Saddam was working on a smallpox weapon

* simon commented on my post about the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing. read his comment - he says "This is powerful stuff, big enough to bring down a government." Simon is smart - and knows his stuff. read his Yearly Lukery introduction here. he has literally worked with nuke-ready jets in the mid-east and so-on - and his knowledge of official reports (ISG, Butler) rivals eriposte and emptywheel.

simon points to a particular Guardian story where Scarlett (head of MI6) wanted the ISG to tell lies (in 2004) - particularly "suggestions that Saddam was working on a smallpox weapon, did have mobile biological laboratories and was developing research equipment for use in nuclear weapons."

one of the big mysteries for me has always been tony blair's insistence through all this period that we really really really would find WMD in iraq. (my sense of the timing is a bit bunk - im not sure when he stopped desperately hanging on to this fantasy) - and here we have scarlett desperately trying to perpetuate the myth of a specific 3-pronged wmd program - in 2004! it's kinda bizarre, right?

were they trying to buy time for the sake of it? or were they of the understanding that they could plant the stuff if only they could buy some more time? given my previous work into the dodgy mobile weapons labs - i can only presume that they really thought they could plant the stuff. I wonder why they couldnt/didnt.

further, given scarlett's three-pronged claims - we kinda know about the plans for the nukes (emptywheel/obedie) and the mobile labs (hatfill) - why was Scarlett talking about smallpox in 2004? what were the plans there?

Heidi Fleiss complains about sexual promiscuity

* larry johnson:

"President Bush crying about "leaks" to the New York Times is like listening to former Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss complain about sexual promiscuity. Sorry George, we ain't buying your song and dance."

* while you were sleeping, this post now has nearly 30 comments. there were another 2 related posts (here's one) that each had more than 20 comments - all part of the same flame war - some of it informative. (don, get up off the floor)

* btw don - did you see that i linked earlier to the 74-page pentagon propagandadoc that you asked about?

* regarding the possibility of a libby pardon, the comments here and here are both interesting

kerik guilty

* nyt via tpmm:

"Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, is close to reaching an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to having accepted improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a city official in the late 1990's... (Kerik) will not face jail time, but is expected to pay a substantial fine"

yay, boo. now - if we can only get chertoff...

* juan cole:

"The lack of choke points in cyberspace means that people like Kos can't just be fired. How then to shut them up? Why, you attempt to ruin their reputation, as a way of scaring off readers and supporters. This technique, as Billmon points out, does not usually work very well in cyberspace itself, though it can be effective if the blogger moves into a bricks and mortar institutional environment where big money and chokeholds work again. A political party is such an environment.

Cyberspace itself, though, is a distributed system, not a centralized one. That is why the charges against Kos are so silly. In essence, creatures of the old choke-point hegemonies are projecting their own hierarchical system inaccurately on Kos. Of course you wouldn't expect people like Peretz or David Brooks to understand what a distributed information system is, dinosaurs as they are, of both politics and media."

* aravosis:

"But note one thing. The Supreme Court is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. The court is even further to the right than it was when Bush took office since he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, who is far to the right of her.

That means that even with the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Bush still got slapped down for his handling of civil liberties under the war on terror. Enough of this "activist judges" bs. Even the Republican-run court slaps down Bush (and apparently the legislative branch gets slapped too)."

* tpmm:

"Bill Lowery's in trouble.... Lowery signed the three disclosures which failed to report nearly $300,000 from Brent Wilkes' ADCS, affirming that ADCS paid less than a tenth that amount."

* emptywheel makes a really good case that cheney told libby to leak the plame info. (see here but you'll have to scroll up for context.) The story before now was that cheney had asked libby to leak the NIE - but if what EW says is true, the timelines dont make any sense - the plame outing was separate. (i presume that when EW says "July 25: Leak NIE to Woodward" she actually means "June 25: Leak NIE to Woodward"). This is most significant. Apparently Libby leaked the NIE with nary any pushback - but he was most tentative about leaking the Plame info - and called addington for a 2nd opinion. why would he be nervous? because it's a crime to knowingly out a NOC - which means that Libby is demonstrably in line for an IIPA charge.

see olbermann trash oreilly.

* jane:

"In a few short months, Ned Lamont has managed to do the virtually unthinkable — back an 18 year incumbent and former Vice Presidential candidate into admitting that he probably has no chance in the primary. "

* lou dobbs has a great piece on evoting. brad has the vid, of course. also, another Dobbs report tonight - this time with brad. vid here.

* speaking of video, see olbermann trash oreilly.

* emptywheel:

"While Luskin lies ferociously, his lies on the record are very different from his lies off the record. On the record, he parses, he doesn't outright lie. Off the record, he lies shamelessly. I think his comments on this are parsing--Rove has not been charged, but the case is there, all wrapped up, if Rove should deviate from the testimony he has offered. There's little reason to issue a sealed indictment to achieve that--the only way Fitz couldn't just indict him if he lied (and there'd be new perjury charges, since Rove presumably testified under oath), is if he were fired.
[]
Finally, it's worth considering how Leopold's other "scoops" have been wrong in this. He said Hadley was Mr. X, when Armitage has all but admitted it. He said Fleitz was the CIA officer in the indictment. These are probably generally true claims (that is, I think it perfectly likely Fleitz was involved in sharing info on Plame with Cheney), but not true according to the claim (that is, Fitz has pretty much confirmed that Grenier is the CIA guy in teh indictment). This suggests Leopold's sources may well know what went on/is going on with the leak, but not have any idea what is going on in the prosecution. Which would be totally consistent with a big Rove meeting which Leopold's sources misinterpreted because they didn't know what Fitz was doing."

note that she isnt saying "how wrong leopold has been" but rather "exactly how he has been wrong." (also note that AFAIK larisa still stands by the claim that Hadley was a source)

rejection of the crux of the Yoo Memorandum

* glenn:

"More than anything else, the Court's opinion today is the opposite of -- a clear rejection of -- the crux of the Yoo Memorandum. The Court held that Congress most certainly does have a role to play in the exercise of war powers, and that such decisions are most certainly not "for the President alone to make.""

* nile gardiner of the Heritage Foundation is on the beeb saying that the scotus gitmo ruling is 'a huge propaganda win for alqaeda'

* larisa:

"Trailer up for a 911 Families film: I was asked to rewrite parts of the script for this film. The trailer is now up, not the official trailer, but a temp trailer....
the DVD version will have many interviews that they could not fit into the film, including Greg Palast, Helen T, Walter Cronkite, Gore Vidal, John Dean, and many others (although I may be speaking to soon as the fine cut does not include them, but the final cut might). In any case, they will be included one way or another."

* glenn:

"Americans generally believe in balanced and restrained power and dislike unchecked rulers and extremism. If this administration believes in anything, it is unchecked power and extremism, and virtually every major issue of controversy -- from the administration's systematic, unprecedented attacks on a free press to its claimed right to violate the law -- illustrates the excesses and dangers which inevitably arise when one political faction can exercise power without meaningful restraints."

Sibel's Whistleblowers’ Dirty Dozen

from sibel

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

www.nswbc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- June 29, 2006

Contact: Sibel Edmonds, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sedmonds@nswbc.org

Whistleblowers Hold House & Senate Members Responsible

Whistleblowers’ Dirty Dozen

The following members of Congress, by their action or inaction, have stood against real investigations, hearings, and legislation dealing with government whistleblowers who have exposed waste, fraud, abuse, and or criminal activities within government agencies.

These representatives of the People are not only standing against whistleblowers, but against the public’s right to know, effective oversight, accountability, and ultimately against the democratic processes that underpin our society. (To see the pdf list click here).

We, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, together with whistleblower members of our partner coalitions, consider it our duty to advise Americans of these representatives’ collusion with government and private interests to the detriment of the People.

Our position is based on our concern for our nation’s security, for accountable government, and the People’s Right to Know what their representatives and government are doing in their name, all of which depend on vigorous congressional oversight.

Our stand is not based on any political ideology or party – our coalition members include Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. We do not ask you to vote for or against these individuals; nor do we ask you to choose a particular candidate over another.

All we ask is that before you decide to vote, you consider the true positions of these representatives with regard to their lack of candor or courage on core issues that matter to our country’s well-being.

Over the years, time and again we have informed these representatives about illegal government actions, agency fraud, and lying to Congress by administrators and bureaucrats. Yet these representatives have consistently refused to take any action and have instead betrayed the People they have taken an oath to serve.

We hope that by appealing directly to the American people, we can help bring about needed reforms, since we have proven unsuccessful in our appeals to the following representatives: the Whistleblowers’ Dirty Dozen. (To see the pdf list click here).

Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Mike DeWine
Rep. David Dreier
Rep. Dennis Hastert
Senator Orrin Hatch
Rep. Peter Hoekstra
Senator Jon Kyl
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Senator Rick Santorum
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
Rep. Mark Souder
(update: i'll be interviewing sibel over the weekend about why these 12 congress folk are on the list)

About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org

please distribute.

The majority opinion rejected the administration's claims

* bad days for Ney. most of his senior staff has resigned.

* nyt via jeralyn:

"Justice Stevens declared flatly that "the military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedure violate" both the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the American military's legal system, and the Third Geneva Convention.The majority opinion rejected the administration's claims that the tribunals were justified both by President Bush's inherent powers as commander in chief and by the resolution passed by Congress authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11. There is nothing in the resolution's legislative history "even hinting" that such an expansion of the president's powers was considered, he wrote."

* btw - the decision was 5-3. ten bux says you can name the three with your eyes closed. (roberts wasnt playing)

* katherine harris claimed that Dems want her elected to senate. Dems disagree

* tpmm:

"A few weeks after departing the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay served as charity auctioneer at a fundraiser for Safari Club International, a gun-lobby group defending man's right to defend himself against unarmed animals."

* amy:

"Berkeley California has become the country’s first city to put a referendum on the ballot to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

torture is illegal! who knew?

scotusblog

Hamdan Summary -- And HUGE News

Posted by Marty Lederman at 10:37 AM

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). I have not yet read the complete opinions, but from what I've seen of not only the Stevens majority, but also the Kennedy and Breyer concurrences (see Orin Kerr with the relevant AMK and SGB excerpts here), it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President's conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress's enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict.

Even more importantly for present purposes, 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.

wowsers. scotus even used the word 'torture' - frank luntz will be quaking in his boots.

* jeralyn: "This is just crazy. A New Orleans judge sentenced three people who looted liquor from a grocery store after Hurrican Katrina to 15 years in prison, saying he wanted to send a message."
perhaps the judge should have used email.

* xymphora suggests that we dont upgrade to opera9. thnx for the tip xymph. i'm still on 8.54

* question: what was the weirdest thing about the sears7?
a) that it got worldwide attention for a day
b) that it was immediately mocked
c) that the mocking only lasted for 2 days
d) that we've already forgotten all about it

judy angle-terror

rod barton, Joseph Cirincione

here is rod barton's statement (pdf) before the iraq committee hearings this week:

On the trailers, for example, a physical inspection by the ISG engineers unambiguously established that they were not designed (and could not be readily modified) for biological agent production. My own view, as an expert on the Iraqi biological weapons program, was that you would be better starting off with a bucket, rather than try to adapt the equipment to make anthrax. But in addition to physical evidence, there was a folder of documentation on the trailers that included the original contract for their construction, acceptance trials and operating “manual,” all indicating that the trailers were for hydrogen production for artillery balloons. Chemical sampling by the ISG showed that the trailers had in fact produced hydrogen.

Charles Duelfer, the new head of the ISG, arrived in Baghdad on February 12,
2004. Naturally he had his own ideas on a report, and this was discussed with senior staff on the day of his arrival. A key feature was that it would include no assessment, but would simply report our findings without comment. The report as he envisioned it would be about 20 pages in length and would emphasize the work the ISG had yet to complete.

Over a series of three private meetings with Charles, I tried to dissuade him from this course. I argued that we had found evidence that overturned much of the
pre-war intelligence and were confident of our findings: this should be reported. Also political leaders in the U.S., UK and Australia were making public statements which we now knew were incorrect, and we had a duty to inform them of our conclusions. If we were aware of certain information and did not disclose it, then that would be tantamount to dishonesty.
[]
However, before the report was finalized, both London and Washington proposed some changes, the consequence of which would have been to imply that there was WMD yet to found in Iraq. These particular suggestions were rejected.

At the same time as the report was being drafted, instructions from Langley
were being sent directly to the leaders of the chemical and biological teams, who were CIA analysts responsible for pre-war intelligence assessments, to channel their work.

It seemed to me that the ISG had lost its independence and, with it, its direction. This was illustrated by the approach by the senior CIA professional assisting Charles. In mid-March 2004, he told me in relation to the trailers that he did not care what they were for, but that it was “politically not possible” to say they were not biological trailers.

As soon as the report was finalized, I tendered my resignation. In a letter to
the Australian Department of Defence, I indicated that the reason I resigned was
broader than just the March report, and that “I was concerned about the objectivity of the ISG.” Two senior ISG officials (another Australian and one UK) also resigned at that time, for similar reasons, and I am aware that others were also considering quitting.

In spite of the problems in March, Charles did eventually produce an honest and objective report. Charles asked me to assist with that and, when I was convinced that it was a genuine and independent effort, I returned to Baghdad in August/September to help with its coordination and drafting. This “substantive”
report was presented to congressional committees early in October 2004. With the exception of a major (and important) section on “Regime Strategic Intent,” most of the report could have been published in March 2004.

and this (pdf) from Joseph Cirincione
Senior Vice-President for National Security and International Policy
Center for American Progress

On October 7, 2002, President Bush delivered a major address on Iraq's weapons.
Bush said that "the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than
30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly agents. The inspectors, however,
concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a
massive stockpile of biological weapons..." UN inspectors did not reach this
conclusion; the inspectors had said that Iraq had enough growth medium that
could be used to produce more anthrax than it had declared. The inspectors did
not assert that Iraq actually had produced additional anthrax.

i hadn't realised that they'd told that specific lie.

and this:

If the United States is to reform the intelligence assessment process to better
respond to future threats, it is essential that top policymakers understand that the work is only half finished. They should resist the rushed efforts to adopt sweeping
reorganizations based on the mistaken belief that they now have the full picture of what went wrong. The Senate report and the 9/11 Commission report, as good as they are, as information-rich as they are, as well-written as they are, tell only half the story. Until the full details of the roles played by Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice-President Cheney and his Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby are revealed, policy-makers will not understand how the system became so corrupted.

naming names. the same names keep cropping up, no? i'd so love to see cambone nailed.

Bush is impeachable on the bare facts of the case

* reason:

"It’s true: Bush is impeachable on the bare facts of the case, without any recourse to party differences. Back on Planet Earth, he’s invulnerable as long as his party continues to control both houses of the Congress. If these Democrats and their supporters are serious about bringing him to account, they’ll need to learn how to win elections. To make that happen, they might start by impeaching a few of their own leaders—not for high crimes and misdemeanors, just for incompetence."

* btw - i hadn't heard sibel's speech at the PEN awards before. mp3 here (10mins). it's worth listening to. what a woman.

* wowsers. Arnaud de Borchgrave via henley re the Sears7:

The indictment stretched credulity. It had all the earmarks of an overzealous FBI informant creating crime by conditioning impressionable poor blacks looking for a cause against a system they had grown to hate. It’s not rocket science to understand what produces the self-hating American syndrome among some blacks who constitute more than a third of America’s 2.2 million prisoners, the largest per capita incarcerated in Western democracies.

Sixty percent of all drug offenders are black. In nine U.S. states, simple possession accounted for 50 percent of all drug offenders. State and federal prisons are often a horrific experience for young blacks who get raped repeatedly by older convicts. One-third of the entire black population of some 30 million will pass through the criminal justice system at one point in their lives. Katrina’s thousands of black victims huddling in the New Orleans arena without food or water were a grim reminder of an underclass that is not enamored of an administration that can spend almost half a trillion dollars on a war of choice disapproved by 60 percent of Americans.

* and yglesias via henley:

"Obviously, one of the things terrorism is supposed to do is, well, terrorize people. The actual risk of dying in a terrorist attack is very, very, very low but terrorism is scary in a way that, say, the risk of getting of dying in a random car accident isn’t. One of the things the government needs to be doing is trying to keep people reasonably calm about the general security of the United States (while, of course, focusing on preventing truly catastrophic attacks). Instead, Bush’s impulse is always to do the reverse — blow things out of proportion and scare people."

* nyt's steve erlanger was on lehrer regarding the israeli invasion of gaza. he used the word 'invasion' - i was most surprised. for one reason or other, lehrer's website doesn't have the transcript. I went to check whether he had used that term in the nyt - it turns out that he was co-by-lining with ian fisher - but nope, the articles refer to an "incursion."

the possibility of a libby pardon

* larry johnson:

"The evidence now on the public record is overwhelming and, if we could have a jury, Vice President Dick Cheney would be found guilty of cooking the intelligence and lying us into war. Three remarkable and compelling pieces of evidence have hit the streets within the last two weeks. Let's start with today and work backwards...
[]
To call someone a liar, particularly the President and Vice President, is considered stepping over the line of public decorum. However, given the facts on the record, there is no other logical conclusion. Bush and Cheney are liars and because of their lies, Americans are dead and grievously wounded. "

* dr. elsewhere at cannon's place has a mega rove/leopold post - cautiously coming out in favour of leopold

* oldschool re the possibility of a libby pardon:

"Fitz's war-gaming - fascinating stuff I think. High-stakes poker indeed. Bush has the ability to pardon, Fitz has the ability to bring more indictments. Fitz is holding more and better cards . IMO, Bush can play the pardon card maybe once while in office, once at the end of his term - tops. Two would be seriously pushing it - to even use his one in-office pardon on Libby is risky in a few ways: a) it smacks of Saturday-Night-Massacre a la Nixon, b) as per above, a blanket pardon makes Libby an potential unprotected witness against the administration, c) pardoning Libby as to only the areas charged (obstruction, perjury, false statements) might just induce Fitz to go all-in and charge the underlying offenses involving blowing the cover of a CIA agent (which play would not necessarily be limited to Libby - all sorts of fun names could pop up). I just don't see how GWB could extend an in-office pardon to Libby which would cover the possibility of Libby's outing a CIA agent - total political death - he needs to save that one for December 2008. Of course, in Dec 2008, he can just pardon anybody he feels like pardoning for anything they've ever done while 'serving' the president.

Now, a smart prosecutor might, if faced with a pardon of Libby's obstruction, realize that *Conspiracy* to obstruct is an altogether different, stand-alone charge (the crime is the conspiracy, not the obstruction). It would, I think, be sufficiently different from the original charges so as to stand on its own, and have the added benefit of once again necessarily bringing in some of those other interesting names.

I also like the conspiracy angle because the statute of limitations on a conspiracy to obtruct charge wouldn't even begin to run until said conspiracy has ceased functioning. Let's just say - no problems there."

nice work oldschool.

* incidentally, this citizenspook post says:

"The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where The Senate Has Voted To Convict."

let's hope that John Conyers writes his articles of impeachment with that in mind.

(as an aside, this citizenspook post argues that Fitz appears to have changed his understanding of the leak case in october 2004 - away from an assumption that the outing of Plame was in retaliation against Wilson. let's hope)
(thanks to LeeB for the links)

“home-grown” terrorist cell in Miami

* wsws:

"Within 48 hours of the US Justice Department’s startling announcement Friday of the round-up of a “home-grown” terrorist cell in Miami, the media had all but dropped the story."

* scheer:

"As Bush has continued to stretch it to cover all of his leadership failings, the “war on terror” has become a meaningless phrase, to be exploited for the political convenience of the moment. Terrorism, which should be treated clinically as a dangerous pathology threatening all modern societies, instead has been seized upon as an all-purpose propaganda opportunity for consolidating this administration’s political power. In such a situation, the press’ role as a conduit of both information and debate is more essential than ever. Freedom of the press, enshrined in our Constitution at a time when our fragile nation was besieged by enemies of the new republic, is not an indulgence to be allowed in safe periods but rather an indispensable tool for keeping ourselves safe."

* nir rosen:

"In reality both Abu Ghraib and Haditha were merely more extreme versions of the day-to-day workings of the American occupation in Iraq, and what makes them unique is not so much how bad they were, or how embarrassing, but the fact that they made their way to the media and were publicized despite attempts to cover them up. Focusing on Abu Ghraib and Haditha distracts us from the daily, little Abu Ghraibs and small-scale Hadithas that have made up the occupation. The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media."

* helen thomas / john stewart video

* if you havent seen it, i recommend the "Senate Cmte. Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence" - 3 hours. see C-span - or download mp3 here - opening statements are here - i'm still looking for a full transcript.

Murdered journalists? Just wait.

* from a commentor at EW's place:

"Here's a speculative thought: they are currently fighting NYT over the publication of *another*, more damaging story, about to come out. They need to establish the bad faith of the Times."

(* larisa asked the same thing re Leopold: "What was Jason working on other than this story?")

* from tompaine:

"This is more than just an attack on perceived bias; this is demonization. Journalists have now been caricatured as a group of people who are siding with a fanatical, barbaric enemy. Once Americans believe that, it then becomes easy to support our arrest."

who else is on the list of demons?

let's look at a letter that was printed in The Denver Post this week :

"Why have those who have continually howled at our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo met the recent kidnapping and sadistic and brutal murders of our two young soldiers with deafening silence?" the letter began. "Where is your outrage now?" It then stated that the U.S. "should" behead 100 prisoners in retaliation, as well as " editors, commentators, college professors and left-wing congressmen who would suddenly break their silence to come out in support of these enemy jihadists. We need to stop listening to these sanctimonious hypocrites who apply the rules of war only to our side."

I suspect we can add liberals, non-winger bloggers, darkies, and probably the 70% of americans who wanna get out of iraq. oh - and judges.

as athenae says:

Later on in the E&P story, Wolman (editor of Denver Post) says:

Wolman said he did not know what, if any, reaction the letter had prompted, but said, "I wasn't expecting anybody to be beheaded if that is what you are asking."

And you know, it's the hysteric in me saying this, the person who all day reads all this online hate and rage, but I'm saying it anyway:

Just wait.

Keep talking this way, keep the conversation at this level, with no resistance, no pushback, no lines drawn anywhere, and just wait."

shrill.

Turkey's Deep-State and its Neocon friends.

Wapo:

"Six weeks after a gunman killed one of Turkey's highest-ranking judges and wounded four others, the case has descended into the murk that invariably envelops politically potent cases in this country.

Key facts in the case remain elusive. So does the background of the confessed assailant. Alparslan Arslan appears to have close links to the Islamic militants deemed a threat to Turkey's secular establishment -- but also to shadowy ultranationalist groups with a history of using violence in the name of defending the state.

[]

The following day, thousands of citizens surged onto capital streets vowing to defend the secular nature of the Turkish republic. The chief of Turkey's military urged more demonstrations.

But in the following days the picture of Arslan fogged over. In his car was a press card issued by an ultranationalist press agency, according to Turkish news accounts. As a lawyer, he had represented the former head of another ultranationalist group.

Rumors surfaced that Arslan was in frequent phone contact in the hours before the shooting with a shadowy former military officer who was taken into custody in an Istanbul hospital, where he was being treated for a knife wound in the chest, possibly self-inflicted. The man was later freed.

[]

But things are not always what they seem in Turkey, as a hearing Tuesday in a different case demonstrated.

Tuesday's proceeding arose from the events of November 1996, when a Mercedes crashed in the town of Susurluk. The passengers turned out to be a senior police official, a feudal lord, a former beauty queen and one of Turkey's most notorious gangsters, who was found to have a half-dozen diplomatic passports and a trunk full of pistols and silencers. The crash confirmed suspicions that elements within the Turkish state consort with criminals in the name of protecting the state.

"The debate in our country is about who has sovereignty," said Fikri Saglar, who served on the parliamentary commission that investigated the Susurluk crash. "The parliament says sovereignty is with the people, that in a democratic system people vote for their rulers.

"The military-bureaucratic state believes that sovereignty belongs to them, and the people in their ignorance make wrong choices that endanger the state."

The tension has played out publicly since 2002, when Turks elected a new government whose proudly Muslim identity is regarded as a threat by Turkey's secular establishment.
[]

At the same time, questions about Arslan's background suggested the hand of the "deep state," the term commonly used in Turkey to describe forces assumed to be at play when the facts around political violence recede into shadow.

"A treacherous gang has emerged from behind the bloody plot," Erdogan told a party caucus. "This attack targeted our country's ever-increasing democratic progress."

Saglar said the shootings may well have been engineered to provoke a public reaction against Erdogan's government. No avowedly secular party has risen to challenge its two-thirds majority in parliament, leaving open the way for Erdogan's ascension to Turkey's presidency, an office of particular significance to secularists.

"For me it is clear that behind this attack is what we call the deep state," Saglar said. "I believe the aim is to create a major reaction in the society by an attack on one of the major institutions in the state and to turn the society against the current government."

meanwhile:

" Allies of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have accused Turkey of moving toward Islamic fundamentalism.

Analysts at a Washington, D.C. think tank said the government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan plans to overthrow Turkey's secular regime. They said Erdogan's Justice and Development Party, or AKP, was pursuing a secret agenda for an Islamic takeover.

"The objective for Erdogan and the AKP is to destroy the secular republic and replace it with an Islamist order," said Alex Alexiev, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

The center has been regarded as close to the Defense Department, particularly Rumsfeld. Several members of the center are former Pentagon officials angered by Turkey's refusal to help the United States establish a northern military front against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003.

In a conference at the Hudson Institute on June 23, Alexiev said the Erdogan government has sought to weaken the military, regarded as the last secular bastion in Turkey. He said Erdogan was using the European Union accession process as a means to eliminate military opposition to fundamentalism.

"Turkey's military is a special type of institution, and not an average military in Western democracies," Alexiev said. "Because of the country's history and traditions, the military sees itself as the guarantor of secular order. So they are seen as the main obstacle to an Islamist takeover."

Frank Gaffney, director of the center, said Erdogan's government has moved Turkey's foreign policy away from the West and toward the Middle East. Gaffney said Turkey was becoming a totalitarian state.

"Many in Europe and some in the United States believe that political Islam is exhibiting its most benign characteristics in Turkey and that it should be supported," Gaffney said. "But evidence shows the Erdogan movement is not benign but creeping Islamofascism."

I get nervous whenever gaffney and his friends spout "Islamofascism." Why are our favourite democracy-givers standing up for the Turkish military?

Mr. President, the FBI has Kansas surrounded!

* athenae:

"That letter shows an utter incomprehension of what journalism is for, what it's about, what its purpose is. I don't think you should have to pass a test to have an opinion on something — imagine the chaos that would create in our pundit classes — but this is truly base-level ignorance."

* kofi wishes the UN (and the world) was more like FIFA and the World Cup:

"Thirdly, the World Cup is an event that takes place on a level playing field where each country participates in conditions of equality. Only two assets count in this game: talent and teamwork. I would like us to have more playing fields like this one in the global arena. Free and fair exchanges without the interference of subsidies, barriers, or tariffs. Each country having a chance to promote its strengths on the global scene."

* blumenthal:

"On June 14, the Pentagon dispatched a document titled "Iraq Floor Debate Prep Book" to Republicans in the House. A Pentagon public affairs officer admitted to the Washington Post that the 74-page document originated in the White House but was repackaged as a Pentagon publication. It is a cut-and-paste rush job to refute advocates of "cut and run." It is also a representative document of the Bush administration: Evidence is cherry-picked, slogans substitute for facts, falsehoods are sold as truth, and "victory" is promised. Connections between al-Qaida and Iraq are slyly hinted at. The old accusations against Jose Padilla as the "dirty bomber," no longer being pressed against him, reappear. The Pentagon document, eagerly seized upon by congressional Republicans as a treasure trove of talking points, accurately gauges the White House's estimate of their ability to assess information on their own."

* blumenthal:

"At one briefing in 2002, Suskind writes, Bruce Gephardt, deputy director of the FBI, told Bush that a group of men of "Middle Eastern descent" in Kansas had been discovered offering "cash for a large storage facility." "Middle Easterners in Kansas," said Bush. "We've got to get on this, immediately." Bush is reported to like barking orders, almost at a shout. The next day, he demanded a report. "Mr. President, the FBI has Kansas surrounded!" "That's what I like to hear," Bush replied. But it turned out that the men of Middle Eastern descent were operators of flea markets, not would-be terrorists. The diligent FBI had closed in on their accumulated piles of old clothing and Sinatra records.

At a Dec. 13, 2002, year-end review of the war on terror for the president in the Cabinet Room conducted by two dozen senior officials, Bush had some difficulty following the complex details and lack of a simple story line. When Kenneth Dam, deputy secretary of the Treasury, informed him, "Mr. President, the majority of the funders for al Qaeda are Saudis," Bush "looked at Dam, perplexed, as though he either hadn't read the handout in front of him, or was somehow surprised -- though this was all but common knowledge." "That's enough for today," said the president."

it'd be considered an act of war

* demnow:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he is seriously considering suing the White House over President Bush’s use of signing statements."

* AL notes that despite Bush and the CIA and everyone else (per Suskind) knew that the Oct04 OBL video would help Bush, and was intended to help Bush, the RWWurlitzer crew all spouted the nonsense that OBL wanted Bush to lose.

* fred barnes:

'normally anytime some people (Hamas) went over an international border and killed some soldiers, it'd be considered an act of war'

* taylormarsh at FDL: "

Did Duncan Hunter Sell Out Jack Murtha?... Follow the money, because it looks like it leads to Duncan Hunter’s sweet chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee. Is Murtha’s talk on Iraq threatening Hunter’s payroll? Jack Murtha is the strongest Democrat speaking out against the war in Iraq. You’ve got to wonder if Hunter wants him to pay a price."

* via holden:

"The British Army officer responsible for investigating British troops' mistreatment of Iraqi's hung himself with his own bootlace."

Pardoning Libby

* findlaw:

"Pardoning Libby would deliver something that prosecuting him might not: evidence that the Bush Administration sanctioned Libby's conduct.
[]
Pardoning Libby, however, would amount to an acknowledgment--from the President, no less--that the leaks were done on behalf of a grateful Administration. The pardon would tell the American people, "Even if Libby did leak Plame's CIA affiliation, obstruct justice, and lie repeatedly to investigators and the grand jury, that's okay because he was trying to help us politically." The Administration's critics have tried--unsuccessfully, as yet--to make that point. A Libby pardon would do it for them.
[]
Pardoning Libby would visit those repercussions upon President Bush. Convicting him would only make him a fall guy and leave the real responsibility for the leak vague.

* yesterday i asked: "(speaking of words, if any other country did was israel is doing tonight, do you think the corpmedia would call it an 'incursion'?)"
amy goodman steps up to the plate (surprise!):

"Israeli forces have invaded the Gaza Strip for the first time since withdrawing ten months ago."

More from the demnow interview:

ALI ABUNIMAH: And we see that reflected also in the world reaction. Is it not astonishing that the entire world knows the name and face of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, while the hundreds of Palestinian children held in Israel's dungeons, not to mention 10,000 adult prisoners, thousands held without charge and trial, abducted from their homes in the middle of the night by Israeli occupation forces, remain nameless and faceless before a silent world?

a wave of indictments in coming months

* laura:

"Heard something really interesting from a Republican Hill staffer. That it was Mrs. Ledeen, a staffer to Sen. Santorum, who got the tip from a non governmental source that led to the Hoekstra/Santorum press conference last week about the WMD in Iraq. Hmm. Who was the source?"

* weldon - still crazy

* laura:

"AEI's Norm Ornstein:

...In all my years of watching Congress, I have never seen anything quite like what we have now. It may be a cliché, and it may be a partisan attack term, but it is also true: There is a culture of corruption across Capitol Hill.
[]
But the problem is palpably worse. While there is plenty of illegality here — and I believe a wave of indictments will hit in the coming months — it is not what is illegal that is the outrage, to use the old phrase, but rather what is legal.
[]
Hastert made nearly $2 million from rural land purchased in his district, done in part through a series of transactions involving a land trust he set up with partners. The land had no major access road nearby when the Speaker purchased it — apparently, according to his office, on impulse, for $2.1 million when he drove past and saw a house on it that he admired.

But soon after the purchase, the Speaker muscled through $207 million in earmarks to build a highway and interchange five miles or so from his property. Not long after the earmark, the land trust sold some of the property to a developer for $5 million, handing the Speaker a windfall of $1.8 million."

* emptywheel:

"Here's how it's going to work. In record time (say, by next week sometime) we'll have our (NY/SWIFT) damage assessment. We'll hear terrible stories about terrorists who didn't make that wire transfer, who stopped calling their mother in Dearborn. We'll even hear stories about how said terrorist was mid-terrorist plan, but now he got away and he's out there stalking us, all because James Risen and Eric Lichtblau ruined Cheney's favorite spying program. We'll see them ratchet up the One Minute Hates some more, because the NYT has personally compromised our safety.

But I don't think it'll work... Which means they're going to have to make it up. They're going to have to invent a story by next week about all the evil doers the NYT has let escape.

And the problem, for them, is that their stories aren't working anymore. The best story they've invented lately involves seven poor men looking to scam free boots off an FBI informer. That story was immediately laughed into disrepute. And we now know their other big stories--the danger of Zarqawi, the importance of Abu Zubaydeh--were all cruel hoaxes.

This story will be no better. And the more they keep telling these transparently stupid stories, the more their own credibility will suffer."

E-Voting Security

bradblog

Lou Dobbs report last night on the Brennan Center's year-in-the-making report on 120 threats to E-Voting Security was fan-damn-tastic. When I can catch my breath, I hope to get it, along with the video, posted in full. And more thoughts on that Brennan Center report. But for now, by way of teaser, Dobbs started it this way: "More evidence tonight that an increasing number of elections in this country can be outright stolen. And no one would ever know. It's incredible."

And, as of this hour, here are the results from his "Quick Poll" on this topic last night (you can still vote yourselves if you want)

Any questions?

And WaPo says today: 'A Single Person Could Swing an Election'

Is everybody starting to understand this now? I hope so...Has been a long time here trying to make clear what's going on...

FULL STORY, DETAILS:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3012

Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Terrorism

Here's an interesting piece from 2000

The Threat Posed from the Convergence of
Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Terrorism

Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo

Deputy Director, Global Organized Crime Program
Director, Counterterrorism Task Force
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C.

Before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime

December 13, 2000

Organized crime and terrorism have two differing goals. Organized crime's business is business. The less attention brought to their lucrative enterprises, the better. The goal of terrorism is quite the opposite. A wide-ranging public profile is often the desired effect. Despite this, the links between organized crime and terrorism are becoming stronger in regards to the drug trade. Organized crime groups often run the trafficking organizations while the terrorists and insurgent groups often control the territory where the drugs are cultivated and transported. The relationship is mutually beneficial. Both groups use funds garnered from the drug trade to finance their organizations and operations.
[]
Narco-terrorism is a worldwide threat. It knows no ideological or traditional territorial boundaries. Groups from the far right to the far left and every group in between is susceptible to the lure of drug money. In fact, the vast majority of major terrorist organizations rely, at least in part, on the drug trade as a source funding.
[]
Turkey is strategically located between the lush poppy fields of Central Asia and the vast market of Europe. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has taken advantage of this fact and financed their separatist movement by "taxing" narcotic traffickers and engaging in the trade themselves. The PKK is heavily involved in the European drug trade, especially in Germany and France. French law enforcement estimates that the PKK smuggles 80 percent of the heroin in Paris.

During the NATO campaign against the former Yugoslavia in the Spring of 1999, the Allies looked to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) to assist in efforts to eject the Serbian army from Kosovo. What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe.
[]
It is also clear that Russian Organized Crime is using Israel and Cyprus as twin bases for its operations in Western Europe and the United States.

The countries most affected by the fall of the Soviet Union are the Central Asian Republics. The void left by the authority of the Communist Party has been replaced by organized crime syndicates, narcotics traffickers, and Islamic fundamentalists. Civil war and corruption are common. The proximity of the "Golden Crescent" of Pakistan and Afghanistan, make Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan the crossroads of the opiate trade to Europe and Russia, where narcotics consumption is increasing.

Spurred by radical Islamic fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden, new cells of terrorists have spawned in the Central Asian Republics. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) is one these groups. The IMU, using Tajikistan as a staging area, have made incursions into Kyrgyzstan on hostage-taking missions.

In the radical Islamist attempt to foment jihad in Chechnya, guerillas have also used Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Tajikistan as logistical hubs for their attacks on the Russian military.

[]
Evidence has also surfaced of cooperation between the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) and Indian organized crime. Indian traffickers supply drugs and weapons to the LTTE, who in turn sell the drugs. The profit garnered from the drugs are then used to repay the Indians for the weapons.

[]
The Russians built a arms pipeline to Colombia, bringing in thousands of weapons, and tons of other supplies to help FARC fight their war against the Colombian government. The weapons range from assault rifles and RPGs to military helicopters and, according to media reports, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles. Evidence has surfaced regarding an arms-for-drugs deal between Russian organized crime groups and FARC. Russian cargo planes loaded with small arms, anti-aircraft missiles, and ammunition would take off from airstrips in Russia and Ukraine and fly to Colombia. The weapons and ammunition were unloaded and sold to FARC rebels. In return the planes were loaded with up to 40,000 kilograms of cocaine and shipped back to Russia, where the Russian mafia would distribute the drugs for profit. At the time the story broke, the operation had been on-going for two years.
[]
The Taliban gets funding from taxing all aspects of the drug trade. Opium harvests are taxed at around 12 percent. Then the heroin manufacturing labs are taxed at $70 per kilogram of heroin. In the final stage, the Taliban gives transporters a permit for $250 per kilo of heroin to carry for presentation to Taliban checkpoints throughout the country. The Observatoire Geopolitique des Drouges estimates that this adds up to $75 million per year in taxes for the Taliban.
[]
The unprecedented cooperation among drug traffickers, organized crime groups, and terrorists has exacerbated the threat of all three to the United States. The nature of the war has changed and the US reaction needs to change as well. It is a top national security problem.

the logistics are interesting.

in the russia/farc example, the arms are literally exchanged for drugs, with the russian mafioso managing the drug distribution themselves. in the india/tamil example, the 'terrorists' manage the drug wholesaling themselves, in order to pay for the arms.

i've always been a bit confused about the nexus of 'terrorism' and drugs. AFAIK there's no intrinsic reason why the two ought to be linked. drugs trafficking is about money, and 'terrorism' is usually about some state/sovereignty/separatist/occupation issue.

i can appreciate that 'terrorists' need funding, and i appreciate that drug trafficking can provide some high-margin opportunities - but that doesnt necessarily mean that 'terrorists' are good traffickers. a 'value-chain' analysis almost certainly would question why drug barons would even want 'terrorists' involved in the process. or, put another way, if there werent any terrorists, i'd expect that the drug distribution chain wouldn't be significantly different than it is today. i.e. there's no intrinsic reason why terrorists would provide a better drug distribution network than any another network that was purely motivated by money.

in fact, you could argue that a drug trafficker would run even higher risks by utilising a 'terror' network - because there's the chance that the network could be exposed by not-drug-related arrests (the flipside being that by using 'ideological' mules, they'd be less likely to 'flip' on the drug stuff - as it might undermine the ideological motivations)

so when we think about Narco-terrorism - my guess is that we need to think of it as Narco-funded-terrorism - and nothing more. as i said, there's good reason to understand why terrorists want funding, but the flipside - that druglords need terrorism - seems moot. the druglords simply need a wholesale (and retail) network- and there's sufficient profit motive for that to be provided by any non-terrorist.

and as i've argued before, 'terrorism' is really cheap. you don't need lots of money to finance specific attacks - or even training camps, or whatever the hell else. according to the above, the taliban got $75mill p.a. out of its 'taxes'. that sort of money will take you a long way. is that $75mill really "Narco-terrorism " money? or are these people just using this as a front gig while they siphon off money to their own personal bank accounts somewhere?

and yes, i understand that these people are probably also financing resistance movements in palestine and chechnya and iraq and other places- and they are probably very expensive to run. but still...

if i was on osama's media commitee and i'd just suckered the US into spending a trillion in iraq by spending just $500k attacking a building or two, i'd probably be looking to see if i could replicate that gig. them's nice odds if you can find em. you can even be afford to be wrong once or twice

as for the article above - which game do you think richard perle and doug feith are playing? i'd guess that they are giving osama secrets of some sort - and perhaps guns and some wmd. in return, osama probably gives them a pocket full of poppies.

where it ends up - nobody knows.

circumstantial evidence

bruce sprinsteen vs soledad obrien on cnn, via war-room:

O'Brien: There is a whole school of thought, as you well know, that says that musicians -- I mean you see it with the Dixie Chicks -- you know, go play your music and stop.

Springsteen: Well, if you turn it on, present company included, the idiots rambling on on cable television on any given night of the week, and you're saying that musicians shouldn't speak up? It's insane. It's funny.

O'Brien: As a musician though, I'd be curious to know if there is a concern that you start talking about politics; you came out at one point and said, I think in USA Today, listen, the country would be better off if George Bush were replaced as president. Is there a worry where you start getting political and you could alienate your audience?

Springsteen: Well that's called common sense. I don't even see that as politics at this point ... You don't take a country like the United States into a major war on circumstantial evidence. You lose your job for that. That's my opinion, and I have no problem voicing it.

'circumstantial evidence' is generous.

there's also something creepy about soledad, a journalist, asking "Is there a worry where you start getting political and you could alienate your audience?" - perhaps we could extrapolate that to journalism - where they dress up faux objectivity into 'objectivity' - precisely so that they don't alienate their audience. sad. dangerous. "that's called common sense. "

political Islam and Islamist terrorism

* juancole:

"There is a real distinction between political Islam and Islamist terrorism. The problem is that Bush's rash policies have blurred the sharp edges that formerly distinguished the two. Many Sunni fundamentalists who before Bush's invasion would never have accepted Zarqawi's brutal tactics clearly have a soft spot in their hearts for him. They admire him as an anti-imperialist fighter, and his religious fundamentalism, while more extreme than their own, makes him seem a kindred spirit to many of them.
[]
The fault lines revealed by Zarqawi's death lie not just between the Sunni and the Shiite, but between the secular nationalists and the fundamentalists. The danger is that his successors will find ways of surmounting terrorism to become a genuine political force. The U.S. military occupation of a major Arab country is in danger of discrediting moderate governments such as that of Jordan, and of pushing ordinary Arabs into the arms of the fundamentalists."

* question: would the world be a better place today if the flag-burning amendment had passed 20 years ago?

* some possible good news via calipendence:

"(Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)) has proposed language to the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5112) that would limit the use of the state secrets privilege in blocking whistle-blowers' lawsuits. Specifically, the provision requires that courts rule in favor of a whistleblower claim if the government invokes the state secrets privilege to end the case. Basically, so long as an inspector general investigation supports the overall claim of the whistleblower and the government could no longer get a dismissal of the case by claiming state secrets privilege. Instead, under these provisions, the case would automatically be ruled in favor of the whistleblower without any public discussion of the details. In cases where no inspector general investigation has been conducted, the administration must explain to Congress why the use of the privilege is necessary and demonstrate that efforts have been made to settle the case amicably. The bill containing the Shays language was reported out of the House Government Reform Committee.

''If the very people you're suing are the ones who get to use the state secrets privilege, it's a stacked deck,'' said Shays, who has long been a proponent of limiting government secrecy."

do we trust chris shays? (DU thread here.)

* meanwhile, wapo:

"In a breakthrough for advocates of whistle-blower rights, the Senate has approved an amendment that would tighten up protections for federal employees who expose waste, fraud, abuse and threats to public safety.
[]
Federal employees "who put their country before their personal well-being should not be restrained because of fear of retaliation for doing what's right," Akaka said in a statement.
[]

Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the amendment "reverses the steady erosion of whistle-blower protections caused by employment practices that circumvent current protections and adverse court decisions."

Akaka and Collins were joined by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in sponsoring the amendment. Akaka praised Collins for helping "forge the consensus needed" to pass the amendment.

"The need to act now was heightened because of last month's Supreme Court decision that limits whistle-blower protection under the First Amendment. It's unacceptable for the courts to add another deterrence to federal whistle-blowing," Akaka said."

of course, ya know that if Lieberman is involved there must be something fishy. As Sibel says

In the next few days you'll be reading or hearing about a 'Fantastic Whistleblower Bill' sponsored by Senator Collins (Senate Homeland Security Committee). The senate & some organizations will represent this bill as a solution to whistleblowers. That is not True. Here is why:
1- Intelligence & Law enforcement agencies are all exempt from this bill. Meaning: the so-called protection does Not apply to us.
[snip]

constructive dissent, rescinded the decision, following pressure

* you might remember that sibel often points to banks in cyprus and malta and of course dubai as being particularly dodgy - i suspect that's where our friends do most of their laundry. I wonder if those banks are non-SWIFT - in which case, the SWIFT spying would only pick up legitimate transactions, not terrorist financing.

* speaking of sibel, there's this:

"Armenian Americans across the U.S. will be closely following the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings for U.S. Ambassador to Armenia nominee Richard Hoagland, in hopes of gaining concrete insight into the exact nature of the State Department’s policy of complicity in Armenian Genocide denial - particularly as it relates to the firing of the current U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
[]
Amb. Evans, who first took on his post in August 2004, spoke openly and honestly about the Armenian Genocide in community briefings in San Francisco, and other cities in February 2005. The Ambassador was later forced by State Department leaders to twice recant his statement. The American Foreign Service Association, set to award Amb. Evans with the Christian A. Herter Award for constructive dissent, rescinded the decision, according to the Washington Post, following pressure from State Department officials.
[]
On June 9th, ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian, urged Senate Foreign Relations Committee members to demand the truth about the Evans firing prior to confirming his replacement. “The U.S. Senate cannot, in good conscience, approve the nomination of a new ambassador to Armenia until the circumstances of the current envoy's highly controversial firing are fully, officially, and openly explained to Congress and the American people,” stated Hachikian. More broadly, the Administration needs to honestly explain its policies concerning the Armenian Genocide. This is especially true given that serious questions remain unanswered concerning the role that the Turkish Government played in Ambassador Evans' firing.”"

(action items here)

let me repeat that:

"The American Foreign Service Association, set to award Amb. Evans with the Christian A. Herter Award for constructive dissent, rescinded the decision, according to the Washington Post, following pressure from State Department officials. "

only in america...

Govern…or shut the fuck up

driftglass promises to debate fag-burning and flag-marriages and such, with a few govern-y prequirements. then:

You were horny for imperial power for so long you could taste it in your teeth. Wanted it so bad, you cheated, lied and ran our carefully balanced democratic institutions up on the rocks one after another to get to where you are today.

And then you won.

Yay!

Remember?

Remember when it was all gonna be so cool once the Liberals were out of the way and you could liquidate the hated Federal Government. When the Government is the source of all evil in the Universe? When you could hang every problem in the world on welfare queens?

Remember the glory days of “We won. You lost. Now shut up.” ?

Remember when you could drown out all the blood and misery on your filthy, lying hands by just turning Rush up louder?

You wanted this, and now it's yours. All yours.

History is watching you. The future is watching you. The massed billions yet unborn are watching you, and they see a pathetic huddle children who are throwing the world's most expensive tantrum because they don’t want to fix what they destroyed.

They see a no-neck ocean of cowards and fools and bigots, led by liars and crooks. They see you taking your hour in the sun -- the one you traded your ideal, you conscience and you soul to acquire – and pissing it away. Deliberately picking fights over trivia in gthe hopes that no one notices that you have destroyed a great nation,

They see you failing, in more ways and with worse consequences than any generation in American history. And doing it while giggling and jerking off to Ann Coulter.

Your children and grandchildren see all that you have done and all that you have failed to do and they are ashamed of you, so govern, you weak, stupid, frightened little men. You ARE the government, so quit bellowing and blaming everyone from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehan for your sins.

Actually step up like men and govern and we’ll spend the next 20 years debating anything else you’d like. Flags and queers and all the rest of the fiddling nonsense.

Govern, or admit that you are uniquely incompetent to actually lead a great nation.

Govern…or shut the fuck up

military coup in america

harpers has an interesting round-table about whether a military coup is possible in the US. they initially argue that it isnt possible - democracy, checks&balances, la-di-da, and then the conversation morphs a little:

BACEVICH: The question that arises is whether, in fact, we’re not already experiencing what is in essence a creeping coup d’état. But it’s not people in uniform who are seizing power. It’s militarized civilians, who conceive of the world as such a dangerous place that military power has to predominate, that constitutional constraints on the military need to be loosened. The ideology of national security has become ever more woven

into our politics. It has been especially apparent since 9/11, but more broadly it’s been going on since the beginning of the Cold War.

KOHN: The Constitution is being warped.

BACEVICH: Here we don’t need to conjure up hypothetical scenarios of the president deploying troops, etc. We have a president who created a program that directs the National Security Agency, which is part of the military, to engage in domestic eavesdropping.

LUTTWAK: I don’t know if this would be called a coup.

KOHN: Because it’s so incremental?

LUTTWAK: It’s more like an erosion. The president is usurping additional powers. Although what’s interesting is that the president’s usurpation of this particular power was entirely unnecessary. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which approves terrorism-related requests for wiretaps, can be summoned over the telephone in a matter of minutes. In its entire history, it has said no to a request for surveillance only a handful of times, and those were cases where there was a mistake in the request. Really, even a small-town sheriff can get any interception he wants, so long as after the fact he can show a judge that there was reasonable cause.

BACEVICH: Bush’s move was unnecessary if the object of the exercise was to engage in surveillance. It was very useful indeed if the object is to expand executive power.

KOHN: Which is exactly what has been the agenda since the beginning of this administration.

LUTTWAK: Now you’re attributing motives.

BACEVICH: Yes, I am! If you read John Yoo, he suggests that one conscious aim of the project was to eliminate constraints on the chief executive when it comes to matters of national security.

DUNLAP: I will say that even if it was a completely legal project, there is a question of how appropriate it is for the armed forces to be involved in that kind of activity. Since, as I noted before, the American people have much less confidence in those institutions of civilian control than they do in the armed forces, we need to be very careful about what we ask the military to do, even assuming it’s legal.

WASIK: If we are talking about a “creeping coup” that is already under way, in what direction is it creeping?

BACEVICH: The creeping coup deflects attention away from domestic priorities and toward national-security matters, so that is where all our resources get deployed. “Leadership” today is what is demonstrated in the national-security realm. The current presidency is interesting in that regard. What has Bush accomplished apart from posturing in the role of commander in chief? He declares wars, he prosecutes wars, he insists we must continue to prosecute wars.

KOHN: By framing the terrorist threat itself as a war, we tend to look upon our national security from a much more military perspective.

BACEVICH: We don’t get Social Security reform, we don’t get immigration reform. The role of the president increasingly comes to be defined by his military function.

KOHN: And so our foreign policy becomes militarized. We neglect our diplomacy, de-emphasize allies.
[]
LUTTWAK: Bipartisan madness. This is not even militarism. Militarism had to do with eminent professors of Greek desperate to become reserve officers so they could be invited to the military ball. That’s militarism. This is an intoxication about what the actual capabilities of any military force could be.

DUNLAP: This intoxication with the military’s capabilities certainly isn’t coming from the uniformed military officers.

BACEVICH: Except insofar as they are involved in the playing of politics, in constantly pressing for more resources. Meanwhile, we’ve underfunded the State Department for twenty-five years.
[]
LUTTWAK: But it is still the military that has the resources.

BACEVICH: And so over time—because this has happened over time—you create a bias for military action. Which agency of government has the capacity to act? Well, the Department of Defense does. And that bias gets continually reinforced, and helps to create a circumstance in which any president who wants to appear effective, and therefore to win reelection, sees that the opportunity to do so is by acting in the military sphere.
[]
BACEVICH: But there is a more subtle danger too. The civilian leadership knows that in dealing with the military, they are dealing with an institution whose behavior is not purely defined by adherence to the military professional ethic, disinterested service, civilian subordination. Instead, the politicians know that they’re dealing with an institution that to some degree has its own agenda. And if you’re dealing with somebody who has his own agenda, well, you can bargain, you can trade. That creates a small opening—again, not to a coup but to the military making deals with politicians whose purposes may not be consistent with the Constitution.

there are some days i think our best chance is a military coup...

(and of course, sam gardiner and others have suggested that there'd be a revolt if the egadministration ordered a nuke attack on iran)

amendment to ban flag desecration died

* ap:

"A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress."

(miguel: "Shouldn't these lawmakers be drawn and quartered just for wasting public money and time to 'solve' a problem that doesn't exist?... Now it's time to start holding our lawmakers accountable for wasting taxpayer money on an amendment to restrict free speech in America."

* turley:

"Yet, when it comes to citizens, the administration demands total transparency to allow it to monitor everyday transactions and conduct.
It is perhaps the greatest danger that can face a free society: a government cloaked in secrecy with total information on its citizens."

* turley:

" Congress has entirely vanished from any role in government. That is, in the last -- I think the 109th Congress will go down as the congress that never existed. There will be no evidence that it ever played a role in governing. So we have no oversight being done by Congress. And what's fascinating is that at that House hearing, I said, you know -- when the chairman asked me, you know, “Why do we have all these whistleblowers? And I said, “Because they think that you’re a joke. They think this committee is a joke. You're not doing any oversight. You haven't done oversight in over ten years.” And what's amazing is that three of the committee members immediately agreed and said on the record, “It's true. We haven't done oversight in over ten years.”
[]
There's a reason why the administration has been threatening prosecution of journalists. Because they're the only ones left. They’ve got Congress totally in a comatose state. They have -- most of the judges today are so conservative that they won't even consider challenges to national security arguments. And it leaves basically the media and the public."

* hitchens argues that the iraq invasion was a good thing because it stopped the murderous sanctions. (btw - i've noticed that everyone uses the term 'invasion' these days, even the corpmedia. it's quite incredible)
(speaking of words, if any other country did was israel is doing tonight, do you think the corpmedia would call it an 'incursion'?)

* juancole:

"At least 50,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the US invasion, according to Iraqi health officials. I am told by people who should know that the Lancet estimate of 100,000 is perfectly plausible, and that was some time ago."

(some time ago = 22 months)

protect the flag without defiling the constitution

* caliendence and cannon both wonder whether Rush was in the DR to have sex with little children.

* glenn:

" After the unlimited outpouring of venomous attacks on the (NY) Times this weekend, I believe these attacks on our free press have become the country's most pressing political issue.
[]
The media is guilty of publishing stories which might harm the political interests of the President, not which could harm the national security of the United States. But Bush supporters recognize no such distinction."

* maha:

"All along, the Iraq War was more valuable to the Bush Regime as a club with which to bash Democrats than as a strategy for whatever it was the invasion was supposed to accomplish. Indeed, in 2002 I sincerely believed the saber-rattling was only about the 2002 midterms -- I mean, actually invading Iraq made no bleeping sense -- and assumed the Bushies would settle down as soon as the votes were counted. Back then I still thought there must be some kind of logic behind Bush policies other than the Glorification of Dear Leader and the Expansion of His Power. Boy, was I naive."

* durbin: 'we can protect the flag without defiling the constitution'

* fred barnes on hume railed against feingold because he co-wrote mccaing-feingold LIMITING FREE SPEECH and now he's against flag-burning amendment. I'm so glad i dont have to live inside the heads of these morans.

* katherine harris claims that anonymous dem congresscritters want her to win. right.

NYC metro plot falling apart

* suskind's claim about the NYC metro plot seems to be falling apart. tpmm

* tpmm:

"Sometime this week, the Supreme Court is expected to decide on the constitutionality of DeLay's 2003 redistrictring. If the court decides against it, the state would revert to the former districts and electoral chaos would ensue. If the court decides that the redistricting was constitutional, then we may soon see a whole lot more gerrymandering in blue as well as red states.

And according to lawyer for the Texas Democrats Chris Dunn, a federal judge in Texas is expected to decide next week whether Republicans can constitutionally replace DeLay as their candidate. If DeLay loses, he'll be stuck on the ballot. And what happens then? Will he let the Democrat Nick Lampson run unopposed?"

* milbank:

"Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) countered with a different set of figures. "There have been only seven acts of flag desecration annually in America in the last six years, so to argue that we have this growing trend toward desecration and burning our flag defies the facts," he said. "In fact, it rarely, if ever, happens. And so why are we about to change the handiwork and fine contribution to America of Thomas Jefferson?""

* miguel:

"Can you imagine prosecutors without time to hunt down terrorists because the courts are loaded with flag burners?"

* froomkin on SWIFT:

"On the issue of Congress being briefed, by the way, Peter Wallsten and Greg Miller write in the Los Angeles Times: "The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that she and many of her colleagues on the panel were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned it would be exposed in the press.""

* cesca:

"Show of hands. If you watched Senator Russ Feingold on Meet the Press this morning, how many of you agree that he's the best-spoken, most lucid, toughest, most steely-eyed Democrat in Congress?
[]
So why is there so much quiet conventional wisdom grumbling that Senator Feingold isn't a viable candidate for the nomination in 2008? Personally, I don't see another congressional Democrat who is a better candidate -- one who can clearly articulate his position and do so without sounding weak or out of touch with the mainstream."

(if you missed it, vid here)

Ledeen and other Iran hawks

* laura has another Rome/iran/ledeen/ghorba article out - this time in MoJo:

Washington insiders of a certain vintage cringe at the mention of Ghorbanifar’s name—and grow alarmed when they hear that, as another ex-CIA official puts it, “anyone in the U.S. government would still talk to Ledeen and Ghorbanifar after what happened.”
[]
The real story, as I learned in the course of a two-year investigation that took me from sterile Washington offices to smoky exile pubs in Paris, is more interesting. It’s also not over. As the crisis with Iran deepens and moves to the fore, the Bush administration is putting in place key elements of the vision spun in part by the men at the Rome meeting. In a new campaign to ramp up pressure on the Iranian regime, millions of dollars are pouring into exile groups, anti-regime propaganda, pro-democracy projects, and intelligence gathering. State Department and intelligence personnel are being deployed to the region and new Iran operations offices are being “stood up” in the State Department and Pentagon—the latter even featuring some of the names familiar from the pre-Iraq-war Office of special Plans.
[]
Feith departed the Pentagon in the summer of 2005; even before then, his office had stopped responding to any questions from the Senate committee about its activities, including the Rome meeting. “They freaked out at Defense,” the Senate staffer told me. “They said, ‘If you’re starting a criminal probe, we are not going to cooperate.’”
[]
Yet there’s a striking parallel in the way that Pentagon hawks relentlessly promoted both players (Ghorba/Chalabi) long after they had been deemed unreliable and possibly treacherous by other agencies, in particular the CIA. The difference is that Chalabi’s fictions have been exposed in a bloody and costly war, while Iran action is only now moving toward the front burner. And as it does, the notion that Ledeen and other Iran hawks have advocated for so long—that Iran’s regime will fall if only the United States will give it a push—is emerging as the main policy trajectory for the Bush administration. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested an additional $75 million for promoting democracy in Iran; that same month, a team of U.S. government Iran experts traveled to Los Angeles to talk to exiles there. State Department Iran watchers are being “forward deployed” to the Persian Gulf and surrounding region; in Washington, think tanks and exile groups are launching Iran initiatives, all of them jostling for the money and launching whisper campaigns against their competitors in a game whose stakes have suddenly risen. More covert measures are also reportedly under way, including the cultivating of proxies among the Kurds and some of Iran’s ethnic tribes to gather intelligence in the border regions of Iran; and there have been reports that some in the administration believe missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear program would embarrass the regime and lead to a revolution.

For the irrepressible Ledeen, none of this is quite enough. “I was recently asked if I saw signs of action,” Ledeen told me in April. “I see nothing.” Not much later, when the exile community buzzed with stories to the effect that Ledeen was involved in a new back channel to Iran’s rulers, and that Vice President Cheney had authorized the Pentagon to use Ghorbanifar as a source, he shrugged off both rumors. “I can’t imagine it. The Pentagon cannot, so far as I know, do intelligence operations without getting the approval of the CIA. It’s impossible and illegal.” Then he excused himself—he was headed out of town, to Italy, on vacation.