Look: I am eager to learn stuff I don't know--which requires actively courting and posting smart disagreement.

But as you will understand, I don't like to post things that mischaracterize and are aimed to mislead.

-- Brad Delong

Copyright Notice

Everything that appears on this blog is the copyrighted property of somebody. Often, but not always, that somebody is me. For things that are not mine, I either have obtained permission, or claim fair use. Feel free to quote me, but attribute, please. My photos and poetry are dear to my heart, and may not be used without permission. Ditto, my other intellectual property, such as charts and graphs. I'm probably willing to share. Let's talk. Violators will be damned for all eternity to the circle of hell populated by Rosanne Barr, Lady Gaga, and trombonists who are unable play in tune. You cannot possibly imagine the agony. If you have a question, email me: jazzbumpa@gmail.com. I'll answer when I feel like it. Cheers!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Republicans - All Wrong, All the Time, Pt 9

The worst part about right wingery is not their ignorance, nor their arrogance; not even their cherrypicking nor their all-too-often-manifested deep stupidity.  No, it is their willful denial of reality.  Here is a beautiful example.

Last week, several top Republican officials accused Holder of essentially fabricating a claim that the Bush administration's Department of Justice successfully tried 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges using the criminal justice system.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted, flat out, that the number wasn't true.
. . .
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) called the claim "unsubstantiated"
. . .
Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino was even blunter, deeming Holder's assertion baffling. "The 300 number is as false as false gets," she declared.


Sadly, no, you lying Repugnicant Cretins.

Back in the FY 2009 Budget request submitted to Congress in 2008 (under the prior administration), it was the Bush DoJ which cited the 300+ figure. Not once, but twice -- as evidence of its success in combating and punishing terrorist activity.
.  .  .
Since 2001, the Department has increased its capacity to investigate terrorism and has identified, disrupted, and dismantled terrorist cells operating in the United States. These efforts have resulted in the securing of 319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases 
.  .  .
Since September 11, 2001, the Department has charged 512 individuals with terrorism or terrorism-related crimes and convicted or obtained guilty pleas in 319 terrorism-related and anti-terrorism cases.‪‪


Unfortunately, what has been lost in this debate is that the U.S.Constitution guarantees due process to all persons, not just citizens.  The use of Military Tribunals is only valid in the case of a declared war, which we do not have.

The lying, stupid Repugnicant hypocrisy -- it BURNS!
.

10 comments:

J said...

The Gonzales DoJ /BushCo admin did seem to violate Article 3 of Geneva Con. The 14th Amendment, on the other hand does apply to US Citizens, not POWs. I agree that even POWs or suspected "terrorists" are entitled to a fair trial,and to humane treatment, but they do not have same rights as citizens do. So,sad to say, I nearly agree that any POWs belong in military jurisdiction, not the usual state courts.

That said, a cop's a cop (and a laywer, or DA, or AG an educated cop). Is Holder any better than Gonzales, or Janet Reno? Not sure. Holder has already done some fairly sleazy stuff.

Gonzales had issues, but some Demos forget he actually took on, and removed some GOP judges, along with some Dems. He had some words for Bush admin as well. Why did, say, DiDi Feinstein, at best a pro-corporate centrist DINO, detest Gonzo? One could speculate...

Jazzbumpa said...

The 14th Amendment, on the other hand does apply to US Citizens, not POWs.

No es correcto, mi amigo. The 14th Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, applies to PERSONS within our jurisdiction. Legal precedent is ample and long standing.

Military tribunals are to be used for POW's - but there is no W to be P of. Congress never declared war. Our current military adventures are, at the very least, extra-legal.

Gonzo was a marginally qualified right wing hack. He may have done 2 or 3 things right, but that does not make up for doing everything else wrong. Reno and Holder have their faults, but, yes, they are far, far better than than BushCo's sock puppet.


WASF
JzB

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

(edited).


Really, we out in Consumerland don't know all the facts, do we, jzb. Non-citizens are entitled to protection of some sort, and Due Process, but they don't have all the rights of citizens, and foreign soldiers/POWs/ suspected terrorists are not exactly in the same class as some european tourist busted for weed, or whatever

That was the case even with the dreaded Gonzales (and recall that it was the pro-corporate,pro-AIPAC WAPO who started the Gonzo-bashing). But I hold to my previous proposition: a cop is a cop. Ossifer Reno, Ossifer Gonzo,Ossifer Holder. On the whole, I'd say Demos are even cozier with cop unions and the prison business (J-Edgar worked for both Dem and GOP)--excepting some nasty sections of dirty south (like GOP controlled Texass). But the CDC gulag's run mainly by DINOcrats.....

Jazzbumpa said...

It's true that foreigners don't have all the rights of citizens. Frex, they can't vote, exercise police powers, or be trained in the militia.

But due process, and everything else derived from the natural rights of
personhood are extended to all.

We can't rationally consider anyone an enemy combatant, unless there is an actual declared war. Which we aint got.

So, sorry, unless we intend to violate the Constitution, it's due process for one and all.

Besides, a terrorist isn't a terrorist until he's CONVICTED of terrorism. Remeber due process, and innocent until proven guilty.

I am not a Demo, nor a lover of the Demos. In fact, they disgust me.

The Repugs are worse.

WASF,
JzB

Jazzbumpa said...

Ha. Rachel Maddow is covering this as I write.

I scooped her by a whole day!

Kool!
JzB

J said...

Besides, a terrorist isn't a terrorist until he's CONVICTED of terrorism. Remeber due process, and innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, that's a very important point (one routinely overlooked by vigilantes, links oder rechts), yet the US Govt. did pass the anti-terrorist laws, PatAct, FISA, Homeland, etc (with help of most DINOs). That's another reason I don't completely dismiss libertarians--most of whom objected to the Demopublican security hysteria.

I'm not sure of the exact legalese, or jurisdiction issues (ie military, civil, criminal, etc) , but the argument was something like the rise in terrorism implies we can detain foreign suspects for whatever reason. Not so copacetic, but be sure many other countries operate on that assumption....

For that matter, Holder hasn't bothered to take on the demopublicans who voted in the security acts, which are all quasi-constitutional. And the Holder DOJ are doing some weird, J-edgarish snooping as well. The Net's under surveillance. Belong to some non-PC group, or conspiracy buffs, and ...the guys in black suits might show up and whisk you away.

Question Authori-tay as the 60s freaks said. That included Democratic authority ( LBJ was not exactly a counterculture hero).

Scuzi rant

Jazzbumpa said...

Hey, if I didn't rant, I wouldn't have a blog.

The Constitution has been under assault for decades. It is not clear to me frex: how FISA (1978, IIRC) can stand constitutional muster. Tap first, get a warrant later? Fishing expeditions? Clearly, I have a pre 9/11 mind set.

In my darker paranoid fantasies, the black suits knock down my door in the middle of the night. Probably after a DEEP STUPID rant.

Serves me right for questioning authority.

Cheers!
JzB

J said...

Paul Craig Roberts has recently penned some interesting essays related to Habeas Corpus rights(linked on my blog).

I don't always agree with him (he's a bit of an...alarmist), but he sort of alludes to the old political slippery slope: first they come for muslims, or marxists. Then they round up freaks, queers, subversives, atheists, etc. Then they come for you

Jazzbumpa said...

I'll check it out.

Thanx,
JzB