Totally Ticked Off

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

It's time for a rant so you may want to pass this one by. Maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed, but the accumulation of bad news, stupid decisions, and outright afronts has me boiling today.

Where to start....

Hmm, how about the hearings to confirm John Negroponte, human rights violator, Iran-Contra insider, and neo-con loyalist to be ambassador to Iraq? To top it off, the committee is banned from asking him about his Latin American activities. IRAQ: Death squad organiser to replace Bremer, Green Left Weekly, 4/28/04

How about the Occupation leaders in Iraq, constantly saying that their "patience" won't last forever? Hello? It certainly should. Patience is not supposed to have anything to do with military action. Does Bremmer or Kimmitt or somebody get up one morning and say, "I;m tired of waiting for a peaceful resolution in Najaf or Falluja (or some place else) so let's blow them off the face of the earth."? I may have misunderstood, but I thought armies were to do what they are told to do when they are told to do it. It doesn't make any difference how patient or impatient they are. Well, "patience" is apparently wearing thin as intensive missle and bombing have started in the two cites. In stark contrast, I heard a report last night on ITV that as the attack was occuring, the reporter stated that he could hear chants coming from the mosques. We bomb and the citizenry gathers in the mosques praying to be spared. Now that is truly winning hearts and minds.

How about the new Iraqi flag that is apparently being poorly received? Designed in London and being compared to the flag of Israel by Iraqis. It was noted by one that the colors were wrong for an Arab nation. Who gets to vote on national flag designs (I don't know). However, it seems that if one wanted to unify a nation and symboilize that with a flag, some input might have been a good idea. Burning With Anger: Iraqis Infuriated by New Flag That Was Designed in London, Independent/UK, 4/28/04.

And how about Israel? The IAEA is planning a visit to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities. Of course the word is already out that they won't let ElBaradei into the Dimona nuclear reactor site (they have top secret operations there I assume). Of course, that approach has not been well received in the cases of Iran, North Korea, or Lybia. Will it raise any stink if Israel bars inspectors? Somehow I doubt it. UN nuclear watchdog chief ElBaradei due in Israel in July, Ha'aretz, 4/28/04.

The Supremes are busy this week. They are to decide whether the Administration has the right to appeal a lower court ruling on Cheney and Bush refusing to release the papers on the writing of the "energy" plan (Justices Hear Challenges to Post-9/11 Presidential Powers, NYT 4/28/04). The lower court ruled they didn't have that power. Bush Co. is in court seeking the right to appeal that ruling. I think the real issue is to drag the release out until after the elections.

NOTE all these summations are from the April Supreme Court Docket from FindLaw. The FindLaw docket includes links to the substantive information and arguments to be argued.

Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 03-475

Subject: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Executive Privilege

Questions:

1. Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported.

2. Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation.

They are also hearing two cases on designation of someone as an enemy combatant and on indefinite detention without due process or constituionly guaranteed rights. The first case involves Esam Hamdi and the second Jose Padilla.

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. No. 03-6696

Subject: Indefinite Detention of Enemy Combatants, Habeas Corpus, Fifth Amendment, Right to Court Access, Due Process

Questions:

1. Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an American citizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with no opportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an "enemy combatant"?

2. Is the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad but held in the United States solely on the assertion of Executive officials that he is an "enemy combatant" permissible under applicable congressional statutes and treaty provisions?

3. In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad, detained in the United States, and declared by Executive officials to be an "enemy combatant," does the separation of powers doctrine preclude a federal court from following ordinary statutory procedures and conducting an inquiry into the factual basis for the Executive branch's asserted justification of the detention?

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense v. Jose Padilla and Donna R. Newman, as Next Friend of Jose Padilla No. 03-1027

Subject: Enemy Combatants, Presidential Authority, Commander in Chief, Article II, Authorization for Use of Military Force, Detention of Citizens, Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Jurisdiction

Questions:

1. Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and warlike acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority.

2. Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition.

Bush is also trying to get a new Archivist of the United Staes. In his ongoing effort to make everything that happens in his administration secret, he has tapped historian Allen Weinstein, who also has a reputation for maintaining secrecy to the post. The National Archivist position requires confirmation, so protest is possible and nine professional organization that deal with government records have protested - A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States: Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?, John Dean, FindLaw, 4/23/04)

So all of the above, plus some others not mentioned, has put me at a high boil. What sent me right over the top this morning? Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded (Bumiller & Shenon, NYT, 4/28/04). Yes comrades, after refusing to testify at all, then agreeing to do so, then arranging for Bush and his Brain to testify together, the damn thing is now going to be off the record. Bush will allow only the 10 commissioners and two note takers (one from the Whitehouse) into the "meeting." Yeah - it is now a "meeting" and not testimony so it is also not under oath (not like that would make a difference with inveterate liars).

An early time constraint of 1 hour each for testimony has not been mentioned since it is now a "meeting." The Commission has been asked to remember that they are meeting with the President (a very busy man). Of course Bush devoted three hours to meeting with Woodward for his book, and he does spend a lot of time out of the "office," so maybe it will be until the Pres or Vp decide they don't want to meet anymore. Any bets on how long that might be?

The dancing around talking with the commission has been an affront to the people of the United States. To now turn that testimony into a meeting, and only allowing limited note-taking at that, is a totally disrespectuful and beyond insult.

I can just see them patting down the commissioners as they enter the room. Issuing them one golf pencil and 2 pieces of 3x5 paper each. At the conclusion of the meeting, all materials are collected. I am sure that the Whitehouse requires that the commission's note taker's notes be approved by the Whitehouse. Too bad that Bush doesn't seem to share Nixon's penchant for taping everything (tho maybe Cheney does). We won't have those tapes to look forward to 20 years from now (if we are still around).

So there you go. Thanks for listening.

Posted by rowan at April 28, 2004 10:38 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |