Tuesday, November 14, 2006

revoke the AUMF

* lindorff:
"American voters don't want politeness. We want our country back. We have just proved to Republicans that we will punish lying and corruption. In the next election, Democrats should be on notice that we will also punish cowardice and inaction.

A great start for newly empowered Democrats would be to revoke or rephrase the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed to authorize Bush to invade Afghanistan and to pursue Al Qaeda. Bush has been claiming ever since that the 2001 AUMF made him permanent "commander in chief" in an unending "War" on Terror, with the right to ignore the courts and acts of Congress. It is clearly in Congress's power to redefine that AUMF more clearly, to make it unambiguously clear that it did not authorize the president to be generalissimo, that it was referring exclusively to combat outside the U.S., that it expects him to stay within the law and the Constitution under the resolution, and that the AUMF itself in any case has an expiration date. This is a move that even some Republicans--especially after their recent drubbing--will support."

* londonyank continues her great work on the threat of a war in iran.

* AP:
"Classified information will be key evidence in the CIA leak trial and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went too far in his proposal to limit its release, a federal judge ruled Monday.

[]
In a ruling Monday, Walton said Fitzgerald's proposed redactions were too restrictive. The memory argument is a key part of Libby's defense, Walton ruled, and he must be allowed to use classified information to make that case.

"He is alleging both that the volume of his work would have impacted his memory and that some of the information presented to him as the vice president's national security adviser was so potentially catastrophic to the well-being of the country that the focus he had to devote to this information also impacted his memory," Walton said.

Walton said he isn't going to give Libby a free pass to allow all classified information into court. He said the two sides must balance Libby's need to defend himself with the government's need to protect sensitive material _ a compromise that he believed could be achieved."
[]
Plame believes her identity was leaked to the press as retribution for her husband's criticism of prewar intelligence on Iraq."

* novak, last thursday (thnx anon):
"A leading arms industry lobbyist and former senior Pentagon official was told Wednesday that Donald Rumsfeld was resigning as secretary of defense, to be replaced by Robert Gates, president of Texas A&M University.”You have to be kidding!” exclaimed the lobbyist.
[]
The surprise was over Rumsfeld’s successor. “Not Bob Gates!” said the lobbyist. It had been widely expected that Rumsfeld would be replaced by a major industrial executive. Gates, a former career employee at the CIA who rose to the top of the agency, has no experience with the defense establishment.
[]

But the selection raises questions:

  • Will Gates clean out Rumsfeld’s civilian officials at the Pentagon? If so, where will the new officials come from?
  • What will Gates do to mend the broken fences between the secretary’s office and the angry uniformed officers?
  • What will Gates do to restore relations between the Pentagon and Capitol Hill?"
curious.

5 comments:

Prissy Patriot said...

Fitz could give him classified info until the cows come home-it won't help his defense one bit.

If the little man had any brains, he'd beg a deal with Fitz-cause if he doesn't he's going to JAIL.

Rover doesn't want time in the can either and when "Sealed v. Sealed" gets unsealed, it will be because he agrees to roll over on Cheney. So Libby best scoot on over to the special prosecutor ASAP and tattle on Cheney-time is running out. That still wouldn't insure he won't do time...just less of it!

Geez, Lukery now what will I blog about, since I spilled it here? heehee
These guys are not out of trouble, not by a long shot. But Good Lord Fitz drives me nuts with his patience;-)

I'm in DC now, and I'll be covering the "petition for redress" tomorrow. Should be interesting...I'll have pictures posted tomorrow eve on the blog.

Mizgîn said...

Indeed, Gates is considered a cool, non-ideological analyst.

Really? By whom? Brent Scowcroft? Henry Kissinger? James Baker?

noise said...

I know we all want to see Fitz put them all in jail...BUT Peter Lance has something to say about Fitzgerald. His book about Ali Mohamed is finally being published. Last I heard the release date is 11/21. He has some excerpts on his website. The cover is rather interesting.

To me it suggests things aren't as they seem. (1)

lukery said...

Prissy - good luck! looking forward to your reports from DC. Noise and I both hope that you are right about Fitz...

viget said...

noise--

I don't know if Lance is suggesting that Fitzgerald might have looked the other way on 9/11 as well (I find that hard to believe, knowing what we do about PJF!), or that he tried to prosecute 9/11 and was stymied by higher-ups. It seems like the quote by PJF about Ali Mohammed being "them most dangerous man I ever met" suggests that Fitzgerald may have been well aware of Mohammed's role in 9/11, and perhaps himself was looking into why the US Gov't continually looked the other way on Mohammed.

I can't wait for Triple Cross to come out. Hopefully, it will shed some light onto this Mohammed guy and help us find out who REALLY helped plan 9/11. It sounds like if we can find out who in the CIA, FBI, etc. were Mohammed's enablers, then we can understand exactly how and why 9/11 was allowed to happen.