Beautiful Protest:: CODEPINK Calls Out BP

CodePink descended on the Houston headquarters of British Petroleum today in protest of the continuing failure to stop the volcano of oil that has been erupting for the last five weeks in the Gulf of Mexico.

The members of CodePink, a group originally founded to speak out against the Oil Wars started by the Bush Administration, stripped in front of the corporate offices and covered themselves in oil. Calling their demonstration the "Naked Truth," the organization's effort was designed to draw attention to the catastrophe in the Gulf.

Don't expect British Petroleum executives to do more than send photos of the protest to their friends. It is illustrative of the whole debacle that BP has figured out a way to siphon and recover the oil but has yet to figure out how to stop the leak. Please note that the amount they are now recovering (around 5000 barrels a day) is the amount they have claimed was leaking. Film footage of the leak, however, shows that it is still continuing to blast oil into the Gulf.

It is time to for BP to allow responsible and independent scientists calculate the actual flow rate. It is time for the government to take over the efforts to stop the leak. It is time for BP to be held accountable.

Dick Cheney: War Criminal

I know, the headline is no surprise. It's just that the man keeps admitting it. This past Sunday, Valentine's Day 2010, Dick Cheney bragged that he had opposed the Bush Administration's attempts to back off torture and stop waterboarding. Making his round on the morning news shows, Cheney unequivocally indicated that he supported waterboarding. He then continued on to criticize the Obama Administration's handling of national security.

What's up with this guy? Eight years in office, he spent most of it in an "undisclosed location," emerging only to shoot his friend in the face in a hunting (if releasing birds from boxes is hunting) incident. You couldn't get this guy to answer a question or utter a word while in office. Even his residence was blurred on satellite map sites. Now that he's out of office, he won't shut up.

Please Dick, go back to an undisclosed location.

Ronald the Wrong

I recently received an email that posed the question, "Do you miss this guy?" When you opened the email a picture of Ronald Reagan followed by a few of his pithy quotes popped out. As I said to the sender of the email, "Yes, I miss Reagan. I miss him like I miss a boil on my butt."

Reagan, who I will always think of by Jello Biafra's wonderful moniker for him, "Grandpa Caligula,"was the consummate politician. Referred to by many as the "Great Communicator," he could deliver a magnificent speech even though he usually had no clue what he was talking about. He built a career campaigning for fiscally conservative principles and promptly busted the budget once in office. In a self fulfilling prophecy he mocked government as incompetent and then made sure that it was. He began the give away of the public wealth of the nation, through privatization (code for profits to private corporations, costs to the tax payer), subsidies to industry and other forms of corporate welfare. He began a never ending stream of tax breaks for the wealthiest. His emphasis on deregulation and trickle-down economics (code for the wealthy come first to the trough) led to a course that culminated during the Bush (mis) Administration with the ultimate theft of the nation, the raiding of the Treasury by Henry Paulson for the good of Goldman-Sachs and the other criminals on Wall Street. The past thirty years have been little more than a thinly veiled effort to transfer the wealth of the nation and its people to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Reagan spouted platitudes like so many lines from his movies. Unfortunately for the world, his acting seemed to improve with age. When president he lied with ease (Iran-Contra) and got away with it. Near the end of his term in office he clearly exhibited signs of the Alzheimer's that would eventually incapacitate him, on one occasion describing a scene from a movie as an actual event. Yet, with a good natured wink and nod of the head he would slip back into character as the President of the United States and most were none the wiser.

It was a simpler time, a time when the president could have Alzheimer's and we would still be okay. A time when our biggest war was invading a golf course in the Caribbean. A time long ago, before we elected the village idiot, who in eight years, destroyed the economy, plundered the Treasury, started two wars, and shredded the Constitution.

Yes, I do miss Reagan. I miss having a barometer of what is completely wrong. Style over substance, party loyalty over country, corporations before people. That was Reagan. Ronald the Wrong.

What Will It Take?

We've already had allegations of eavesdropping and spying on the American people. Government officials have not only defended torture, they have championed it. Now we have learned in the past few days that the CIA has continued to operate programs from the Bush years apparently even out of sight of their director, Leon Panetta. In addition, it turns out that Dick Cheney ordered certain programs kept secret from Congress.

How many broken laws must be revealed before there is an investigation of Bush Administration. What will it take?

Torture Memos Reveal National Disgrace

The Obama Administration has recently released a number of memos from the Bush Justice Department that portray in painstaking detail the depths to which agents of the U.S. government sunk in their green-lighting of torture against prisoners detained as terror suspects. The memos, released in response to lawsuits filed by the ACLU (you may follow a link on this page to their website to read the memos and to sign a petition requesting a further inquiry of these charges), discuss in great detail the techniques that would be used and seek to provide legal justifications for these actions.

Immediately, the apologists for torture have lambasted the decision to release the memos primarily based on three notions; 1) that terrorists will be better able to prepare against these techniques, 2) that we can't use the techniques again and 3) that they sully the reputation of the United States. All three of these objections are patently absurd. First and foremost, the techniques have been widely discussed and are well known so the idea that terrorists can now better prepare is specious at best. The argument that the release of the memos, really the overt admission of torture, prevents future use of the methods is precisely the point of releasing them and is related to the idea that admitting this somehow sullies the nation's reputation.

It was not admitting to torture that damaged that country, it was ENGAGING IN TORTURE that damaged the nation's reputation. The very reason that we are involved in this ongoing clash is because of our actions. Only by coming clean and admitting to these acts and taking steps to ensure that they will never occur again can there be a way forward.

The complete disgrace revealed by these memos though has been lost in the debate about their release. What these memos really reveal is that the torture had nothing to do with making the nation safe. It has long been recognized that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering intelligence due to the fact that you can't trust the information. Tortured people will tell you anything and try any effort to make the pain stop. In the case of those tortured by CIA operatives and others, it is becoming abundantly clear that information gathered through torture was a complete bust.

In the case of Abu Zubaydah, one of the more infamous torture cases, he had provided a plethora of information prior to being tortured. Once the torture started, he ceased to provide useful and reliable information.

Reading the memos it becomes apparent the sadistic nature of those who plotted, condoned and justified these actions. Abu Zubaydah, for example, was apparently subjected not only to repeated water boarding, but also to sleep deprivation and having his head banged against the wall. When it became known that he was afraid of insects there were plans to put him in a confined space with an insect and make him believe its sting was poisonous. Another prisoner had an artificial leg taken from him so that episodes of prolonged standing would be even more arduous. As I said, sadistic. Sexual humiliation and personal degradation were common elements of the interrogations. It had nothing to do with gathering information it was all about the torture. As Scott Shane reported in the New York Times, senior officials from CIA headquarters were so involved in the micromanagement of the torture that some actually showed up to watch the final water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.

Why everyone seems so shocked now is the big surprise. Cheney has practically bragged about his part in the torture, former detainees have given detailed interviews about their torture and who can forget Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing the techniques years ago when they were first brought into question. The Red Cross, recognized as the arbiter of torture claims, has already filed a report that firmly accused the U.S. of torture. The fact of torture no longer seems disputable.

The national disgrace is that so many knew for so long what was going on. The national disgrace is that so many attempted to rationalize and concoct legal justifications for what was clearly wrong, clearly and indisputably war crimes. The only way to even begin to repair this stain on the nation is by dragging the criminal behavior out into the light of day and holding those responsible accountable.

The greatest national disgrace would be to let those responsible get away with it.



Shortly after posting the above blog, I learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in one month. What could the interrogators possibly have learned on the 183rd time that they could not have learned on the 182nd time? This one bit of information demonstrates that the purposes of these actions were not to gather intelligence but simply the infliction of torture.

Who's Listening Now

The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it intends to extend the Bush (mis)Administration's position on warrantless wiretaps. Further, the protections extend not just to the telecoms that sold out the people, but now to the government. In essence, the Obama Administration is claiming that the government cannot be held accountable for wantonly breaking the law and snooping on citizens. In fact, Obama seems to be claiming some sort of "sovereign immunity" concerning this issue.

The right wing of this country may have let Bush and his flunkies have a free pass when it came to destroying the nation. However, I, and I am sure many others on the left, do not intend to allow Obama to trample over the Constitution in any way. Sovereign immunity is what kings used to protect themselves. The U.S. was founded to get away from such hubris. The days of kings and queens (Elizabeth II notwithstanding) are over.

Obama must immediately reverse this position. The citizens of a free country that claims to adhere to the rule of law cannot let this stand. We did not spend eight years suffering under a fool only to have the same draconian positions shoved down our throats.

As a Constitutional law professor, Obama cannot possibly see that these actions are within line with the Constitution. What can possibly be behind this action?


For a more complete legal exposition of this issue, please check Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's website.

Where Were Our Leaders?

On the same day that it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed 92 tapes of interrogation of detainees, nine (9) secret legal opinions of the Bush (mis)Administration were revealed by the Justice Department. Taken together, these reveal a culture of lawlessness, and contempt for the Constitution and the basis of common law.

George Bush apparently claimed powers not seen since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. In addition, his administration's obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence made Nixon's men look like a bunch of schoolgirls.

First the destruction of evidence. The CIA's torture tapes have been the source of numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups trying to penetrate the wall of secrecy of the Bush (mis)Administration. At first denied to exist, we now find that 92 of these tapes were destroyed. If the destruction of 92 pieces of evidence is not a sign of knowingly committing wrongdoing, what is?

More frightening than the destruction of evidence, are the purported legal opinions under which the Bush-ites operated. To catalog these rulings here would be prohibitive, but just this one quote is horrifying enough, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." In other words, dissent would be suppressed. Other opinions swept aside the Posse Comitatus Act, suggested that Congress had no power to limit the president, justified warrant-less arrests and domestic spying. In essence, these rulings effectively suspended the U.S. Constitution.

To believe that no one in Congress, that no one in the Justice Department, that no one at all was aware of what was in these memos strains credulity. Everyone was informed. This was official operating policy. Where was the outcry? Members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are now hiding behind the idea that to have blown the whistle would have been a violation of national security.

Subversion of the Constitution is a violation of national security. Would that politicians were as interested in preserving the principles of our nation as they are at preserving their political careers. All those who knew and did nothing: treason would seem to be the appropriate charge.

And where were the Republicans in all this? Bush, after all, was a member of their own party. It was their duty, especially as the party in power at the time, to stop him. Instead, they acted with complicity. To hear some off them howl now that they are out of power that they are concerned about the Constitution is just sheer hypocrisy. Where were they when the country needed them?

This aggression must not stand. Leaders of this nation have committed crimes against WE, THE PEOPLE. Hearings and commissions are not enough. They must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution must be viewed as it has become, a nice fiction that we once made real. What hath George Bush wrought?

Barack Botches Bagram

You either stand for human rights or you don't. After initially appearing to be on course to repair the damaged reputation of the United States as regards human rights, the Obama Administration has now blown it. Instead of following up on positive actions such as closing Guantanamo, the Department of Justice has ruled that human rights protections need not be extended to the 600 or so prisoners held in Bagram, Afghanistan.

Using rationales that are as pitiful as any offered by the Bush Administration, such as "it's a war zone," and "ongoing conflict," this sad ruling continues to perpetuate the active disregard for human rights that has damaged this country's international reputation. And for what purpose? Do we really believe that granting basic human rights to religious fanatics will damage our nation? Obama must realize that he was elected in part because people were fed up with just this sort of behavior committed in our name.

We are better than this, at least, we once were. Once a proud country that stood for human rights everywhere, we have become a fearful nation, afraid to live up to our own values.

What Obama Didn't Say

Last night, February 9, 2009, Barack Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House that was remarkable. What he said was interesting enough, but it was what he did not say that was even more noteworthy.

The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.

Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.

In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.

There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.

I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.

Bush: The Legacy

The legacy tour continues, as Bush, Cheney and their minions attempt to manipulate memories and reality. "It all went well, really. History will vindicate us, you'll see." Bush even claimed in his press conference that the response to Katrina was "pretty good." Delusion or lie.

A complete litany of the failures of the Bush Administration is too long to begin. Even the list of major debacles has grown so long that it becomes impossible to recite them without leaving out something obvious. The threats to our rights, and the acts of utter disregard for the Constitution and our ideals, are surely even more numerous.

The legacy of the Bush Presidency though, can be summed up by the intersection of a number of the various domains of failure perfected by this thoroughly incompetent administration. To begin, in the final week of his presidency, Osama bin Laden releases another audiotape, continuing to taunt Bush. The hunt for bin Laden, marked by all the swagger and hubris we have come to expect from the Decider, serves as a symbol of the utter incompetence of this administration.

The inability to capture bin Laden was accompanied, over the years, by an ever frantic effort to ramp up fears of future attacks, and to justify all manner of acts antithetical to the professed ideals of this country. Torture was justified and denied at the same time. The moral authority of the nation was destroyed here and abroad.

Now that Judge Susan J. Crawford, who oversees the military trials at Guantanamo, has stated unequivocally that torture has occurred at that facility, the legacy tour will continue to point out there have been no attacks since 9/11. Forget that 9/11 occurred on their watch and the anthrax attacks occurred soon after. Know that the torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib ended serving more as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda than it made anyone safe.

Finally though, the legacy of the Bush Administration can be seen in the complete lack of regard for which America is now seen in the world community. Rather than making the world or America safer, he has inflamed the very soul of the world. His eight years of dogmatic, ideological imperialism have confirmed the worst suspicions about America for its detractors. His incompetence has compounded the multitude of errors. Here we are, more than seven years after 9/11 and he still hasn't caught a six feet, five inch guy on dialysis who is one of the most recognizable figures in the world.

Bush's narrow minded view of the world fostered an "us vs. them" mentality that ultimately made us all less safe. He had furthered the likelihood of violence and confrontation in the world. A strong case can be made that the current actions in the Gaza Strip are occurring precisely because Bush is about to leave office. And remember, he was going to bring peace to the Middle East.

Incompetence. Torture. World Stature Destroyed. Quite a legacy. Oh, and I forgot the economy.

Fooled Again

Now that the bailout has passed and the stock market continues to tank and the credit squeeze gets tighter, will someone finally admit that we have just thrown good money after bad. Why would we have thought it would be any other way? The very people who have been wrong about almost everything (the Bush Administration, in case you missed it) first told us that disaster was on the way. "The sky is falling, but we can fix it," would have been an appropriate caption.

Now, post bailout, things continue to get worse. European banks are experiencing their own crisis, Asian stocks are off and banks continue not to loan money. Wasn't the bailout supposed to fix that?

Oh, I see, you actually believed the Bush Administration when they said this cash give away was necessary for the economy. Yea, and privatization led to the efficient clean-up post-Katrina. Of course, privatization and the bailout are ultimately, or should I say, intimately, connected. Both efforts reflect the real agenda of the Bush Administration - dismantle the government and strip all the assets for their cronies. Somehow they have managed to outdo themselves. They've managed to finance all of this by pawning off the debt on the public.

Now that the bailout has passed and the economy continues to tank, we see the real reason Henry Paulson had such a difficult time explaining the plan: there was no plan. The Bush-ites have done it to us again. They have pulled the wool right over our eyes. Just like the Patriot Act, just like the abuses of power, just like everything else.

And that, my fellow ripped-off citizens, is the real shame.

Saved (Momentarily) by Incompetence

In failing to pass the bail-out/give-away to Wall Street, the House of Representative stumbled, at least momentarily, into carrying out the will of the people. This failure is most noteworthy, not for its effect on the economy, but for its stunning defeat in an era when the final votes are a foregone conclusion.

Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.

One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.

But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.

We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.

Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.

Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.