Skip to main content

A group of retired flag officers are asking the Supreme Court to stop Bush's military tribunals before they destroy what is left of our moral credibility:

These former military leaders, and many other friends of the military, fear that if the President is free to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to our enemies, our enemies will consider themselves free to deny those protections to our soldiers. They fear that the federal appeals court's ruling "immediately and directly endangers American soldiers and undermines the laws of war."

The United States in fact adopted the Geneva Conventions to protect American soldiers captured in battle. As Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated, America's participation in the conventions was needed "to enable us to invoke them for the protection of our nationals." Our consistent application of the Conventions to all enemies - from signatory states to Somali warlords - has saved untold numbers of American soldiers from torture and death.

When North Vietnam insisted that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to American POWs because they were "pirates," President Nixon demanded - and had the moral authority to demand - that Hanoi apply them. On the 50th anniversary of the Conventions, Senator John McCain stated that he and his fellow POWs would have fared "a lot worse" without the Geneva Conventions' protections against "the cruel excesses of war."

Unlike Chicken George, I have people in the military whom I care about dearly, so when Bush comes up with some stupid policy which hurts national security and places our men and women in uniform in added danger, I get pissed off.

When he does so in spite of the clear-headed advice of the most senior officers, I want to smash things.

But of course this isn't the first time Bush has ignored his Generals and Admirals to place servicemen and women in unnecessary danger, so of course he has a reliable talking point:

The White House has stated that the old rules cannot apply because the war against terrorism is "a new kind of war." But virtually every major war in the past 200 years has been pronouced "a new kind of war" by governments seeking to justify actions that the old rules prohibit. The rationalization knows no limits. It renders every nation a law unto itself and undermines the very idea of international law.

There are other reasons why the Supreme Court needs to hear this case, Hamdan v. Bush.  One is Chief Justice Roberts, who was one of the judges in the Circuit Court decision below.  Because of that, he has a conflict of interest, and will recuse himself from hearing the case again.  In a later case presenting the same issue, Roberts will bring his right-wing vote to bear.

Second, Hamdan and similar cases are the real reason Bush picked Harriet Miers.  Ken Mehlman has admitted as much in phone calls to the loony right.  As a loyal Bushista, Miers is all but certain to favor Bush's interest over national security, as will future Bush appointees if any other Justices retire.

Which brings us to the most important reason why this cases needs to be heard right away.  The Court has never said whether the Commander-in-Chief extends as far as Bush thinks it does.  The issue was presented in Hamdi, but plurality of the Court disposed of that case on statutory grounds.

What's odd about Hamdi is that Justice Scalia wrote a very progressive concurrence which would have given the Commander-in-Chief power its proper limited scope.  That means that if Hamdan comes up now, the likely outcome is the Four moderates (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter & Stevens), plus Scalia as the fifth vote to stop Bush from killing more servicemembers.  If the Court waits too long, another Justice could leave, and the President could be declared King of America.

Once again, Uncurious George has let his nutsack do the thinking.  The Supreme Court has a chance to ally with good Generals and Admirals and stop Bush in his tracks.  Or they can wait a while, and leave the fate of the nation to a woman who once called Bush the smartest person she ever met.

UPDATE: For you law geeks out there, here is the brief submitted by the retired officers. The Counsel of Record is David Remes, who also wrote the linked article.

Originally posted to captainebo on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 07:55 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is big! (4.00)
    Not only a "4" but a recommend.
  •  one difference between vietnam and now... (4.00)
    ... is that every damn one of us, regardless of our politics, knows that our military personnel are just like us, trying to make a living and get through life. many of them have bleaker economic prospects and join the military as one of few options (think jessica lynch, trying to get out of her coal-mining town and become a teacher). these people were raised by parents like ours and know right from wrong. the JAG staff used to have a decent reputation - military justice wasn't the ACLU's due process dream system, but there were checks and balances to prevent individuals from abusing the system. gonzalez and rumsfield have turned the military justice system into a mockery, and enlisted soldiers looking up the chain of command for one decent superior officer who'll listen to them have been discouraged lately.  

    if you're fighting for american freedoms, shouldn't you have access to them yourself? or are we killing justice in order to save it? i sure hope not.

    •  No, The JAG Officers Opposed These Crimes. (4.00)
      Existing laws and treaties make torture a crime under military law.  Nothing BushCo has done changed that.  And knowing that what they contemplated was illegal before BushCo implemented its torture campaign, they attempted to paste over well-settled law with executive branch "memos" and DOD directives - none of which can abrogate Congressional enactments or ratified treaties.  
      Additionally, against the advice of all of the military JAGs, BushCo knowingly went ahead and implemented torture of detainees - many of whom were not terrorists.  

      Bush'is criminal liability - as well as Rumsfeld's, Ashcroft's, Bybee's, and Gonzales' - seems to be a "slam dunk."

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. W. B. Yeats

      by majcmb1 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:45:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Already lost the war (4.00)
      I can't escape the feeling that we have already lost the "war" when we can no longer count on our government to follow our own laws.  It makes me sick at heart.  

      Thanks for this diary!

      When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

      by flo58 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:03:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you lost the war (none)
        when you lost the respect of the rest of the world.

        Give us back the America we trust and respect!!!

        by icerat on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 03:43:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the war was lost before we ever entered (none)
        iraq. there was no planning, not enough troops or leadership. it was done for the wrong, illegal reasons. we tried to do it on the cheap and then paid dearly in the long run with money and troops. afghanistan anyone? russia could have told  ole w about that. and our handling of the post invasion has been just plain awful.
      •  You got that right... (none)
        I think the terrorists must be delighted at how things are going.

        You'll remember that OSL said that he had not expected the damage to the twin towers to be as severe as happened (did not expect total collapse).

        But this collapse of our consitution, and system of checks and balances (not to mention our collapse of credibility even among freingly allies), must warm his heart enough to make living in a cave rather tolerable.

        •  The longer it takes (none)
          for us to find him, the more I suspect that OBL isn't in a cave somehwere, but living the life of Riley on some private Caribbean island, to be trotted out to scare us back into obiedience when necessary.

          "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." -Mohandas Gandhi

          by Bulldawg on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The fact that they're just like us is not hopeful. (4.00)
      The sword in the hand of the wielder - we are them and they are us - and we are assholes, we Americans. I come from a working-middle-class background, with poorer roots, in a middle-struggling strata, as well as from two generations of military brathood during the Cold War, before, and after.

      And my classmates in the 80s and 90s ranged from celebrating the idea of torturing strange brown people, longing for the fantasy of their movies to be a reality, to the "nice" ones considering it a reluctant necessity that they would nevertheless embrace in a heartbeat, to save their own skins. Long before 24 and FOX the Police Brutality Celebration Channel were dreamt of.

      The problems of the US military are in us and we must face them, our racism, our chauvinism, our sexism, our willingness to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of strangers so long as it gives us cheap stuff, our readiness to justify brutality by Authority rather than ask the hard questions - or we will never recover, and never stop, until someone forcibly stops us or we crash, hard, like the Easter Islanders.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:10:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we aren't really trying to save justice. (none)
      that is a smokescreen for the sheep.
  •  This is good news... (4.00)
    the Supreme Court needs to act and act now. We have prisoners being tortured to death at Gitmo. They are being sexually assualted and sodomized every day and ill-treated everyday and they can no longer stand it and are starving themselves to death.

    This is a disgrace and it should not be controversial to strictly adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by RichardG on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:14:41 PM PDT

    •  But (none)
      I don't have very high hopes for the Supreme Court to take a moral stand under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts.

      Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

      by saucy monkey on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:43:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think Roberts.. (none)
        will stop anything - he seems to be of good character and if so he will step aside and let the rest of the court decide the case.

        "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by RichardG on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:31:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  one of the few things (none)
        Roberts was clear about in his track record is his 100% unqualified support for unrestricted power of the Executive.  Therefore we know he is going to side with BushCo on the Abu Gonzalez torture memo and the Administration's unilateral decision to stop abiding by the Geneva convention and other international agreements on torture.

        As a poster downthread noted, it is a shame he was not grilled on this.  But the short answer is that they already knew where he stood.

        SO I'm not sure what these generals think they are going to accomplish in front of the Roberts Court.  Sad to say, it is a lost cause.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:02:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's never a lost cause. (none)
          If enough of JAGs and other military and legal personalities stand up for what is right I bet Roberts would follow along. That, or he would have to look forward to being impeached when sanity returns.

          I wish that woould be a plank for the Dems: "Next time we come to power in Congress we're going to impeach those that are now advocating unrestricted power for the executive."

          Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

          by high5 on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:13:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd like that too (none)
            I wish that woould be a plank for the Dems: "Next time we come to power in Congress we're going to impeach those that are now advocating unrestricted power for the executive."
            What first has to happen is that the media has to start reporting about this issue. Framkly, I don't know much about it and I am perhaps more informed than the average person is.

            Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

            by brenda on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:05:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Hague District Court blocks extradition (4.00)
    This little article appeared in the LA Times today. I was surprised that it wasn't discussed here.

    Court Bars Extradition of Terror Suspect to U.S.

    Here is the whole article...

    A court blocked the extradition of a Dutch terrorism suspect to the United States, saying his legal rights in U.S. custody could not be guaranteed. The man, who is of Egyptian descent, identified only as M.A., is wanted on charges of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, apparently to help Al Qaeda.

    The Hague District Court had sought guarantees that he would have access to a lawyer. It said it rejected a U.S. response that the request was "unwarranted and unnecessary."

    America is a dangerous place for all who do not worship the presnit.

    "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It

    by Eloi Scientist on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:17:28 PM PDT

    •  As I understand it... (4.00)
      ...neocon ideology is supposed to be all about expanding American power and influence overseas.

      Have you ever come across another ideology that failed so completely in all its endeavors?

      Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

      by wiscmass on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:33:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I suppose that's expected . . . (4.00)
      that decent countries would eventually find us anethema.  I'm glad they blocked extradition; they did the right thing.  I also want to hide under my couch and cry.

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:15:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  we're Russia circa 1980 (4.00)
      We've been living in a village in the South of France for 9 months now (blog) and man in the street folks all think of the US the way we used to think of, say, Mexico. Except for dangerous.  You don't realize how much we've sunk in the eyes of the world until you actually go there.
    •  Dear President Bush (none)
      You are a fucking idiot. In your pathetic attempt to act like a tough guy, you have gone and stripped our own soldiers of their rights under the Geneva Conventions and made it clear to the rest of the world that America cannot be trusted to uphold fundamental human rights. Indeed, it can now be trusted to abuse them. What exactly makes you better than Saddam, you asshat?

      Your friend,
      Warren T.

  •  Who are the retired officers? (none)

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:17:32 PM PDT

    •  Yea, who is David H Remes? (none)
      the article to which you refer is by David H. Remes, a Washington lawyer, it says. Who is this guy and what makes this a credible source?

      "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It

      by Eloi Scientist on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:26:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Names are in the brief: (4.00)
      Page 2:

      • Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, former senior legal advisor to the USMC
      • Brig. Gen. James P. Cullen, former Chief Judge of Army Court of Appeals
      • Maj. Gen. John L. Fugh, fomer chief litigator, US Army
      • Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, former Navy I-G
      • Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, former Judge Advocate General, US Navy, President & Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center
      • Brig. Gen. Richard O'Meara, adjunct faculty, Defense Inst. for Int'l Legal Studies

      Seems like the real deal.

      I am the federal government.

      by mateosf on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:52:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, if Roberts does the math and (4.00)
    ends up with the same sum as you, this could be a huge smackdown to him and his reputation even before he gets going. Therefore, I'm guessing he'll do everything in his power to prevent the Court from considering this.

    The obscene contention that Geneva doesn't apply, and the resultant (and probable continuing) atrocities, put the lie to Administration claims to the moral high ground. So it's important that news like this, and the source for the petition, be widely reported. This kind of story undercuts some of the legal underpinnings Bush, Cheney et al. claim to stand on.

    Recommended, and 4'd, con gusto!

    •  Why was this not brought out at confirmation? (none)
      I can't help wondering, was Roberts asked about this case?  If not, why not.  

      When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

      by flo58 on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:05:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Certainly continuing... (4.00)
      the prisoners at Gitmo are being tortured to death as I wrote above. Here is the latest from Amnesty International.

      Amnesty

      Several detainees on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay are critically ill, according to lawyers who have recently visited the detention camp. Amnesty International is also concerned at reports that the camp's facilities are unable to cope with the medical crisis.

      ....

      One of the key points that detainees say drove them to hunger strike was the lack of access to a court to challenge their detention. They said beatings and other ill-treatment were another reason. Amnesty International has long campaigned for access to courts for Guantanamo detainees, as well as an end to torture and ill-treatment.

      ....

      In a worrying development, lawyers working with the Center for Constitutional Rights who are representing a number of the hunger strikers say they are being denied access to the detention camp hospital. Their clients are taken from their sick beds, some so weak they cannot sit up, and moved to cells for interviews with their lawyers.

      ....

      Amnesty International believes the conditions in Guantánamo Bay amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The organisation is campaigning to stop torture and ill-treatment in the "war on terror".

      "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by RichardG on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what percentage, in your opinion, (none)
        of the reports of abuse can be attributed to the al queda SOP regarding making such claims if captured?

        "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

        by dj angst on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:41:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Too Late For That Question (none)
          The US didn't think about that when it started down this road.

          The rest of the world now doesn't care what percentage it is. As long as "more than 0% is real", the quibbles make no difference.

          Tarbrush, meet feathers.

        •  Low (none)
          There have been numerous occassions when military officials have made clear that most of these guys are bit players and a great many have no connnection to al-Queda at all.  For cripes sakes, some were just children later shown to have nothing to do with it.  Enemy number one on their list was a chauffer for higher level al-Quedda figures.

          Moreover, many of the reports are corroborated by statements from U.S. officials who have been at the camp.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

          by ohwilleke on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:21:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ccount how many cases of torture are (none)
          admitted by the military, plus cases of torture claimed by people the military has released (satisfied with the innocence of the detainee)-- you're in the hundreds of incidents here, at least.

          Does it then seem credible to you that all the other claims of torture are bogus?

          As they say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

    •  I think Bush feels he has to win this case (4.00)
      because he and his cadre could be tried as war criminals once ousted.

      The dark at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming age.

      by peeder on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:40:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is their standing? (none)
    I don't understand how they are parties to the case. Are they trying to intervene, or filing amicus briefs/
    Does anyone know?
  •  For a Preznit so vested is religion (4.00)
    Bush is totally bereft of morals.  The flag officers are backing John McCain's play, thank god.

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:21:26 PM PDT

    •  John McCain's play? (none)
      I'm pretty sure (read: positive) that McCain wasn't the first Congresscritter to voice his/her concerns about Bush's policies regarding the treatment of military prisoners.
      •  No, he surely wasn't (none)
        But he does add some credibility and star power in other constituencies than ours, and, besides, he's "been there."  My only beef with McCain in this instance is that it took him so damn long to stand up, remember what happened to him, and demand that America never, ever do the same things.

        McCain, rightly or wrongly, is given a lot of credit for being a respectable conservative, someone who appeals to a broad demographic because he seems to come by his beliefs in good faith and to play the game fairly.  I would not vote for the man for his politics, and I'm frankly disgusted with the ass-smooching he's given to this president, but the public image of McCain is pretty powerful to folks who don't spend time dissecting his political life.  So it's good to have someone like him aboard and leading the way, even if we should be mindful that he is often bafflingly loyal to people who don't give a rat's ass about what makes (or should make) him a respectable American leader, absent his political faults.

        Witty, topical tag line.

        by socratic on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:03:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  mccain - what a joke (4.00)
        he voted to confirm Albertorquemada as AG

        it sure is "quaint" for him to find his anti-torture morals now that future races dominate the news.

  •  Which military officers are calling on SCOTUS? (none)
    I checked the link and didn't find the names of the officers.  It's worth getting these details out to the readers.
  •  The fact that Bush... (4.00)
    has ignored our obligations under the Geneva accords and other laws against torture, renders him impeachable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    We must get a Democratic majority in both houses next November, and get this guy out of the White House.

    •  this just made something click for me. (none)
      If the Dems get a majority then Bush is going to have his power sapped. Yet Bush has a nasty habbit of putting Rep Congress-folk in a bad position which could lead to making them vulnerable in elections (like the Social Security thing).

      What is up with that strategy?

      I know Bush wants his agenda passed, but surely he does not want to lose the House or Senate.

    •  Bush must be tried for war crimes, and then ... (none)
      Impeach, indict, try, convict, and hand it over to the firing squad. Bush is a mass-murderer, and his victims include our men and women in uniform. Unless capital punisment is abolished, as it should be, Bush should receive the ultimate punishment.

      If we do get rid of the death penalty, he can spend the rest of his life in Gitmo, that will do. However, he is more deserving of the death penalty than all the prisoners on death row combined, perhaps all in our nation's history.

      The people should demand war tribunals and hold accountable all of the war criminals in the administration, with no mercy given once they are convicted.

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 11:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fantastic. Now THAT is just about... (4.00)
    ...as close as you're going to get to a military revolt, without the officers pulling out their sidearms (look for a ban on military dress sidearms from Bush, shortly...).

    It's too late, and they know it - it's strictly pro forma.  But the point is made.

    Unfortunately, they're making their pleas to the weird, luminous eyes of Chief 'Justice' Roberts - christ he's got a pair that look like they're gazing far away to some Armageddon...

    Good job, boys.

    JF

    Invest in your future - VOTE DIEBOLD!

    by Jaime Frontero on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:41:45 PM PDT

  •  Here is a link to the pdf: (4.00)
    amicus brief

    The bios of the generals and admirals petitioning are on pages 9-10 of the brief.

  •  We really can't wait till 2008 (none)
    Bush's stupidity and arrogance is going to get us nuked long before that.

    Bush committed Treason. That's just a fact. I don't believe for a minute that Bush didn't directly support Rove doing what he did. And however the story "plays out" officially, I'll never be convinced otherwise. It's just too absurd to believe that Bush didn't authorize such a big move.

    Bush is a Treasonist and should be shot for such. He's a dog. His Treason cost us American boys. And girls. It cost Iraqi moms and dads their children.

    I hope more military people will have the courage to speak out about what Bush has done.

    Our military folks have a big responsibility to speak out. So far, I haven't seen enough... in my opinion. When you're neck-deep in Bush's bullshit, there's not much excuse for remaining brainwashed. People need to call a spade a spade. Cause when it's the guy on top that's the problem, protocol is the tool of... well... tools.

    All in all, military folks could do so much good in this world. It's a tragedy how they get punked.

    -9.38:-7.59 U.S. blue collar worker vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

    by Lode Runner on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:05:06 PM PDT

    •  Other military plans? (4.00)
      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/100805fourstargeneral.htm
      Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?
      Reporter suggests Brynes discovered plan to turn nuke exercise into staged terror attack

      Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 10 2005

      The head of Fort Monroe's Training and Doctrine Command, four star general Kevin P. Byrnes, was fired Tuesday apparently for sexual misconduct according to official sources.

      Other sources however have offered a different explanation for Byrnes' dismissal which ties in with the Bush administration's unpopular plan to attack Iran and the staged nuclear attack in the US which would provide the pretext to do so.

      If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

      by mattes on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it goes a bit far for (none)
        me to think they'd really go ahead with a nuke in the u.s. i mean... i'm sure there are "plans" for it. but i would hope to hell there's plans for just about everything in that pentagon somewhere... we pay em enough.

        but i figure even these guys have limits. they can justify all the stuff they 'let happen.' but to actually organize and carry out that kind of horror...

        well, never know. some folks are totally crazy. why not bush and cheney. why can't insane people be president...?

        that's the thing with these guys. are they even sane? i really think there needs to be a new practice of not just giving the president a "health exam" but also a psych exam as well... open to public scrutiny.

        this is our country and our money. our kid's lives. i want to know if the asshole in charge is even sane. that seems like a fair request, right?

        -9.38:-7.59 U.S. blue collar worker vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

        by Lode Runner on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:06:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't say this is true, (none)
          but I think we need to be aware of what some people are claiming.

          If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

          by mattes on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:27:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This will make you scared: (4.00)
          Republican Congressman Slams Bush On Gun Confiscation
          Ron Paul says avian flu martial law provisions are designed to destroy 2nd Amendment, Posse Comitatus

          Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

          snip

          On the subject of the police state, Paul stated, "If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

          "It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."

          "I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."
          http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/ron_paul_slams_bush_gun_con.htm

          If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

          by mattes on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:43:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Their ambitions are bigger than I imagined. (none)
            Taking guns away? From Americans?

            I don't even own a gun, but this proposal is so wrong on its face.

            I'm incredulous...

            "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It

            by Eloi Scientist on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:58:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  as you probably know (none)
            All the neo-cons were millitant Marxists in the sixties. Kristol, Perleman, Hofstader, all of them. They fit the description of a fifth column very nicely.

            Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

            by brenda on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:19:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Freaking Maoists all. (none)
              Seriously.

              Remember this famous quote from Chairman Mao?

               "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

              Isn't that the way the neo-con movement operates?

              "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war."

              by RonV on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 07:50:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What REALLY scares me (none)
              is that was a REPUBLICAN senator. Hope you read the whole artcle...there was more.

              If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

              by mattes on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 09:52:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  the other 'nukular' option (none)
          it goes a bit far for (none / 0)

          me to think they'd really go ahead with a nuke in the u.s. i mean... i'm sure there are "plans" for it. but i would hope to hell there's plans for just about everything in that pentagon somewhere... we pay em enough.

          Couldn't just pass by without sharing this little blast from the past -

          As more and more of the Watergate story unfolded and was disclosed, one of the juicier (but ominous) dispatches was a claim the CREEP cadre (Mitchell, Haldeman, Erlichman, with access to the likes of an abject nut like G. Gordon Liddy) entertained discussions and sketched out plans to bomb and kill delegates at their own convention in San Diego as a pretext to declare Martial Law

          It makes me feel like some raving (omigod Black Helicopters!) paranoid for thinking along those lines, but tragically these pukes make the Nixonians look amish in their ambitions ...  the operative word for the CREEP story is "sketched" now think of all the bullshit terror alerts and their willingness to disrupt day to day life and scare the shit out of everyone.  Although he went on to escalate and exploit Vietnam, Nixon "inherited" his war, these fuckers started one. And oh, just last night...

          My husband and I were doing what many on this site and others have been doing these past few weeks - discussing the possibilities of Fitzgerald indictments - not just Rove and Libby
          but of course even the chance of Bush/Cheney indictments, impeachments, etc. with my naive, idealistic husband painting the scenario of the  dems getting back the House so Denny wouldn't be Speaker when the articles of impeachment are brought forth, etc. then I had to wake him from his progressive pipedream and remind him of just who we were talking about and just what they are capable of - old, cranky, hippies like myself look at what they've done to consolidate power, and know they would go to any length to keep it and they wont blow up some blue state as many of you like to joke, no, I'm afraid some place in "the heartland" (void of any valuable assets of their corporate masters of course),would have to be vaporized for maximum effect .

          Sweet Dreams

          •  And to add (none)
            another layer of tinfoil...9/11, the "Next Pearl Harbor" event to propel the PNAC agenda...allowed to happen, or MADE to happen?  Why did WTC building #7 drop as if in a controlled demolition?

            I need my alprazolam now.  

            "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." -Mohandas Gandhi

            by Bulldawg on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 11:14:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  yeah that information was out there for (none)
        about 4 hours and then disappeared.
      •  Whenever Byrnes' name comes up (none)
        I am always reminded of how Hitler got rid of one of the Wehrmacht's top two generals in order to finally consolidate his power as dictator -- by falsing accusing him of sexual misconduct. The dictatorial nature of the Bush regime makes the little hairs stand up on the back of my neck.
    •  Don't make terrorist threats! (none)
      Remember, Big Brother is watching. Make sure that when you call for the president to be shot you put it in the context of a death penalty for his war crimes, after a proper trial and conviction. Otherwise the Gestapo will come after you for making terrorist threats.

      Impeach, indict, try, convict and execute the war criminals, or better, eliminate the death penalty now and send them to Gitmo for the rest of their lives.

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 11:31:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The War on Terror is now (none)
    The Global War on Terror...when will just call it World War III??

    War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.
    Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military

    By Bradley Graham
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, August 8, 2005; A01

    COLORADO SPRINGS -- The U.S. military has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080700843_pf.html

    If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

    by mattes on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 09:05:43 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this post. Flag officers indeed (none)
    know what is what in the way of the world, both militarily AND diplomatically.

    Certainly more so -- by legions -- than the pretend current Commander-in-Chief.

    Bush is the Wizard of Oz cast all rolled up in one sad contemporary person: if I only had a heart; if I only had a brain; if I only had courage.

    Shit. I fucking hate you morons that voted for this miserable failure a year ago.

    Is it that you just can't you read?

    •   A more informative title would be... (none)
      Retired military lawyers join active duty ones in opposing the Administration's policy.  I only see half a warfighter (the surface warfare guy from the Navy) in the list.  My experiences in dealing with JAG types from brigade level to OSD (especially pre GWOT, as these guys all are) is they have absolutely no knowledge of diplomacy and very little of the military outside of the UCMJ and the lawbooks.
      Which isn't to say they are wrong; their point is exactly right.  The tribunals are a travesty which do disgrace the military.  And of course the old three stooges up in OSD couldn't have cared less about that.
      But the title and diary are misleading.
  •  I know people (4.00)
    go nuts and scream Godwin at me when parallels to a certain reich (not the second) are brought up, so I will use another parallel.  

    The PNAC thugs truly do see the US as modern day Rome, at the height of it's power.  And why on earth would Rome, untouchable by any, accountable to none, restrict it's Legions from any and all actions that proved useful in either stifling dissent, creating fear, garnering information, or simply displaying their absolute hegemony?

    If the odd Roman soldier was captured by one of the occupied people, and was burned alive after being tortured, what did Rome care?  There was no real regard for individual life among the Legions by the political leaders - their purpose was utilitarian solely.   They served the greater cause of expanding the empire and consolidating wealth and power.

    Sounds pretty familiar to me.  Only the US is really more like Rome in it's decline, because Bush has been unable to subdue even a minor occupied power.  Not to mention the decline of the economy here in Rome - er - the US - itself, and the corruption and cronyism that inevitably leads to self-destruction.

    This isn't meant to be a "We're all doomed!" comment, btw.  Just my expression of how desperately we need to act with boldness to get rid of these filthy criminals who are perverting, corrupting and raping all that is good about the American constitution and system, while elevating it's weaknesses and imperial tendencies to religious doctrine.

  •  This is also a reason to oppose Meirs. (none)
    Even if we get someone worse (who is to say?), this case will have been heard by a court consisting of O'Connor and the rest of the judges minus Roberts (if he has the integrity to recuse himself).

    If Meirs is either stalled or defeated, O'Connor will serve out this term and at least effect a few close cases including this one.

    •  Quite the opposite. (none)
      In the phone calls alluded to by the diarist, Ken Mehlman admits that Miers will have to recuse herself from these cases.

      With Roberts having to recuse himself on Hamdan, that would leave a 4-3 liberal/conservative court to decide the case, with Kennedy as one of the conservatives.

      For cases other than Hamdan, it would be 4-4.

      •  Maybe, but not certainly. I think the reason (none)
        remains. If Meirs recuses herself she would not vote, but neither would O'Connor.  If Meirs is not yet on the court, O'Connor would vote.

        Since my bet is that O'Connor does not like the sorts of policies that Bush is perpetrating in the name of the war on terror, her vote will be on the right side of this one.

        So having O'Connor there is a likely a plus.

        And, I'm not confident that Meirs would recuse herself, whatever Mehlman says.  There is no enforcement mechanism besides the judge's own integrity -- if there is any such integrity.

        •  O'Connor will be long gone. (none)
          Hamdan is not even accepted for review yet.  It will not be fully briefed and ready for argument until late in this term.  O'Connor will be long gone even if Miers is voted down in November.  GW will have a backup ready to nominate and they'll have the backup on the Court by January.  The nomination process, even if Miers is rejected, will take far less time than it will take Hamdan to get to argument.
        •  To be absolutely clear (none)
          The S.Ct. arguments are booked up through February.  They'll probably take another 25 cases or so for March and April arguments.  O'Connor's successor will get to vote on the case if they are on the bench by the time of argument.  The chances of that not happening with Hamdan are zero.

          The likelihood of Miers being forced to recuse herself on Hamdan are pretty high if the Head of the RNC is announcing that will happen in public.  She'll be asked at her confirmation hearing whether she'll recuse herself.

      •  do you really think that miers in the long run (none)
        would follow through and pull back? hell no, she is a true believer. promises don't mean shit to these people.
  •  I'd love to see SCOTUS take the case, (none)
    but, it would be shocking.

    This kind of thing is precisely why Bush made Roberts the Chief Justice.  Roberts will probably see to it that this case never sees the light of day.

    •  It only takes four votes for the Supremes (4.00)
      to take a case.

      The Supremes have conferenced this case twice, and probably were just waiting to see if the Circuit Court would withdraw the opinion before they accepted it for review.  The Circuit refused that course of action earlier this week.

  •  Sick. These fuckers are sick. (none)
    Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, the whole PNAC.  They have no idea that their actions have consequenses.  No foresight.  No ability to look ahead and see the future.

    All they care about is instant fucking gratification.

    •  not instant gratification... (none)
      Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, the whole PNAC.  They have no idea that their actions have consequenses.  No foresight.  No ability to look ahead and see the future.

      You left out Fieldmarshall Donald von Rumsfeld. These fuckers have been working their whole lives to get to this point. Cheney and Rumsfeld were third string lackeys in NIXON's administration. They've been slinking along and working their way up the chain ever since. This is their future for them. You don't need a very long memory to know that Rumsfled is the one who wanted to "revolutionize" the army. Well, he's certainly done that, hasn't he. (Not that I have ANY love for the military.)

      (returns to muttering to myself soto voce) "My God! Next year's military budget; 440 billion dollars. That's 440 thousand, million dollars."
      --
      -9.63 - -6.79

      "Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from indomitable will." - Jawaharlal Nehru

      by Bill Melater on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:43:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Holy fucking shit. (none)
    This could be the missing link.

    The reason Bush needs Miers on the court.

    If SCOTUS agrees with this brief, it would amount to a ruling  that Bush violated the Geneva Conventions.

    If that were to happen, the Hague would have to seriously consider action for war crimes.

    Holy. Fucking. Shit.

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:03:59 PM PDT

    •  international criminal court (none)
      IANAL, but my understanding is that

      1. Because the US has not ratified the ICC treaty, nor granted consent to ICC prosecution, the Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by US citizens on US soil, even if they are against foreign nationals.

      2. The Hague only steps in when a nation's judiciary cannot or will not address the offense. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Geneva Conventions had been violated, that ruling would itself prevent the ICC from bringing independent charges, since it would indicate that the US was cleaning up its own mess.
      •  Thanks. Follow up: (none)
        But if SCOTUS rules there was a violation and then there is no criminal penalty, would not ICC still bring charges? Just because a war criminal does not believe in the iCC, that doesn't mean they can't be charged - wasn't that Milosevic's argument? That the Hague was a puppet court? And if they bring charges in any case, knowing nothing would happen, would that not have at least a tiny effect in the U.S.?

        Seems serious, but I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the Internets.

        I am the federal government.

        by mateosf on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 11:35:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  consent (none)
          Milosevic was handed over to the ICC by the duly constituted government of Serbia, which thereby consented to ICC prosecution despite being (I believe) a nonmember. However, there is no way an American President would consent to ICC jurisdiction over a US national. Even Bill Clinton refused to ratify the ICC, signing the treaty only so he could keep trying to negotiate its terms.

          One possible out is to arrest a nonmember citizen while he is on foreign soil, a la Pinochet. This is why Henry Kissinger avoids private travel to countries like Belgium these days. However, the ICC would never pull this stunt because it would get walloped by provisions of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which actively forbids US cooperation with the ICC, imposes discretionary economic sanctions against ICC signatories, and authorizes military extraction of an ICC-incarcerated US national. For such a young and fragile institution, it's better to seem ineffectual than to have someone prove it.

  •  Granted on your points, Sir, however, (none)
    what we do surely risk with Miers' appointment is the vote that swings unConstitutional weight and power to the president.

    And worse yet, this president.

    I think that's the point of the poster. And I think that's the point of military command who, thank God, get the Constitution.

  •  Pray for Stevens. (none)

    I mean it. Pray for Stevens.  If he doesn't survive to 2009, Clarence Thomas will become the swing vote on the Court.

    You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably. - Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson

    by eyelessgame on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:42:43 AM PDT

  •  vietnam war (none)
    the american G.I. were fucking pirates in the vietnam war. unfuckingbelievable that they continue to churn out vietnam war movies about the american soldier's pains and not about the vietnamese who suffered the brunt of the vietnam war.
  •  The Bush Doctrine (none)
    The military is here to provide security for the mansion, not lecture to its betters.

    It's only Nero-esque if the city is burning. :)

    by cskendrick on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 03:24:53 AM PDT

  •  Hamdi and Hamdan? Are these (none)
    the same thing? Is Hamdi your nickname for the case?
  •  Koh on Gonzales and the Geneva Conventions (4.00)
    Here is a pdf file holding the testimony of Harold Koh, Dean of Law at Yale Law School before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales on 1/7/05.

    This file contains a discussion of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions as they pertain to the use of torture.

    Contained in the link, Dean Koh prefaces -

    I appear today solely to comment upon Mr. Gonzales' positions regarding three issues on which I have both legal expertise and government experience: the illegality of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the scope of the President's constitutional powers to authorize torture and cruel treatment by U.S. officials, and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War to alleged combatants held in U.S. custody.

    With respect to these three issues, my professional opinion is that United States law and policy have been clear and unambiguous. Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are both illegal and totally abhorrent to our values and constitutional traditions. No constitutional authority licenses the President to authorize the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, even when he acts as  Commander-in-Chief. Finally, the U.S. has long recognized the broad applicability of the Geneva Conventions, which is a critical safeguard for our own troops now serving in more than 130 countries around the world. These legal standards apply to all alleged combatants held in U.S. custody.

    This testimony is lucid and serious discussion.  I highly recommend it and I commend Dean Koh for speaking out on this issue.

  •  question (none)
    how do they decide which cases to hear?

    is it a group decision or one the top banana makes? with or without input.

    I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

    by anna in philly on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 04:50:32 AM PDT

  •  Agree 110% (none)
    Guess people better get to work and stop Bush from putting his own personal counsel on the high court, right?

    Not that it will make that much difference - it became obvious who the court bows down to in 2000 when they inserted themselves into the presidential election.

  •  Could you please explain (none)
    how this works? I don't understand how he gets declared "king of America". What specific policy or ruling is affected? I guess that I am just not familiar enough with all that's going on. Thanks
    That means that if Hamdan comes up now, the likely outcome is the Four moderates (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter & Stevens), plus Scalia as the fifth vote to stop Bush from killing more servicemembers.  If the Court waits too long, another Justice could leave, and the President could be declared King of America.

    Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

    by brenda on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:58:40 AM PDT

    •  if this ruling goes the wrong way (none)
      the Supreme Court would rule that the executive branch (the president/Bush), would have absolute unchecked power to do pretty much whatever it wants regardless of whether the legislative branch (Congress) said it was illegal.

      Whenever Bush ran up against an inconvenient law he could just issue an Executive Order saying "regardless of existing law, I'm going to do this anyway".  Executive Orders are issued by the President/Executive Branch without any possibility of oversight or overruling by the people's representatives in Congress.  There would no longer be any way for the President to be held accountable by the people.  That's not a president, that's a king, or even a dictator.

      Bush has already been doing this and getting away with it, not only with respect to the Abu Gonzalez torture memo, but in other areas like disregard for established environmental law and labor law.

      So we need the present Supreme Court to decide that there are some limits on the scope of Executive Orders before Bush packs the court with cronies who will vote to let him do whatever he wants.

      Does that help?

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:15:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, thanks (none)
        But then, isn;t there a danger of bringing this up and the SCOTUS ruling the other way? Thereby cementing in his powers? That is pretty damn scary.

        Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

        by brenda on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:23:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are right (none)
          that could be the very scary outcome.  but since Bush is ALREADY issuing these executive orders, going to the S.Ct. is our only hope to reverse it.

          True, they could rule to let things stay the way they are, or overtly declare his power grab constitutional (ick).

          So we have three possible outcomes:

          (1) do nothing and let executive branch power run roughshod over the Congress, the lower courts and the Constitution;

          (2) take it to the SCt and lose, with executive power essentially unchecked in the hands of the Worst President Ever and putting the final stamp of approval on his Imperial Presidency; or

          (3) take it to the SCt and win.

          Now if you really want to lose sleep at night like those of us who worry about this stuff all the time, what do we do if they rule against him and he decides not to abide by the ruling?  This is the same outcome feared by those who brought U.S. v Nixon.  We are in sad shape when Nixon, in retrospect, starts to look like a man of honor for choosing to cooperate rather than precipitate such a constitutional crisis.

          But let's not go there until we have to.

          And those of us who pray should pray we never have to.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 07:15:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Remember Hitler. (none)
      Just saw a History Channel program on how he took over...through martial law.

      If not us, who? If not now, when? L. Feuctwanger

      by mattes on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:04:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  don't count on Scalia (none)
    don't count on Scalia to follow any precedents established by his previous votes on anything.

    Scalia is an opportunist who has no shame about voting according to political expediency. Remember the unbearable wrongness of Bush v Gore.

    Everything he had ever written about states' rights and the primacy of state Supreme Court rulings prior to Bush v Gore would have indicated thae his vote would go with Gore under the circumstances presented, or that he would have voted to remand and force the lower court to instruct the legislature to establish a uniform standard for the counting of votes at the state level, which also would have led to a Gore win.

    That's not what he did, as we all know.

    The premise behind this diary is bad enough.  But the assumption that Scalia would vote with us based on his stance in a previous case or cases is just plain wishful thinking.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:03:03 AM PDT

  •  FORMER doesn't mean jack (none)
    to these thugs.
  •  This is exactly why it is essential... (none)
    ...to oppose the Meirs nomination.

    There is only one reason she has been nominated, and it is to enable the opposite of what these former gererals desire.

    You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

    by deafmetal on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 07:16:43 AM PDT

  •  It was SCOTUS (none)
    that installed Shrub in the first place. They can't be trusted to do anything but support him. No hope for relief there at all, IMO.

    And let's all hope I'm wrong about that.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 08:14:42 AM PDT

  •  Frontline (none)
    has a program on "the Torture Question" coming up (Tues in my city, maybe yours too).  The highlights I saw made it look like real investigative journalism, though also really hard to watch.  Unless you like to watch humiliation, degradation, etc.  
  •  Don't forget Maj. Gen. Fiscus, (none)
    the former Judge Advocate of the Air Force, a vociferous opponent of Rumsfeld's torture policies, who was cashiered from the service and demoted to colonel on charges of womanizing.
    •  Adultery (none)
      is a crimne in the UCMJ that is almsot never used unless they really, really want to get you out. There's a lot of screwing around on bases. I know an LDO on out base who was busily pursuing young E women--which is fraternization--while still married to his wife.   Nothing was done.  The Os above him liked him (his nose was so brown he looked like he'd been bobbing for apples in chocolate). They DID investigate a female chief who had run afoul of a MCPO who was an ass---but they could find no one who would testify that they knew she was having an affair (she had been, but she was a decent woman and ended it quickly, and the MCPO had a grudge agaisnt her).

      Nine times out of ten when they burn someone for adultery it's because they've pissed off someone higher up--like, say, the CiC.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a retired reservist who's also a lawyer. (none)
        So I have some familiarity with military justice.  I've never seen adultery used as a charge except when it's added on to some more serious charge.

        So I was startled by both the Fiscus and the Byrnes cases.  (I think for a while adultery was also the only charge Chaplain Yee was facing.)

  •  Various reactions (none)
    1. To this administration, there is only one branch of the imperial government and they can do what they damn well please. Didn't the Supreme Court rule last year that Guantanamo prisoners were required to get hearings? Did any happen?

    2. <Scott McClellan>Well, obviously these retired officers don't want us to win the global war on terrorism.</Scottie>

    3. <Limbaugh>Torture? How do you think the people in the World Trade Center felt?</Limbaugh>
    •  looks like fun (none)
      more custom HTML tags:

      </bush> null entry </bush>

      result: hangs your system because it is waiting for data that never comes.

      <href cheney="http://fascist.gov.usa">fuck you</cheney>

      result: allows the server to take over your system through the built-in MS "backdoor." Turning your PC into a zombie.

      Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

      by brenda on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  <Rove>... (none)
      ...Some people want therapy and understanding for our enemies. </Rove>
    •  Officers are supposed to follow the party line (none)
      in Bush Land. How dare they have independent thoguths without clearing them?

      At the rate Bush  was getting rid of  Pentagonbrass who questioede his war plans (or lack thereof) and driving out  decent, competent, officers liek Karen K., I am surprised there are any left.

      Oh,  wait, these are RETIRED officers.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:29:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Always Four Votes Decisive for Cert.? (none)
    In the Hamdi case, Roberts is pretty clearly going to have to recuse himself.  Will there still be four votes needed to grant cert?

    I just took a look at the Rules of the Supreme Court.  I didn't see where the four votes for cert requirement is mentioned, so I couldn't see if it has any exceptions.  It's hard to believe that requirement would be maintained even for a case that several justices have to recuse themselves from.  (It's conceivable, for that matter, that a confirmed Justice Miers would also have to recuse herself from Hamdi.)

  •  I have. (none)
    I was a Navy E wife (the oen no one ever saw ebcasue I had zilch in common with the other E wives--15 eyars older, no kids, 2 grad degrees, and an author and a WIccan) for 15 years.  Husband was active duty. Saw it several times while we were in Japan--the serious charge was usually fraternization. But if you had pull, no charges were filed and your CO called you in and warned you. IF you were an O, that is.  ThE XO of a squadron my husband served inw as caught by his wife and anothe O bending a girl over hsi desk (dumb guy didn'tlock the door, even).  He wasnt' court martialed, but he didn't amke  commander, either,a nd ended up retiring. Sad, becasue except for keeping his pants zipped that time, he had a good rep and the Es respected him.

    Saw a lot of rape charges and sexual harassment charges with a ton of evidence won by the derfense saying, "Who are you going to beleive? This  Chief/Sgt. with 15 years of clean service--or these four airmen/seamen/privates 10 months out of boot?" Worked like a charm.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 04:11:21 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Leslie in CA, Kimberley, enaud, North of 49, racerx, Alumbrados, Bob, davej, MichaelPH, SlackerInc, zzyzx, steveb, KeithH, Terri, JR, coral, Ducktape, pb, Joe Willy, IseFire, Irfo, sny, tankej, CrazyDem, SilverWings, grollen, Rayne, ks, eafredel, moon in the house of moe, sharronmar, misscee, abarefootboy, Prometh000, Raybin, tiggers thotful spot, Pandora, TrueBlueMajority, Unstable Isotope, whataboutbob, sarac, maynard, saraswati, stumpy, its simple IF you ignore the complexity, Paul Rosenberg, wytcld, roscodagama, TechBob, doug r, B Rubble, Stoy, Shockwave, Del C, SoLeft, mlkisler, donna in evanston, kpardue, martianchronic, Mnemosyne, ignatz, YankInUK, Pompatus, lostian1, x, Gary in NY, RandyMI, freelunch, frisco, dash888, enthusiast, marjo, biotecchie, lilorphant, Carnacki, Abou Ben Adhem, object16, musicsleuth, mataliandy, exNYinTX, jancw, Cache, nightsweat, bostonjay, bookbear, Vitarai, mbguenth, RANT, PKinTexas, memberofthejury, soonergrunt, bara, eyeswideopen, mlafleur, EvieCZ, redfloatboat, concernedamerican, kwinz, PaintyKat, bronte17, RichardG, indybend, ProfessorX, dlcampbe, Mary Julia, elveta, sjersey, groggy, understandinglife, jem6x, sfgb, Ti Jean, FtheNaysayers, susakinovember, dicta, djMikulec, Loquatrix, rob511, d52boy, Aguas de Marco, shock, IndigoBlues2, ksh01, melthewriter, Patricia Taylor, Transmission, Siberian, high5, Aquarius40, chimpy, ides, cpwicks, chechecule, DoDi, peraspera, murphsurf, sgilman, drsmith131, teritaki, peeder, House, Fe, maven98, PeteZerria, Boxers, Virginia Patriot, Nate Roberts, fumie, KCBearcat, marysz, Jesterfox, Gonzophile, lirtydies, antirove, aProgressive, nitetalker, dksbook, ends with space, bato, nio, menodoc, AlphaGeek, Magatsu, BurnetO, sockpuppet, rhapsaria, oldjohnbrown, NYC Sophia, Subversive, jlynne, AskQuestions, pat bunny, pointsoflight, sooner, alivingston, TXsharon, bopes, jaywillie, duncanidaho, Bulldawg, NYFM, kathika, dwahzon, PitPat, Twin Planets, Catte Nappe, The Zipper, applegal, Ascendent, Mrcia, rlharry, LeftyLimblog, socal, lecsmith, sommervr, towit, Leggy Starlitz, fugue, mattes, retired, Man Eegee, DrReason, Marianne Benz, Steven D, xyz, HK, DarkSyde, DrewDown, eve, snowbird42, califdweller, Shapeshifter, macmcd, greeseyparrot, drewvsea, sawgrass727, weelzup, SteveK, acuity, kplatv, lcs, Bluesee, tomabeln, roysol, ManOnTheBench, supak, Chris Kulczycki, mvr, bellevie, 12, Unit Zero, Gabriele Droz, jrieth, Elise, patrioticliberal, Alegre, hiredman, LarisaW, subtropolis, furiousxxgeorge, RobotsRUs, Independent Musings, Alice Marshall, ignorant bystander, tolerant, Halcyon, OpherGopher, irate, Doc Sarvis, offred, NeilDB, Ianua Ditis, crimsonscare, Valtin, Darth Codis, Clem Yeobright, karpinsky, juliesie, viral, Nordic, shelbysmother, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle, profpeach, yogishan, devadatta, Back in the Cave, majcmb1, flo58, mateosf, tutone, concerned, jorndorff, Jaime Frontero, jimreyn, John DE, GreyHawk, Overseas, annefrank, brenda, cymack, bmaples, foxglove, RElland, Warren Terrer, Dante92660, LeckyV, paddykraska, Zergle, neroden, nieman, walt, Cory Bantic, formalist, Shiborg, gilliani, Spathiphyllum, DaveVH, JanL, proudprogressiveCA, SuthernAhia, flem snopes, YukonJack, Alan Arizona, jeffinalabama, viscerality, pankwindu, soyinkafan, grayscale, Paper Cup, Eloi Scientist, bently, Jim P, begone, Ian H, TimeTogether, taracar, WuChier, xrepub, occams hatchet, andreuccio, Sanuk, BachFan, Ranchita, Santorums worst nightmare, Petrasays, RMorse

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site