StudioGlyphic

Reuters: Court Won't Make Cheney Energy Papers Public

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Thursday to require Vice President Dick Cheney to disclose records of a 2001 task force he headed that critics say secretly formed energy policy favorable to the industry.

...

The 7-2 ruling sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for more hearings on the government's arguments. That means the case will remain active in the months leading up to the November elections.

Reuters: Top Court Limits Reach of Death Penalty Ruling

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court said on Thursday its 2002 ruling that juries and not judges must impose a death sentence applies only to future cases, a decision that may affect more than 100 death row inmates.

...

"So many aspects of the death penalty are arbitrary," said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center. "And in this case, the court is saying that constitutional rights can be deprived and you can be executed depending simply on the date you filed your appeal.

In such a critical matter, this seems grossly unfair."

I was talking with Pauly on Saturday, in very general terms about, to borrow a phrase, the viral phenomenon of blogs.

Pauly's line, one that I feel is apt, is that "blogs are the new tattoos." Everybody is going to have one, or already does.

Viral, actually, is a terrific adjective to describe blogs, as the Howard Dean campaign proved early on. For better or for worse, Dean's supporters utilized blogs to at once rally and corral the troops.

I mention the "for worse" part because what this marketing strategy has wrought is the political regurgitation blog. No offense to Phil at Studio Glyphic, because I wouldn't read him if he didn't have interesting content besides the various links and quotes, but what has grown weary and tiresome in the blogosphere is the link-it-and-leave liberal blog (frankly, I haven't come across a conservative blog, although I'm sure they're out there too). Link to an op-ed piece from an unabashedly liberal outlet, quote the first two paragraphs, and that's it. Congratulations, you now have "content."

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

The commission issued its report on al Qaeda's history at the start of a two-day round of hearings this morning. In a separate report on the planning and deliberations for the Sept. 11 plot, the panel cited numerous pieces of FBI evidence in concluding that ringleader Mohamed Atta never met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9, 2001, as Cheney and some other Bush administration officials have alleged.

Denver Post: Group pushes for vote switch

The wealthy president of a Brazilian university is bankrolling an initiative to end Colorado's winner-take-all presidential electoral system.

J. Jorge Klor de Alva is the major donor to The People's Choice for President - a nonprofit group seeking voters' permission to award Colorado's Electoral College votes proportionally as a percentage of the statewide popular vote.

For example, a candidate who wins 60 percent at the polls could snag five of the state's nine electoral votes, leaving the remaining four to a candidate who wins 40 percent on Election Day.

The group has begun to collect signatures; it needs 67,799 to get the measure on the ballot.

If approved Nov. 2, the constitutional amendment would affect this year's choice for president by immediately permitting the division of Colorado electoral votes. And it would mark the most ambitious Electoral College reform yet in the nation.

...

The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose the method of selecting presidential electors. Most states, including Colorado, have a winner-take-all system. Two states - Maine and Nebraska - have passed measures giving only two electoral votes to the overall winner of the state; the rest are awarded individually based on the winner of the popular vote in each of those states' congressional districts.

"I'm both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush. More anti-Bush. I encourage people on the air and personally [to vote for him]. Here's the deal, dude. It turns out the show has a lot of influence among swing voters, voters who are not Republican or Democrat, but intelligent enough to vote for the good candidate." Stern said he has never met Kerry but considers him a "good guy."

Stern's listeners support Kerry over President Bush by a 10-point margin, according to a poll released last week.

In recent months, Stern has repeatedly lambasted the Bush administration for its crackdown on "indecent material" and called on his listeners to vote the president out of office.

Stern himself is a swing voter. Besides a brief run for governor as a Libertarian, Stern used his position to back two Republican gubernatorial candidates in New York and New Jersey. Both George Pataki and Christie Todd Whitman beat Democratic incumbents. Whitman even promised to name a highway oasis after Stern, and put a plaque with his name in a bathroom along the New Jersey turnpike.

Stern's vast audience includes 17 percent of likely voters, and they back Kerry 53 to 43 percent over Bush according to the poll. In so-called "battleground" states, Kerry beats Bush by 59 to 37 percent. The New Democrat Network (NDN), a centrist Democratic fundraising organization, commissioned Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, a Democratic firm, to conduct the poll.

On his website, Stern says that he is more influential than conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh because he claims his listeners are undecided voters and Hannity and Limbaugh's listeners are Republicans.

Don Imus, a New York-based political talk show host, has said on his program that he also supports Kerry.

Washington Post: Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture

In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.

...

In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.

Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department's legal reasoning yesterday.

"It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations."

...

In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review, conducted by a working group that included representatives of the military services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group's report called "exceptional interrogations."

Much of the reasoning in the group's report and in the Justice Department's 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq.

In a draft of the working group's report, for example, Pentagon lawyers approvingly cited the Justice Department's 2002 position that domestic and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the president's wartime authority and any directives he issued.

At the time, the Justice Department's legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers.

"Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service.

"It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop."

One of Howard Dean's most poignant memories of his presidential campaign is of a woman in a wheelchair who gave him $50 in quarters at a breakfast meeting in Iowa last summer. The money came from her federal supplemental income check.

''Even now I can hardly tell that story,'' says Dean, his voice choking in a rare display of emotion.

''She said she had been saving the quarters for two years, when she could, for something that was really important - and this was really important to her.''

Dean is in awe of his rise. He is accepting of his fall. He readily concedes he made mistakes. He has difficulty, though, coming to grips with the sacrifices and trust of his legions of devoted supporters.

''I am pretty overwhelmed,'' he says and pauses as his eyes brim with tears.

''I don't really feel I let them down, I must say, but I am pretty shocked by not just how supportive they were, but what they were willing to do.''

It was an amazing ride and Dean is the first to admit it. ''Since the campaign ended I have just looked back and scratched my head and said, 'What could you have been thinking of? You started out in a room over a chiropractor's office and you thought you were going to be president of the United States?'''

In the White House and the Pentagon, senior officials face the prospect of criminal charges. The vice president is accused of malfeasance, at best. A key erstwhile ally in the war on terrorism has apparently turned against us in an act of criminal perfidy. And now the nation's spymaster has turned in his cloak—it's not yet clear whether he jumped or got pushed; either way, Bush's risk-rating has just soared.

ST: You're a self-described liberal. What causes do you currently support and why?

WW: I believe really strongly in civil liberties and equal rights for all people. There are a lot of causes that are demonized as liberal now, like it's a bad thing; they're actually pretty important, and taken for granted like the 40-hour work week and Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards. Environmental protection, higher standards for education. I believe very strongly in those causes. I support the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), and I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), and I really resent the implication that that somehow makes me a bad person. I feel a rant coming on, so your readers may want to skip to the next [section] if they don't like this sort of thing.

You know, I have always been pretty moderate. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative ... until now. In the last three years, I have been radicalized by the Bush administration because I believe them to be incredibly dishonest and incredibly divisive, and acting not in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? What ever happened to that? Bush has divided the country at every opportunity. It's just a modern updating of the old Nixonian "Southern Strategy". Look, to give these comments some context: I was not a huge supporter of the Clinton administration. That whole lying thing really bothered me. I don't care what it's about; I don't like to be lied to by my leaders, regardless of what party they're from. Truth has always been more important to me than anything else, and I resent it when politicians lie to us. I resent it even more when the media make them repeat their lies over and over again. Judith Miller at The New York Times, I'm looking in your direction.

I really think that history is going to remember George W. Bush and eventually Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld ... and the rest of the neo-conservatives (neocons) as the most corrupt, dishonest, dangerous and damaging group of people to hold the reins of American power in history.

I really try to be middle-of-the-road. But when the President of the United States uses his bully pulpit to call for an amending of the Constitution — a document that should be guaranteeing freedoms to the people, not taking them away — to deny basic rights to an entire class of people (in this case homosexuals) it makes me explode. Bush's call to amend it to deny homosexuals a right that heterosexual people take for granted was really the last straw for me, and now I am officially On The Left. The purpose of the Constitution as I understand it is to put limits on what the government can do, not who can get married to whom. These Republicans talk about smaller government, but that's such a lie! What they really mean is "smaller government programs to help out the less fortunate people in our country so we can get rich, and bigger government intrusion into your private lives so we can control you." It's such blatant pandering to intolerant religious extremists who are trying to force their mythology down the throats of the entire country. Guess what? That's not Democracy. That's Theocracy. Isn't that one of the major reasons we left England in the first place? The separation of Church and State was pretty goddamned important to the Founding Fathers, but the Bush administration is trying to shove a far-right, ultra-conservative, mythological Christian agenda on the rest of the country, and by extension, the rest of the world. I mean, it's like he's using Revelations to get his foreign policy!

You know what? In a rational world most of those guys in the Bush administration would not have jobs right now. Remember Bush smirking through the 2000 campaign, saying, "I will return honor and dignity to the White House" and "I will restore accountability"? Where's the fucking accountability?! Donald Rumsfeld should have resigned months ago because of the lies about Iraq. George W. Bush should be impeached for lying and deliberately misleading America and the world into an unnecessary, illegal war that violates the Geneva Convention, and goes against international law. He should be impeached. If Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex — And it doesn't matter what he lied about: he was impeached for lying, okay? And that's not alright. It's not okay to lie under oath; that's perjury and he should have been held accountable for that. But if he can be impeached for that, if he can be investigated for something so stupid like Whitewater, where the fuck is the Congressional investigation of the Bush administration? My God! They've lied about everything, and thousands of human beings have died because of it!

I just want to know where all these conservatives are who were so concerned about truth and honesty when Clinton was in office. Their silence about the outrageous lies of the Bush administration is deafening. Why did Bush try so hard to prevent the creation of the 9/11 Commission? Why did he put Henry Kissenger in charge of it, and fight it, and fight it, and fight it, every step of the way? Why did he try so hard to prevent us from finding out what happened? What's he afraid of? It's our fucking right as Americans to know what happened. This is our country. Those were our fellow citizens who were murdered on that day. He will gleefully stand on the ashes of the World Trade Center to make a campaign speech, but he won't give the 9/11 Commission everything they need to find out what happened? It shouldn't even be a question. The worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, he's exploiting our fear and our national outrage for political gain, and he is doing everything he can to hamstring the commission. Who is he protecting? Who does he care about? Does he care about his buddies in Saudi Arabia who are funding al-Qaeda? Or does he care about the Americans that he was allegedly elected to represent? Just — The fucking duplicitousness of this administration is so offensive to me and the cognitive dissonance that you have to have to support these people is stunning. Donald Rumsfeld goes on Face the Nation on Sunday and he says, "Nobody ever said it [Iraq] was an 'imminent threat.' We never said that." Well, we all know that's false. And thank God there was a reporter from The New York Times who said, "Well, as a matter of fact here, Secretary Rumsfeld, you said, 'They have the most lethal weapons presented ... They are an imminent threat.' It's right here! You said it. Answer that now." And Rumsfeld goes, "Um ... uh ... er ..." He said, "Well, what I meant was, um ... Well, he sort of, uh ... I mean, he — We're going to find it." And he got away with that! Where is the outrage? Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the neocons focused on WMDs to justify the war, and now we know that everyone except the Iraqi National Congress — who have been totally discredited as liars — told the Pentagon they just weren't there. The Secretary of Defense is caught repeatedly lying about the main justification for the war and Congress doesn't even flinch! Can you imagine what would have happened if that had been William Cohen? There would have been 50,000 Republican operatives marching on the Pentagon with pitchforks and torches, and you can bet your life that it's all we'd hear about from the so-called liberal media until he was forced to resign. It just drives me crazy. Until this administration, I was never a partisan. I always put principals before party — I mean, I'm registered as a non-partisan!

ST: You just vote with your heart.

WW: I vote with my conscience. I believe in the values I was told America stands for, and all my life I have loved America. "One man, one vote." "A nation of laws, not men." "Truth before all else" — that's just going to be a myth (if it isn't already) if we don't get these psychos out of power. I believe in equality. I believe in freedom of the press. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And these people ... are the most anti-American people to ever have power. Ever. The things this administration has done have gone totally against traditional American values. I wonder if the vast majority of Americans even know how virulently hated we are in the rest of the world now, because of the Bushies. I wonder if they even care. And you know what's awful? In some twisted way, conservatives take my criticism of the lies of the Bush administration and turn it into support for our enemies ... what a load of crap. I opposed the war in Iraq all along, and it's not because I love terrorists, you morons. I completely support our military. I honor and respect the men and women who took an oath to defend our country and my freedom. That is why I have always opposed, and continue to oppose, the war in Iraq, because it was unnecessary and took our focus away from stopping al-Qaeda. And the best argument war supporters can come up with is, "Well, isn't the world better with Saddam Hussein not in power?" You know what? Fuck Saddam Hussein. I don't care about Saddam Hussein, and the only reason he ever even had power in the first place is because he was funded and given weapons and intelligence information by the Reagan and Bush I administrations. He was created by the United States, just like the Taliban was. And don't take my word for it. Read [the book] House of Bush, House of Saud. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. Osama Bin Laden was, and is. If you think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein rattling his sword in the middle of the desert, try asking someone who has lost a family member in Iraq if they think it was worth it. Ask yourself if you feel safer getting on a plane now that they tore down that statue in Baghdad, but Osama is still running around.

You asked what causes I believe in, and care about, and I care about taking care of Americans in America. I am not worried about taking care of the rest of the world. That's not our problem! We can provide leadership, which we should do because we're currently the toughest guy on the block, but this idea that we can go out and engage in nation-building and shoving Democracy down the throats of people who don't want it — look, our economy is falling apart. People are losing their jobs and their homes, while CEOs buy more yachts. Some Americans may have gotten a few hundred dollars from the Bush tax cut, but their health care costs have soared by thousands. Gasoline is nearing three bucks a gallon, and we are facing the biggest outbreak of herpes since the 70s, because the Republicans won't let us teach safe sex to teenagers. Our country is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the hubris of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Tom DeLay, and the rest of them. We are in serious trouble. You don't go cleaning up your neighbor's garage when your own house is falling apart. And during the 2000 campaign, Bush said, "America shouldn't be policing the world." Well, what are you doing then, you fucking liar? There was a time when I could honestly say, "I don't hate George W. Bush. I strongly disagree with him, but I don't hate him." Well, I sure hate him now. And with each soldier and innocent Iraqi civilian who is killed, because of his incompetence and hubris, I hate him a little bit more.

The Pentagon wasted $100 million (54.7 million pounds) over six years on airline tickets, a report has revealed, prompting lawmakers to urge the government to "fix its culture of indifference" to American taxpayers.

AP: Bush Consults Lawyer in CIA Leak Case

A federal grand jury has questioned numerous White House and administration officials to learn who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to the news media. Wilson has charged that officials made the disclosure in an effort to discredit him.

Bush has been an outspoken critics of leaks, saying they can be very damaging, but he has expressed doubts that the government's investigation will pinpoint who was responsible. While Bush has said he welcomed the leak investigation, it has been an awkward development for a president who promised to bring integrity and leadership to the White House after years of Republican criticism and investigations of the Clinton administration.

...

Plame was first identified by syndicated columnist and TV commentator Robert Novak in a column last July. Novak said his information came from administration sources.

Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked because of his criticism of Bush administration claims that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger, which Wilson investigated for the CIA and found to be untrue.

Disclosure of an undercover officer's identity can be a federal crime. The grand jury has heard from witnesses and combed through thousands of pages of documents turned over by the White House, but returned no indictments.

The probe is being handled by Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed after Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped aside from case because of his political ties to the White House.

CBS News: Enron Traders Caught On Tape

Four years after California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation, Enron energy traders can be heard – on audiotapes obtained by CBS News – gloating and praising each other as they helped bring on, and cash-in on, the Western power crisis.

"He just f---s California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million."

"Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.

"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.

The tapes, from Enron's West Coast trading desk, also confirm what CBS reported years ago: that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.

"If you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?" an Enron worker is heard saying.

"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another says.

"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down."

Officials with the Snohomish Public Utility District near Seattle received the tapes from the Justice Department.

"This is the evidence we've all been waiting for. This proves they manipulated the market," said Eric Christensen, a spokesman for the utility.

While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.