person whose calls were being targeted was an agent of a foreign power. Under the pen register provision, the NSA would have to show the court that the information was relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation. Despite the low standard for a pen register, it is unlikely that the FISA court would have approved wholesale pen registers on every phone in America. If the NSA obtained stored records, rather using a real time pen register, it would have to obtain an order from the FISA court under section 215 of the Patriot Act. It is important to note that the Patriot Act specifically provided that the FBI did not need a court order, but could use a National Security Letter - a form of administrative subpoena - to obtain such records. The Congress specifically withheld such subpoena authority from the NSA.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution (Executive Power)

The administration also argues that the program is authorized by the President's Article II role as Commander in Chief, relying upon the notion that the Commander in Chief can conduct a war, including authorizing domestic surveillance, as he sees fit. The President's Article II power is not exclusive; his conduct remains subject to regulating statutes enacted pursuant to Congress's Article I authority, such as FISA. The very existence of FISA shows the intent to keep the President in check, to regulate and limit his executive power.

###

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a leader in taking action. They filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

THE LATEST ON THAT LAWSUIT - Yesterday - The United States government filed a "Statement of Interest" in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T, announcing that the government would "assert the military and state secrets privilege" and "intervene to seek dismissal" of the case.

Technorati Tags: bush NSA surveillance FISA terrorism executive power fourth amendment illegal search

Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |