Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog :
Updated: 10/1/06; 7:48:00 AM.

 

Subscribe to "Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 
 

Friday, September 22, 2006

Reclaiming The Issues: "Keep George Out Of Jail" by Thom Hartmann The Republicans are trying to keep George W. Bush out of jail. So far, the media and the Democrats haven't done much to stop them.

On the surface, it seems the Republicans are having a debate about "wiretapping terrorists" and "harsh interrogation of prisoners." These frames about the current "rebellion" by McCain, Graham, Warner, et al, are today embraced by both the Republican Party and the mainstream media.

But the real issue is whether Republicans in Congress will trade the principles of democracy and the rule of law to keep George W. Bush and several of his colleagues out of jail, or whether they'll uphold the rule of law and American democracy while abandoning him to face the consequences of his illegal acts.

On June 29, 2006, in the Hamden Case, the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration had violated the Geneva Convention and other international treaties with regard to the treatment and prosecution of detainees in the so-called "war on terror."

The logic of the decision could subject Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rumsfeld - along with those down the chain of command who followed their orders - to prosecution as war criminals both in the United States and internationally. If they violated Common Article 3 and others of the Geneva Conventions, they could be subject to lengthy imprisonment in the US for violating US laws, as well as being brought before the United Nation's International Court of Justice at The Hague, the same as Slobodan Milosevic.

A hastily convened conference call by the Justice Department to discuss the ruling caused Brian Roehrkasse at the Department of Justice Public Affairs Office to comment to those on the call that "the Supreme Court's holding indicates the military commissions, as currently constituted by DOD, while robust in affording enemy combatants more process than this or any other country has ever afforded enemy combatants, are not consistent with current congressional statutes, especially the UCMJ and treaty provisions, Common Article 3."

A plain English translation would be close to: "The Supreme Court said we've broken US law, we've broken the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and we've broken the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3."

About six weeks later, on August 17, 2006, Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in Detroit that George W. Bush and his administration had committed numerous felonies with regard to wiretapping American citizens without a legal warrant, including violating the FISA act (which carries a 5-year prison term as the penalty for each violation) and violating the Constitution (which carries impeachment as its penalty). Later in the day, the Department of Homeland Security facilitated the arrest in Thailand of John Mark Karr for killing JonBenet Ramsey, sweeping the story off the front page and out of the weekend news analysis shows, but the ruling is still there.

Thus the Republicans are scrambling.

If either of these precedents carry forward or are seriously prosecuted - as could happen if Democrats take either the House or the Senate and gain the power to investigate crimes of the Bush Administration, or could simply happen as the normal course of events if lawyers in the Justice Department and the United Nations enforce the law - Republicans are faced with the very real possibility that George W. Bush and others in his administration could go to prison. Impeachment is a virtual given.

Thus the spin. And the compromises. And the debates within the Republican Party. And the corporate media's efforts to limit the discussion to the "wiretapping debate" and the "prisoner interrogation/torture debate."

Scratch the veneer off, though, and you quickly see that this is really about keeping George out of jail.

This one will be interesting to watch.

Will the Republicans bail George out the way Osama's half-brother, Salem Bin Laden (who soon thereafter died in a plane crash in Texas), did when Dubya's Harken Oil Company was going bust? Will they keep him from being prosecuted the way his father did when Poppy shut down an SEC investigation of Junior's inside trading? Will they keep him out of federal custody the way his daddy did when Dubya left the Texas Air National Guard to desert the military and go on a year-long drinking binge in Alabama?

And will the Democratic Party seize the frame - or use as an October Surprise - the fact of George W. Bush's vulnerability to criminal prosecution?

Or will the Republicans - and maybe even Poppy Bush (who's spending an eerie amount of time with his new surrogate son, Bill Clinton) - simply decide that after sixty years it's finally time for George to fend for himself, and leave our laws intact?

It could, after all, be the best way for a "maverick" Republican like McCain to reclaim the Republican party and pin all the blame for five years of High Crimes And Misdemeanors on Dubya, paving the way for a "cleaner" Republican slate in the '08 elections. Many of these same Republicans, remember, were pushing hard for jail time for Bill Clinton for lying to a Grand Jury about having sex in the Oval Office - and were quite vocal about how a president could be both impeached and prosecuted for crimes.

The next few weeks - and the fine print in the "compromises" being hammered out among Republicans in the Senate right now - will tell.

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His most recent book is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."
10:30:14 AM    comment []


WONDERFUL JEFF COHEN WILL BE JOINING ME ON THE PAT THURSTON SHOW ON TUESDAY AT 1:00 PM. THAT'S NEWSTALK 1350 KSRO, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA TUNE IN! TALK TO JEFF. OPINE!!!

Jeff Cohen: "Devil" in the Details: Chavez, Limbaugh and Hypocrisy on Name-Calling.

Across the U.S. political and media spectrum, there was wide agreement yesterday: Name-calling and personal attacks are bad for national and global dialogue. Prompting the unity were Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' comments that President Bush was the devil incarnate, "El Diablo."

Among those exercised (and exorcized) about Chavez' name-calling were some of the loudest name-callers in American media today -- including Rush Limbaugh and other rightwing talk hosts. Limbaugh tried to equate Chavez' remarks with the alleged Bush-bashing that comes from top U.S. Democrats. In case you've forgotten, it was Limbaugh who ridiculed Chelsea Clinton, then 13, as the "White House dog."

It was Limbaugh in 2001 who routinely referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle, literally, as "El Diablo." Along with "Devil in a Blue Dress" theme music, Limbaugh would carry on at length about how Daschle may well be Satan in soft-spoken disguise. Bellowed Limbaugh in July 2001: "Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century...up pops 'El Diablo,' Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent." (Months later, Limbaugh started describing Daschle more as a traitor than a devil, who'd decided to "align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein.")

Also incensed by Chavez was MSNBC host and former GOP Congressman, Joe Scarborough - who last night played a lengthy excerpt of Limbaugh pontificating about the Chavez remarks. Somehow Scarborough couldn't dig up the tapes of Limbaugh declaring that Daschle was the devil.

In my new book Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media,
I dissect the hypocrisy of a TV news business that has long catered to hateful rightists like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter. In TV land, vicious epithet-hurlers get to define and denounce outnumbered or silenced progressives as the name-callers.

When I worked at MSNBC on Phil Donahue's primetime show in 2002-2003, management often complained that Phil - who never named-called and was one of the most courteous hosts in TV history -- was "badgering" guests. His patriotism was questioned. As the Iraq invasion neared, an internal NBC management memo described Donahue as "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war." Why? Because he insisted on presenting guests who were "skeptical of the administration's motives."

With Donahue terminated on the eve of war, MSNBC brass turned to hosts like Scarborough and talk radio bigot Michael Savage, known for his declarations that developing countries like Venezuela were "turd world nations"; that Latinos "breed like rabbits"; and that women "should have been denied the vote." In a TV industry bent on placating the far right, Donahue was "a difficult public face for NBC." But Savage was deemed an acceptable face.

Three weeks into the Iraq war, Scarborough was gleeful at boycotts and cancellations aimed at antiwar "elitists" like Janeane Garofalo, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. As a guest on Scarborough's show, Savage declared that "Hollywood idiots" are "absolutely committing sedition and treason." Responded Scarborough: "These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass."

Let me be clear: Those of us who use facts instead of rant; reason and argument instead of name-calling and personal attacks; evidence instead of intimidation and accusations of disloyalty -- we have the moral authority to tell Hugo Chavez that his comments were out of line.

But the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Scarboroughs and O'Reillys are in no position to point any fingers. Nor are the executives at Disney, GE and News Corp who have made them the loudest voices in American media.

Nor, for that matter, is Team Bush -- whose strategy has been to demonize and intimidate critics and other members of the "reality-based community."

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
10:29:30 AM    comment []

Cenk Uygur: Maverick Senators Cave in to The Torture Presdient.

Wow, what mavericks! Those courageous, rebel Republican senators are at it again. They showed Bush a thing or two. Now, he want be able to maim, rape and mutilate detainees. That ought to show him.

On the torture issue, the senators basically pretended to get a concession when the president said he would not reinterpret the Geneva Conventions ... when it comes to "grave breaches." But anything other than a grave breach the president has free reign to interpret and reinterpret any damn way he pleases.

First, let's go over what the "grave breaches" are: torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape, causing serious bodily injury, and sexual assault or abuse, and taking hostages.

Great, we won't be doing biological experiments on the detainees anymore. Since cruel and inhuman treatment's definition is not spelled out, this leaves us exactly where we were before. The president can order waterboarding, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, physical abuse, etc., etc. It's all cool as long as no one is getting raped or mutilated. Are we not merciful?

In the end, what did the brave maverick Republican senators get on the torture issue? Bupkus!

And what was their reaction? Bend over, smile and pretend to be rebels. I thought sexual abuse wasn't permitted anymore under the new guidelines. So, I guess it was consensual.

Oh yeah, they did get one more powerful concession. The president promises to put up a list of the different torture tactics he thinks are acceptable in an executive order at a date to be determined later. Except of course, Stephen Hadley has already said they will not do that because specific interrogation techniques will remain secret. Ooops. There goes that.

Speaking of Stephen Hadley, he also said the one real concession the senators got on the other issue - letting the defendants see evidence they are being charged with - might also be a head fake. He says they might reconsider that later. Of course!!!

This is a president you can't trust on anything. I mean that literally. On this very issue, the president has lied before and said he would agree to a compromise worked out on torture before - and then reneged on the deal by attaching a signing statement to the bill saying he would not follow the wording on torture. The man just can't get enough of torture. He is an addict. Even these high profile interventions can't stop him.

Maybe we need to bring in a heavy hitter to take care of this problem. The same man who helped Bush beat his other addictions - Jesus Christ. Though, there is some chance if Jesus himself came down and told Bush to stop torturing people, he still wouldn't do it. Cheney would convince him Jesus was soft on defense.

For kicks, the senators also threw in the concession that the prisoners will not be able to enforce any rights they might have because they will be held in a lawless state. Again, this is literal. They will have no right to habeas corpus. No recourse to the courts. They will only have the legendary compassion of George Bush to comfort them.

So, in the end, the president who started out by claiming to be a compassionate conservative will go down in history as The Torture President. Just when you thought Bush's legacy couldn't get any worse.

The Young Turks

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
10:22:54 AM    comment []

Ad: MLK was in GOP, Dems started KKK (0). Ad: MLK was in GOP, Dems started KKK (0) [The Raw Story | A rational voice - Alternative news]
10:19:20 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.
 


September 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Aug   Oct