Terrorists defeat Habeas Corpus!

As we all know by now the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was made law by George W Bush on October 17 2006. For brief overview of the issues involved click here . Keith Olbermann of MSNBC uses US Historical Events to explain why this law is so dangerous. He uses the words and actions of past Presidents and George Bush himself to dispute the wisdom of signing this bill into law. See video below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVtu-idqL8E]

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?” George W. Bush

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin

Habeas Corpus......Gone!

The Geneva Conventions......Optional!

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection......Snuffed Out!

These things you have done Mr. Bush! Keith Olbermann

North Korea goes Nuclear

Maps courtesy of www.theodora.com/maps used with permission.

President Bush promised a "A grave consequence" to North Korea if it tried to export nuclear weapons to either Iran or Al-Qaida. At this point I think it is pretty clear that the US has very limited options with regards to North Korea. A military strike seems to be out of the question, if for no other reason than it shares a border with China. The Chinese would not take kindly to any kind of display of American Power on its doorsteps. For this same reason an armed invasion of the country is even less likely.

So what are the "grave consequences" that the President is talking about? A blockade? An embargo? none of which is likely to have any effect without the active participation of the Chinese. China has displayed concern over the actions of North Korea but has essentially done nothing to punish them. In fact China is the one country that could choke the economic life out of North Korea and has been reticent to even vote for sanctions against its neighbor and trading partner.

When you refuse to engage in direct talks with your enemy you limit severely what options you have to influence its behavior. This is the position that America finds itself in. North Korea has been asking for direct talks with the US for years now but to no avail. Bush has refused to deal one on one with them. He has blessed multinational talks which have gone nowhere and have resulted in North Korea testing a nuclear bomb.

In fact America has helped North Korea with the technology and hardware to develop nuclear armaments. The following video implicates Donald Rumsfeld as a director of a company that sold nuclear reactors to North Korea. Now North Korea has the dubious distinction of belonging to two very elite clubs.....The "Axis of Evil Club" and the "Nuclear Weapons Club".

In reality there is nothing much anyone (except maybe China) can do or say that will have an impact on the decisions that North Korea makes. It is already an isolated, poor country. What can you take away from someone who has nothing?

The real question is what lessons will other countries learn (especially Iran) from this? Has the US lost much of its influence in the world and will this experience cause others to wonder why it is not in their best national interest to pursue the development of nuclear weapons technology? Is this the beginning of a new nuclear arms race?

Bush Signs Terror Bill

“By allowing our intelligence professionals to continue this vital program, this bill will save American lives.”George W. Bush

“This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from the threats to our freedom,”George W. Bush

President Bush has signed the "Terror Bill" passed by Congress earlier this month. It is now LAW.

This law was designed to allow the US to bring to trial those captured and detained in the war against terror. These prisoners have been held in custody in Guantanamo Bay and other secret CIA locations around the world.

It also allows the CIA to resume certain types of:

"tough interrogation tactics while outlawing others"

This new law is the result of a Supreme Court ruling that special tribunals setup by the government to try terror suspects:

"violated U.S. and international laws and needed explicit authorization from Congress."

So President Bush went to Congress, they wrote this new bill and he signed it into law. Some of the provisions in this law include:

• Barring detainees from challenging their detention in courts (Habeas Corpus)


• Protecting prisoners from blatant abuses during questioning like rape torture and "cruel and inhuman treatment"


• Prisoners don't have to be granted a lawyer


• Hearsay will be allowed as long as the judge deems it reliable


• Evidence obtained through coercion is permitted

Some of the prisoners awaiting trial include:

• Omar Kahdr - Captured in Afghanistan, accused of murdering a US medic in 2002


• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Accused of the Sept. 11 mastermind


• Ramzi Binalshibh - An alleged would be 9/11 hijacker


• Abu Zubaydah - Accused of being Osama Ben Laden's link to many Al-Qaida cells


• 24 Other Detainees either at Guantanamo or secret CIA prisons around the world

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) issued the following statement (full text here) regarding this new law:

“The legislation signed by the President today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court.

There are many who are against this law:

Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

Many experts think that this law is headed right back to the Supreme Court on grounds that it violates the US Constitution.

Sources include AP Wire News, the Toronto Star, Russ Feingold

Let's Make a Deal

Have you ever been caught up in the Justice System? I don't necessarily mean charged with a serious crime (although this fits in as well) but maybe a parking ticket, a speeding ticket, a fine for littering, basically anything at all that potentially requires a trip to the courthouse? Most of us have.

I was once pulled over for passing a stop sign. Of course I was innocent :) which I tried to explain to the police officer (who gave me a ticket anyway :( ). On the ticket the procedures on how to plead innocent or guilty were explained. I was accused of a moving violation and if I pleaded guilty I would have to pay fine and have "points" applied to my license. This was not very appealing to me so I decided to plead not guilty and take the matter to court. I expected to have to go before the judge and explain why I was not guilty. I did not go with high expectations because my accuser was an officer of the law.

I went to court on the appointed day, took my seat and waited for my turn. Before they could call me to see the judge the same police officer, who had given me the ticket, called me aside to discuss the matter. He explained that even though he thought I was guilty, he would give me a break if I was to plead guilty to a lesser charge. I would have to pay a small fine and there would be no points on my license. I agreed because I felt that the judge would be more likely to believe his story than mine, and after all I would have no points on my license. We went before the judge and I plead guilty to parking the car illegally. I paid the fine and left the courthouse with my license untouched. I felt very lucky and was happy I had decided to take the matter to court.

This is what is called a plea bargain. In return for my guilty plea I received a less harsh punishment. However, as it turns out, the officer did not offer me this deal out of the kindness of his heart. He did it to expedite the case and still win a conviction. On the other hand I took the deal because I only ended up with a fine. The court went along with the deal so that the matter could be closed expeditiously. Everybody benefited. But was justice really served? Was an innocent man convinced to plead guilty. Did both the policeman and the court serve the law?

State Troopers ( in New York State) are now powerless to make "deals" with motorists following the adoption of a new Police Policy which prohibits officers from reaching plea bargain agreements. This has prompted the introduction of new legislation and much discussion. One judge decided to dismiss all the tickets in front of him after the implementation of this new policy. This has landed him in trouble. However this matter is resolved, it seems likely that the police will not be so anxious to offer deals to motorists any more. I guess I was really lucky that my case came up before this new policy took effect.

The XIV Dalai Lama

I was shocked to see this video of Chinese soldiers killing Tibetan pilgrims on a journey to see Tenzin Gyatso, the XIV Dalai Lama, in India. It was taken by a Romanian TV cameraman in the Himalayas. It shows Chinese soldiers using these pilgrims for target practice and killing them in cold blood.

This is just another manifestation of the Chinese government's brutal repression of the Tibetan people. In 1959 they occupied the country and forced the Dalai Lama into exile. Ever since then he has been a unwavering voice against the oppression of his people.

The XIV Dalai Lama is the Head of State and Spiritual Leader of Tibet. He is probably one of the most recognised world leaders. He has worked tirelessly for the Tibetan people and been very outspoken against injustice in the world. He has received numerous awards and honors from dozens of countries and, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989

Tenzin Gyatso was born in 1935 in the village of Taktser, Tibet. At the age of three he was declared to be the fourteenth reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. He became the Tibetan Head of State in 1950. After the Tibetan National Uprising against the Chinese in 1959, he was forced into exile in India. He still lives there today and has established a Tibetan government in exile. He has travelled extensively throughout the world to highlight the situation of the Tibetan people. He is also an author of several books. In response to the question: "How do you view yourself?" his reply is:

I always consider myself as a simple Buddhist monk. I feel that is the real me. I feel that the Dalai Lama as a temporal ruler is a man-made institution. As long as the people accept the Dalai Lama, they will accept me. But being a monk is something which belongs to me. No one can change that. Deep down inside, I always consider myself a monk, even in my dreams. So naturally I feel myself as more of a religious person.

He shows the genuine humility of a Great Man. See more at his Official Website.