Response to Morris D. Davis Concerning Guantanamo

Yesterday, I posted an article about how the meeting top officials were going to have about closing Guantanamo was canceled for relatively unknown reasons. (The proper steps weren't made yet? White House officials...) Then I related Guantanamo's legitmacy to be rather useless considering insider reports have said that only a "trickle" of information has led to any significant intelligence. They also reported that the higher level detainees are held at different places across the globe and not at Guantanamo.

Today, Morris D. Davis, a Colonel in the Air Force and the chief prosecutor in the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, likening it to an aura of a rehabilitation center or a mental hospital:

"Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten."

Hm. Where's he going with this, what kind of professionalism and humane practices? Read on:

"Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo."

Wow, how sweet and kind of our government. Do they give them clean bed sheet and new socks too? How bout they tuck them in and read them a bedtime story from Koran scripture? We are the NICEST prison wardens ever! BULL! Then, ironically, Mr. Davis makes a reference to my comparison to GULAGS:

"Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole."

Okay, I apologize. We let them pray and lift weights or pound rocks out in the sun. We really are humanitarians. Detecting the sarcasm yet? So,once again, I lead you to this really nice document America has called THE CONSTITUTION! Does anyone read this thing anymore?

Keith Olbermann's response to the loss of the habeas corpus to these detainees in 2006 proves how many rights via the Bill of Rights the detainees lose by being subjected to Guantanamo's mercy:

"No. 1 is gone. I mean, if you’re detained without trial, you lose your freedom of religion and speech, press, assembly, all the rest of that. So, you don’t need that any more.

And you know, you can’t petition the government for anything.

2. While you are in prison, your right to keep and bear arms just might be infringed upon even if you’re in the NRA, so that’s gone.

3. Well, OK, no forced sleepovers at your house by soldiers.Three’s all right.

4. You’re definitely not secure against searches and seizures, as it says here, with or without probable cause. And, in prison that’s not limited to just the guards, so forget the fourth.

5. Grand juries and due process, obviously out, so forget five and the little trailer up here.

6. Well, trials are gone too, let alone the right to counsel. Speedy trials? You want it when?

7. Well, this is about—I thought we just covered trials and juries earlier so forget the seventh.

8. Well, bail’s kind of a moot point isn’t it?

9. Other rights retained by the people. Well, you know, if you can name them during your water boarding, we’ll consider them.

10. Powers not delegated to the United States federal government. Well, they seem to have ended up there anyway. So as you can see, even without habeas corpus, at least one tenth of the Bill of Rights, I guess that’s the Bill of Right, now—remains virtually intact. No. 3 is still safe. "

So, Mr. Morris, while I'd like to sympathize with your possibly biased military backing view that they are treated humane, I'd like to end with a solid quote from Rep. Jim Moran's letter to the President: (Its debatable effectiveness is neither here nor there.)

"Holding prisoners for an indefinite period of time, without charging them with a crime goes against our values, ideals and principles as a nation governed by the rule of law. Further, Guantanamo Bay has a become a liability in the broader global war on terror, as allegations of torture, the indefinite detention of innocent men, and international objections to the treatment of enemy combatants has hurt our credibility as the beacon for freedom and justice.

We feel that it is also necessary to restore the right of habeas corpus to the detainees. This will allow for the implementation of fair and transparent trials to bring enemies of our country to justice. The closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, however, represents a positive first step toward restoring our international reputation as the leader of democracy and individual rights."

So, in short, nice try...but I'm not buying into the picture of a Cuban oasis for prisoners. With explicit Constitutional freedoms cut short, questionable integrity concerning interrogation methods, and also questionable legitimacy of effectiveness concerning intelligence, I will be one of those "critics who liken Guantanamo to Soviet GULAGs." Sorry sir.

Massive Update Part IV - Giuliani Close to Getting the Kerry Treatment?

The final update of my highly controversial editorials concludes on yet another controversial topic. (If Ann Coulter can call John Edwards a "faggot" and still have people buy her books, I can be opinionated.)

NYT, my love child, has attempted to get feedback from Bishops on Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani's by and large anti-Republican stance on abortion.

"At first glance, Rudolph W. Giuliani should be an appealing presidential candidate for observant Roman Catholics. The grandchild of Italian immigrants, Mr. Giuliani went to Catholic schools, considered joining the priesthood, and as mayor of New York battled a museum that exhibited a painting of the Virgin Mary adorned in elephant dung."

So he seems like he's towing the Catholic line, right? What's the big deal? Well, some Bishops don't find his pro-choice stance very...conducive to the Catholic ideals:

"Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, R.I., recently wrote a caustic column for his Catholic newspaper calling Mr. Giuliani’s position “pathetic,” “confusing” and “hypocritical.”

"Other bishops said that they would not criticize a candidate by name but would not hesitate to declare Mr. Giuliani’s stance contrary to Catholic teaching."

"Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said: “I think he’s being illogical, as are all of those who take the stand that ‘I’m personally opposed to abortion but this is my public responsibility to permit it.’ To violate human life is always and everywhere wrong. In fact, we don’t think it’s a matter of church teaching, but a matter of the way God made the world, and it applies to everyone.”

Wow....some very toxic words from the leaders of the Catholic church. The question is, will Bishops deny Giuliani communion at the altar because of his anti-Church stance? Many of them have not issued statements at all. However, dozens of Bishops did this in 2000 to John Kerry for his stance. Debated ensued whether or not it was correct to enforce this at the altar and whether the Catholic church had ventured too far into politics. Wait. The Catholic church...enter itself into politics? NO WAY?! I could spend my entire life writing about how the Catholic church has nosed its way into political events from the conception of its very foundations. I am a born and raised a Catholic and, while I'm certainly not agnostic or atheist, I am most definitely open to criticizing statements not unlike this:

"Pope Benedict XVI told reporters last month that Catholic legislators in Mexico who had recently voted to allow abortion had effectively excommunicated themselves from the church. A Vatican spokesman immediately issued a clarifying statement saying that politicians who voted for abortion rights should “exclude themselves from communion.”

Do I even need to touch this one? I can't even breathe/type anymore. I've slung enough mud for one day. Agree/Disagree on these articles? I'm open to debate/agreements.

Massive Update Part III - CIA's Awesome Declassification

HuffPo brings this next little gem here:

"Little-known documents made public Thursday detail illegal and scandalous activities by the CIA more than 30 years ago _ wiretappings of journalists, kidnappings, warrantless searches and more.

The documents provide a glimpse of nearly 700 pages of materials that the agency has declassified and plans to release next week."

What will we be reading about in 30 years about this war? More of the same, I'm sure. Between backing military coups in Latin America and assassinations all over the world, the CIA are a bunch of shady dudes/dudettes. I can imagine, with all the crazy technological advances we have currently, there will be an enormous amount of atrocities that we will find out about many years from now on the History channel.

"Tom Blanton, head of the National Security Archive, pointed to more recent concerns, such as post-Sept. 11 programs that included warrant less wiretapping. "The resonance with today's controversies is just uncanny," he said."

The problem with this is that the public deserves to know NOW. Why are personal liberties infringed upon and kept secret to "protect" me. I'll take my chances and enjoy my government following this one document...I think it's pretty important...crap I forget its name. Wait. Let me Google it.....

Oh yeah...THE CONSTITUTION?

The purpose of these three articles comes to my conclusions to their communist Russia counterparts. Call me a radical or an idiot but how much different are these parallels? You can't deny the evidence that specific elements parallel them to each other. I didn't say the government was offing people for not following the government's stance on things or locking up journalists. (Or even me for writing this for that matter...) BUT withholding documents (losing emails or firing Federal attorneys for not towing Party lines?), prisoners being interrogated with questionable methods to people who are possibly not even terrorists, and CIA's questionable integrity in major world events add up to a very suspicious citizen.

Executive Branch's Secrecy = Kremlin
Guantanmo = GULAG
CIA's Shadyness = KGB

Write me off to the loony bin....but I'm not convinced we are as holy as we claim to be or even close to being noble. America is dressing up as a Nun during the day and going to Tony Soprano's Bada Bing! to strip at night. Who will hold all these governmental institutions to the law? And if these institutions who are supposed to uphold the law are corrupt....who do you turn to? I need an Excedrin and a bottle of Tums. I'm dying over here.

Massive Update Part II - Condi and Robbie are sneaky

Another thing that sickens me is the fact that Guantanamo is still open. This place is a modern day concentration camp for "enemy combatants." Whatever the hell that is? (Answer: Whomever the CIA deems.) Anyways, President Bush has spoken out and wanted the closing of Guantanamo to become a reality. Supposedly Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, were supposed to be some of top officials to attend a meeting discussing the dismantling of a Pandora's Box, so to speak, of human rights violations.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC explains why the meeting was canceled.

“The President has long expressed a desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to do so in a responsible way,” Mr. Johndroe said. “A number of steps need to take place before that can happen such as setting up military commissions and the repatriation to their home countries of detainees who have been cleared for release. These and other steps have not been completed. No decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent and there will not be a White House meeting tomorrow.”

Some analysts have purported the whole reason the meeting was shut down was because actual knowledge that the meeting was occurring was leaked to the public. If that was the case, why would they cancel the meeting? Wouldn't that project the outlook the administration was taking steps to get rid of a political/legal/human rights disaster that is known as Guantanamo?

I'm sure there are some of you out there saying, "Brandon you are an idiot! Guantanamo Bay is where we hold all those dirty terrorists, keep America safe, and find out about all those nasty plots they have on us! Why would we close down such a great thing?!"

Here's your answer from a special report from the NYT done on the overstated value of the detainees in Guantanamo from three years ago in June of 2004:

"While some Guantánamo intelligence has aided terrorism investigations, none of of it has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks, the officials said. Compared with the higher-profile Qaeda operatives held elsewhere by the C.I.A., the Guantánamo detainees have provided only a trickle of intelligence with current value, the officials said. Because nearly all of that intelligence is classified, most of the officials would discuss it only on the condition of anonymity."

Wait...did I read that incorrectly? Guantanamo's supposed main function and glorified intelligence are *GULP* basically non-existent? So, if other places house the actual valuable operatives, why are we creating yet another camp for these supposed and purportedly non-valuable and questionable enemy combatants?

Defense Department officials have acknowledged that American jailers in Iraq, under pressure to produce better intelligence, adapted some new, more aggressive interrogation techniques that were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for use at Guantánamo.

While refusing to discuss specifics, Pentagon officials called the interrogation methods used at Guantánamo humane and said they had applied more severe methods only sparingly. In at least one of those cases, they said, the techniques prompted an important Qaeda member to give up vital information.

Yeah sparingly? In the next article we'll talk about CIA's massive blanket of wool pulled over the general publics eyes. Sparingly? Prove it. Where is the legitimacy of the Geneva convention? Is it 1945? Do I hear Japanese Political Camps? How are we any better than all of these countries we criticize for human rights violations today? Are you tired of me screaming? ONWARD--->

Massive Catch Up Part I -Dick Cheney Is a Dirty Weasel

Sorry to my 3 readers out there in Blogtown. I am having a massive 4 post rant on 4 things that really piss me off in recent news. First, I will verbally (textually?) attack our vice president for adding to the laundry list of things I hate about him. A new item to the list includes this beautiful article from the New York Times. I can't stand how much Cheney is allowed to do without any legal ramifications. Basically, under the Information Security Oversight Office, the executive office has to report on what kinds of classified information they classify and declassify. Cheney's office actually followed the procedure for the years of 2001 and 2002, but then for the LAST 5 YEARS has declined to include this information. The absurdity of this is outlined in the asinine statements his officials give:

Cheney's office claims it doesn't have to comply with the order because it is not an ''agency'' or ''entity'' within the executive branch

A White House official said the vice president's office never believed it was required to file the reports, and that when it realized it had done so in 2001 and 2002, it ended the practice.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is the only one with a head around here calling out the Vice President for being a total idiot as usual and demands to know how he is exempt from the laws that his office say aren't technically laws. He says:

The vice president can't unilaterally decide he is his own branch of government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards for protecting classified information. And he can't insist he has the powers of both the executive and the legislature branches but the responsibilities of neither. Our Constitution doesn't work that way

*Cries* That was beautiful. I would like to give Waxman a hug if we ever cross paths. Hopefully justice will prevail, but I won't hold my breath too hard. I commend Waxman for at least speaking the truth. It blows my mind how much secretive mumbo jumbo gets kept under wraps with this administration. They are even impervious to the law! I'd like to end this post with a hilarious NYT quote from the same article:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked in January to resolve the legal dispute, but he has not yet ruled on the issue.

Mr. Gonzales didn't rule on this issue? Jeez...I can't imagine him doing anything suspicious, illegal, or detororiating to the integrity of the Judicial branch. This whole administration makes me want to bash my head off a stack of Constitution posters until it bleeds. Onward to the next disgusting thing.

Dear Democrats...

I am a faithful voter. I would have voted for Al Gore.(If I was 18 at the time.) I voted for John Kerry. I voted for Ed Rendell. I voted for Bob Casey. I voted for a lot of Democrats in the past 3 years. I didn't always like a lot of the candidates as much you probably would have liked me to...but I supported. I recently changed my affiliation to Democrat from Independent so I could vote in primaries. I am currently in the UC Democrats at my college. I guess you could say I'm a filthy-rotten-blue bleeding-liberal. Okay, you caught me.


Now that I got that out of the way. What the hell have you been doing since you took over the Senate and House? I did the dance of joy. I walked a tall strut for at least a week after the elections were over. So how bout all these cool things I was supposed to see?

• Partisan Immigration Bill?
• Time-Table for Iraq?
• Vote of No Confidence for Gonzalez?
• Stem Cell Funding?

The linked item refers to to the recently vetoed stem cell bill. Something that would help move along gene and disease research.

What's happening out there? All these bills, no results. Lewis Black likes to say, "Democrats are the party of no-ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas." I am seeing how this quote is realized. The majority of Democrats have been pushing for all of these bills and yet no results. The Republicans and their fearless leader, once again, answer to the call of the people and vote down another bill.

Wait. Let me check out that whole "will of the people"

Critics called his order a sham and said Bush should have signed into law the stem-cell bill, which polls show is backed by more than 60 percent of American voters.

As Jerry Seinfeld would say...."What's the deal with that?" I'm sorry for being angry Dems, I understand you are TRYING, but it's proving that it's not enough. With numerous Republicans not towing the line of the public opinion and President Bush vetoing every piece of paper that is put under his nose, the Democrats will still have a hell of a time. I wish I had a quote to back this up, but I recently heard on NPR about how the approval polls of the Democratic party since the elections have gone considerably down. I can't imagine why? The Dems need to get on track and make some partisan magic, or come 2008, the American people are going to be relatively tired of empty promises and big smiles.

Children Killed in School Cont.

This super-duper recent article on the Afghani children definately proves what the government considers to be "worth-while sacrifices"

According to several officials, and contrary to previous statements, the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound but considered the target of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage.

So why the deception? You can never get a straight answer from anyone concerning matters such as this until it's too late. "Abu Laith al Libi, the al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan and a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden" was supposed to be the target; however, MSNBC says:

The sources report that although six sets of remains besides those of the seven children were recovered, it's not clear whether Abu Laith is among those killed.

I'm sure if it was confirmed that Abu Laith was actually killed in the air strike that the military wouldn't be needing to explain itself so much. Also, if they had actually killed the top lieutenant, people would feel a hell of a lot better about the whole situation. But is it really for the better that civilian sacrifices were brought into this? War creates difficult moral dilemmas. Was the air strike justifiable? I might (a very loose might) say yes if the top leader was confirmed killed. Until then, my feeling are in limbo. Your thoughts?

Civilians Get The Brunt Of Airstrike

I heard this report on NPR's Morning Edition. (Which is really relaxing when you are driving, by the way, public radio has soothing voices) However, as much as I enjoy the soothing voices, reports like this are always unsettling. In summation, an air strike in Afghanistan killed 7 children at a madrassa school where "suspected al-Qaida militants" were hiding.

Al-Qaida militants? No way man! I feel like it's easy to justify any killing of civilians when they throw the words like insurgents, militants, al-Qaida, and suspected terrorists. Obviously, in a state of war, I am not so naive to think no civilian deaths will happen, but in 2007 (A mere 6 years of being in Afghanistan) things like this seem ridiculous. I really can see President Bush saying, "Sacrifices have to be made in the WAR ON TERROR." At the expense of the everyone involved apparently.

Military leaders have had this to say:

Coalition troops had "surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building," said Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman. He accused the militants of not letting the children leave the compound that was targeted.

"If we knew that there were children inside the building, there was no way that that airstrike would have occurred," said Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch, another coalition spokesman.

Obviously, this is an unfortunate accident, but it's also easy to pass the buck. Either way, no matter how you apologize, at the end of the day...America looks like a bunch of Yeti heathens to the international community. (Who already holds such a high confidence in our actions already.)

A fresh start and Why We Will Still Buy China's Toys/Dog Food/Everything

Today I opened the NYT, as I always do during lunch, and on the front page of the business section who was there staring me in the face AGAIN? China? Yessir. Wait, was this another article praising the Chinese for their excellent business ethics and rising economic power? Wow, what suck ups, right?

No, of course not. China dropped the ball again. {Here's the equation for the business section for further reference: China + Business Section = More consumer alienation.} This article was concerning the Thomas & Friends Trains that had a lovely deposit of lead in the paint that was slathered on the toys. Lead paint in 2007? Wait, before you get disgusted....read this first:

The recall issued last week covered products made from January 2005 to June 2007, suggesting that for two years RC2 failed to noticed that some of its best-selling toys were being produced with lead-based paint.

Holy lead trains Batman! Two years worth of manufacturing trains (Best selling!) that were contaminated with this paint. First, we have the pet food fiasco, then the toothpaste and cold medicine disaster, and now we have this situation. How much will the American people/World consumers of Chinese factory products take before they are totally alienated? How many kids across the globe watched George Carlin blow a whistle and tell stories while they slobbered all over their Thomas the Tank Engine from China?

After this, I’m definitely going to be more cognizant of where my children’s toys are manufactured,” said Mrs. Shultz, 33. "With my youngest son, everything goes in his mouth. I can’t take any chances.

Mrs. Shultz's son seems to be one of these aforementioned slobbering children. So, what does it all mean? China has another recall in its export industry. Consumers are annoyed with their obvious lack of quality and integrity. Does it mean that people will stop buying these products?

We’re not reconsidering our license agreement,” said a spokesman for Nickelodeon. “None of our products were affected, and they’re a good partner to us.

These recalls happen fairly often,” said Gerrick Johnson, an equity analyst with BMO Capital Market US.This recall, he said, “should not have any long-term damage.

RC2's stock also has not shown any significant damages as of yet due to the massive recall. Supply, demand, and the global consumers' willingness to pay for low priced goods will once again reign. China may be in the spot light often for botches such as these recently, but it hasn't seen to really have a negative effect on their exports. They make a myriad of products way too cheap for the majority of companies to not buy from them. China's rising economic power, however, will be under scrutiny as they grow. How long will it take for them to make repeated problems, such as this recent one, become scarce? The answer lies within the foundation of their societal and economic principles. The very foundation of the Chinese people must be changed in order to fix their constant industry mishaps. High business ethics along with significant policy reform is needed to deter companies from making these same mistakes. How long will it take for China to make these difficult, yet badly needed, changes? Time will tell; I don't have all the answers. I'm just here to make you think.