The Serpent's Wisdom

If John McCain had publically used the n-word as extensively as he has used the slur "gook" over the last several decades, he would have been disqualified as a presidential candidate immediately (from debunkingwhite):

( Read more... )


Jim Cramer's latest advice to stock market investors: take as much money out of the stock market as you think you would need to live on for five years if you became unemployed today (and i guess put it under your mattress) (from the_recession):

( Read more... )


And, saving the most cheerful for last: an argument by Naomi Wolf that there was a coup in the United States on October 1, the day a military brigade was deployed on US soil for law enforcement (just in time for the election!) This is ostensibly so there will be a unit on-hand in case of some disaster like Katrina, but hurricane season is almost over, why do it now? (from a locked post):

( Read more... )

The Bush Administration and some in the GOP are using the Katrina disaster to push for "reflection" on the Posse Comitatus Act. They argue that it became clear in the disaster's aftermath that the military has the best chance of providing effective disaster response.

( Read more... )

On another level, funds meant by Congress for the development of an effective New Orleans evacuation plan eight years ago went into a study for expanding the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway instead.

( Read more... )

Louisiana officials apparently bear some of the blame for that misdirection (thanks again to iq2hi4uok for the link), but it is hard to miss the overall pattern here, and the similarity it bears to what happened with the USAPATRIOT Act right after 9/11. Government fails in some way in response to a national disaster, and the solution is something that, just coincidentally, looks like another step towards totalitarian rule.

Now we see why the media played up images of looting and lawlessness in New Orleans which many survivors say were overblown. Now we see why FEMA was allowed to languish for years, why disaster evacuation plans for New Orleans were thwarted even when Congress dedicated money for them.

The Posse Comitatus Act has already been gutted, because now there is federal court precedent to allow indefinite military detentions of US citizens in the absence of criminal charges, thus denying the constitutional right to speedy trial.

With Congress, the courts (soon the Supreme Court) and the White House stacked with people who are actively supportive of rolling back Posse Comitatus, what is there at this point to stop the imposition of totalitarian rule? American culture is very strongly opposed to this sort of thing, but we've seen that it can happen anywhere, given enough fear.

One more major terrorist attack or major natural disaster and the United States as we know it is through.

To: Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Representative Edward Markey

I am writing today because I am extremely concerned about statements reported by the Washington Post on July 19 during a court hearing over the detention of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla.

The Washington Post article can be read here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901023.html

Solictor General Clement argued that the United States is a "battlefield" in the War on Terror, and therefore, accused terrorists, even if they are United States citizens arrested in United States territory, can be held as "enemy combatants" without access to Constitutional due process.

Since when is the United States under martial law?

Judge J. Michael Luttig was quoted as interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld as a serious erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act. Under that act, the power to authorize use of the military in domestic law enforcement falls to Congress. Even if we allow that in the case of an imminent terrorist threat it is reasonable for the military to intervene, they would be intervening ONLY as assistants to domestic law enforcement agencies, which retain jurisdiction. They would, as Padilla's lawyer argued, then be required to surrender arrested suspects (they are *suspects*, right?) to civilian authorities -- especially if those suspects are United States citizens.

This was just a court hearing, but I fear it reflects a prevailing attitude in Washington: that "victory" demands that we give up what it is that we are supposedly fighting to defend.

The Bush Administration apparently envisions a world where the US military has the right, on the orders of the President instead of Congress, to detain anyone, anywhere, even if they are US citizens detained in US territory. In the case of most such detentions already made in the War on Terror, there is no apparent intent to determine guilt or innocence by trial, but rather to simply hold suspected terrorists indefinitely.

The fact alone that this is happening to anyone, much less US citizens, is grievously offensive to me. In the case of US citizens there is at least the Constitutional right to due process. It is being violated, and will continue to be violated unless Congress acts now.

What "freedom" are we defending from terrorists if our actions become a greater threat to freedom itself? I am convinced that "freedom" is just a meaningless buzzword to the Administration, and is becoming so for Congress and the courts -- to those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

( text of the Washington Post article behind the cut )