"Freedom is
the fundamental
human right."
the fundamental
human right."
Please
buy a sticker
so the site won't flicker
so the site won't flicker
|
"Freedom is the fundamental human right." |
Please
buy a sticker so the site won't flicker |
| Today's Unknown News | Commentary | Dialogue |
|
|
|
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush:
|
|
by Don Nash, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush: The father, the son, and the unholy boast. It has an eerie non-theological sense to it. These were three very different men, in three very different times, all sharing some of the same evil traits, such as deceit, criminality, murder, subversion, and the use of expedience that is Machiavellian in play and practice. Nixon liked secret bombing. Reagan liked ‘death squads’. Bush likes both of the previous two, plus torture and abuse. All three preferred lies over truth. All three preferred secrecy. All three share the same fascination with horrendous death. Well, then you have to throw in the overthrow of governments that have run afoul of the U.S., plus lots and lots of money. Political money that has no means for accountability. There is nothing like the smell of ‘easy’ money. And of course, the use of ‘easy’ money but, that is not germane to the issue at hand. Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. He had the U.S. military kill multiple thousands of Laotian and Cambodian people. It was a secret plan that he had devised with Henry Kissinger. Henry the ‘K’, America’s answer to Adolph Eichmann. Kissinger is one of the people that I still can’t figure out why he hasn’t been sent to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity. It’s one of those mysteries that plague our world and another example of the "don’t ask and I won’t have to tell the truth" phenomenon. It is perfectly expedient to kill whole nations of people and if no one asks, then it must be perfectly fine. Don’t tell the American people, don’t tell the U.S. Congress, and don’t tell the media, they will just start asking questions that require answers and, the answers to those questions can get one sentenced to life in prison. Now, one should also add in the Watergate mess but, in comparison to the secret bombing episodes, Watergate was a mere triviality. It was also incredibly stupid. It did bring down the Nixon presidency and that is karma. Stupidity in this instance was as close to real justice that Nixon ever got to taste. So, we should all thank Gerald Ford for depriving the world of the chance to see how the International Court of Justice works. Thanks ‘G’, thanks for nothing. Ronald Reagan as the "great communicator" preferred that his communications be in secret. Secret communications with Oliver North. Secret communications with John Poindexter. Names that still have a familiar ring. Secret communications with the government of Iran. Iran was holding a number of Americans as hostage and, seeing as how the Iranians were really angry with/at America on account of the Shah of Iran business, Reagan used this little black moment to insure that Jimmy Carter lost an election. Secret negotiations and secret drug trafficking and secret arms deals, If one is deeply committed to the business of spy-craft then, secrecy is essential. If one is secretly circumventing the Constitution of the United States of America, then secrecy is essential. If one is supporting ‘death squads’ in Central America then, secrecy is not only essential but vital. Vital to the work of the ‘death squads’ as, you can’t have the death squads running out of weapons and you can’t have Central American dictators running out of squads that do their murderous work. And with the American Constitution prohibiting secret murderous drug dealers and the necessity of arming them well, then the whole business gets all tied up in legalities or illegalities and that is just a nuisance. When Reagan was asked about his knowledge concerning the whole Iran/Contra/death squads/drugs for arms business, Reagan replied, "I don’t know anything about it", or "I know something about it but, I can’t talk about it", and the already famous line, "what?". Have you noticed a theme developing here? Circumventing our Constitution is subversion. Murder is illegal and secret murder is not only criminal, it is a high crime and surely a misdemeanor. Reagan made it through his presidency and sometimes, that is how it works. The karma got him after he was finished undoing the hard work of our founding fathers. George W. Bush, old number 43 and that is hardly an auspicious number. Bush loves the secrecy that can be had in American government. It wasn’t always like this but, secrecy really got a foot hold with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan worked the secrecy ploy like a skilled maestro. Bush 43 has taken secrecy to new depths. Un-American as that is, Bush secrets everything that his administration does. All of the departments, agencies, bureaus, war plans, energy plans, commissions, investigation teams, new nuclear weapons, new chemical and biological weapons, the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq, the plans for war on Syria and Iran, and the connections between Israel, the Saudis, Osama bin Laden, and flying the Saudi royal family home after 9/11/01. Secret! Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States: "America, you do not get to know. You do not need to know because I, Bush 43, have decided so. My veep and Karl Rove agree with me so, up yours. With all information being secret, America will just have to accept my word on decisions and plans for war. America will just have to accept the fact that, I, Bush 43, will decide who is held in detainment, who is declared an "enemy combatant", and who is declared an enemy of the state. The Constitution grants me the sovereign right to wage war and when to suspend civil rights, and when to unleash my government legal teams to "clarify" all of the legalities. Or muddy the legalities, it doesn’t matter. I, Bush 43, rule so, up yours. Try and stop me. I, Bush 43, can kill all of the Iraqis that I choose. I can torture them and I can abuse them. I have plans for who is next, but it is secret and you will just have to trust that I know best. Who is going to stop me, the Congress? Don’t make me laugh. The Supreme Court? I own their legal expertise, so they do as I tell them to. If they don’t, they get a duck hunting trip with de facto Dick."Nixon, Reagan, and G.W. Bush: The unholy trinity of politically insane expedience. America survived Nixon and American survived Reagan but, America may not survive Bush II. If you have any lingering doubts, just ask John Yoo. Yoo is a professor at U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of law. Before that, he worked for John Ashcroft at the Department of Justice. It was Yoo that authored the torture plans. Nixon and Reagan, on their best days, never had an inkling how good they could have it‘. Bush 43 has given his insane interpretations a nick-name, it is called the "Yoo interpretive method." "Yoo" interprets and Bush runs with it ... to the cemetery. What do you think?
|
Nothing illegal about Bush's policy on torture by John C. Yoo, University of California Professor of Law June 14, 2004 Official Washington, D.C., has been struck by a paroxysm of leaking. It involves classified memos analyzing how the Geneva Convention, the 1994 Torture Convention and a federal law banning torture apply to captured al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. Critics suggest that the Bush administration sought to undermine or evade these laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., claimed last week that the analyses appeared "to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." This is mistaken. As a matter of policy, our nation has established a standard of treatment for captured terrorists. In February 2002, President Bush declared that the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, consistent with the principles (of the Geneva Convention)." Detainees receive shelter, food, clothing, health care and the right to worship. This policy is more generous than required. The Geneva Convention does not apply to the war on terrorism. It applies only to conflicts between its signatory nations. Al-Qaida is not a nation; it has not signed the convention; it shows no desire to obey the rules. Its very purpose It is true that the definition of torture in the memos is narrow, but that follows the choice of Congress. When the Senate approved the international Torture Convention, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." It defined mental pain or suffering as "prolonged mental harm" caused by threats of physical harm or death to a detainee or a third person, the administration of mind-altering drugs or other procedures "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality." Congress adopted that narrow definition in the 1994 law against torture committed abroad, but it refused to implement another prohibition in the convention Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But would limiting a captured terrorist to six hours' sleep, isolating him, interrogating him for several hours or requiring him to do physical labor constitute "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"? Federal law commands that al-Qaida and Taliban operatives not be tortured, and the president has ordered that they be treated humanely, but the United States is not required to treat captured terrorists as if they were guests at a hotel or suspects held at an American police station. Finally, critics allege that the administration wants to evade these laws by relying on the president's commander-in- chief power. But the 1994 statute isn't being evaded, because the president's policy is to treat the detainees humanely. Besides, that statute does not explicitly regulate the president or the military. General criminal laws usually are not interpreted to apply to either, because otherwise they could interfere with the president's constitutional responsibility to manage wartime operations. If laws against murder or property destruction applied to the military in wartime, for instance, it could not engage in the violence that is a necessary part of war. But suppose Congress did specifically intend to restrict the president's authority to interrogate captured terrorists. As commander in chief, the president still bears the responsibility to wage war. To this day, presidents from both political parties have refused to acknowledge the legality of the War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval for hostilities of more than 60 days. (President Clinton ignored it during Kosovo.) And in the war on terrorism, Congress has authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force." By exploring the boundaries of what is lawful, the administration's analyses identified how a decision-maker could act in an extraordinary situation. For example, suppose that the United States captures a high-level al-Qaida leader who knows the location of a nuclear weapon in an American city. Congress should not prevent the president from taking necessary measures to elicit its location, just as it should not prohibit him from making other strategic or tactical choices in war. In hearings last week, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., recognized that "very few people in this room or in America ... would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake." Ultimately, the administration's policy is consistent with the law. If the American people disagree with that policy, they have options: Congress can change the law, or the electorate can change the administration. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, worked from 2001 to 2003 at the Justice Department, where he analyzed the Geneva Convention's applicability to terrorism detainees. Houston Chronicle This material is copyrighted by its original publisher. It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission, solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of U.S.C. Title 17. |
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time. We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive. |
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. | Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |
| 1234567890 |