Like this:

1.  So Israel follows the US example to engage in yet another war crime:

“Israel ammo in Gaza had depleted uranium

Still, says the article, “there is a risk of developing cancer from exposure to radiation emitted by … depleted uranium. This risk is assumed to be proportional to the dose received.”

It is not the first time Israel has been accused of using ordnance containing depleted uranium, which makes shells and bombs harder and increases their penetrating power. The Israeli army declined comment. But the U.S. and NATO have used uranium-depleted rounds in Bosnia and Iraq.“

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_israel_gaza

2.  Why the Guantanamo guilty pleas are meaningless:

“It seems to me that the only convictions the Gov’t can get are by less than sensible individuals that foolishly represent themselves in court. Moussaoui represented himself in his trial. We have the same situation with Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with the exception that they not even in a real court of law. It would seem that somehow they are willing to try and get this overwith before Guantanamo closes. Much seems odd that we are hearing so much of this now as the hourglass on Guantanamo runs low. If we know its and inside job, why would he confess? (I’m trying to think like a OCT defender here) I can’t answer that, but if we are to believe it, we should put his confession to the litmus test. We do not want another John Mark Karr with so much on the line. As you can surely imagine, defenders of the OCT will consider this case closed if his confession is accepted and his penalty (almost certainly death) is carried out.

As you might remember, John Mark Karr was the individual who confessed to murdering JonBenet Ramsey. We knew he had a previous conviction for child pornography so this should have been open and shut right? I mean, with this mind, why even bother to waste the time, effort, money, and resources checking his story? Convict him, kill him or lock him away in silence, and the public would never give it a second thought. However, it turned out he was lying since DNA recovered at the scene did not match his. I believe we should apply the same litmus test to Mohammed’s confession as would be done to any confession in a criminal case. If he masterminded the operation, we should have proof. Proof of payments, communications, documentation and the like. Is he another case like John Mark Karr? Maybe he’s still a CIA asset, playing the game for the CIA while payments continue to his family or protection offers are made or some other type of back room deal. For the OCT defenders that will inevitably point to this, we should remind them of John Mark Karr. As for how this will play out is anyone’s guess. What I fear is that this will be the last conviction of Guantanamo and he’ll be locked away in silence or betrayed by his CIA handlers and put to death with 9-11 truth buried with him.“

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19146

3.  “Indeed, more than five decades worth of academic surveys make it plain that the scholarly arbiters of presidential greatness reward presidents who expand their power. Some of them even admit it: In a 2003 article entitled “Reflections of a Presidency Rater,” Barnard political scientist Richard Pious wrote that when he fills out presidential surveys, he downgrades those who “left the presidential office weaker than when they entered”—which is a strange position to take, unless one believes that there has never been a time in American history when the presidency has been too strong.

That perspective is all too common, unfortunately. How else to explain the fact that in virtually every scholarly poll, activist presidents dominate, and warrior presidents like James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman make the top 10? Polk’s major distinction is an unconstitutionally begun war of conquest; Wilson, reelected because “he kept us out of war,” radically expanded government power and brought us into a war most historians view as pointless carnage; Truman launched our first major undeclared war and was rebuked by the Supreme Court for claiming that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to seize American companies.
…
But something’s gone wrong when a president’s worth is measured not by how much harm he avoided, but by how skillfully he capitalized on crises in order to spur revolutionary change. If presidents are too quick to embrace war, if they find themselves drawn toward sweeping theories of executive power and an exalted, quasi-religious view of their station, perhaps that’s because the people who fill out their report cards reward such behavior.

That’s something to consider as Barack Obama takes office amid an atmosphere of crisis at home and abroad. If history teaches us anything, it’s that the Audacity of Hope can all too often lead to the Arrogance of Power.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131136.html

4.  Torture prosecutions:

“Barack Obama and his advisors need to recognize that the prosecutions will occur. The only issue now is whether America will face the additional humiliation of having the prosecutions brought by our closest allies because we lack the moral strength and resolve ourselves to do what is necessary.”

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004233

5.  “I know that Obama has sold out to the economic status quo, the false narrative of the war on terror, the Israel-is-always-right crowd, and many other positions that show that he will deliver chump change, instead of real change.But Obama – a former constitutional law professor – said that he would revoke many of Bush’s executive orders.

I believe that Obama has likely already rescinded the national state of emergency and unconstitutional continuity of government form of governance enacted by the boys (someone should do a freedom of information act request to find out!)

So even though Obama is already beholden to the elites’ agenda, today I am celebrating that he is at least restoring some semblance of constitutional government to America.“

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/one-thing-i-am-grateful-about-today.html

6.  “David Gregory appeared earlier this week on The Colbert Report (video here), proudly touted what a tough and superb job the press did in “holding Bush’s feet to the fire,” and scorned anyone who disagrees as nothing but a blinded leftist ideologue.
…
In other words, only a leftist ideologue thinks that the press should actually report when government statements are false and baseless.  What a warped, leftist view of the media that is.
…
David Gregory explicitly and proudly defends the role of the press in the Bush era generally, and the role the press played in the run-up to the Iraq War specifically, and then gets elevated to one of the most visible and prominent positions at NBC News.  That’s obviously not a coincidence.  Rather obviously, that’s the kind of “journalist” which NBC wants — the kind that respectfully refrains from scrutinizing and pointing out official state lies because to do so is “not their role,” thereby ensuring that NBC and its various corporate appendages maintain good relations with high government officials, a vital goal for them for countless reasons.
…

Much of that likely depends on what Obama actually does.  The more he is perceived as perpetuating the Washington establishment and embracing its twisted norms, the more likely they are to treat him as one of their own — the Leader of their realm — and to lavish him with extreme, Bush-like deference.  Much of the positive press treatment thus far towards Obama — and can anyone really deny that it has been oozingly favorable, especially (though not only) post-election? — is grounded in the perception (rightly or wrongly) that Obama intends to celebrate and perpetuate the ways of the Beltway elite, rather than radically or even meaningfully “change” them.

Conversely, the more he is perceived as undermining or threatening the Washington status quo (as Clinton, upon his arrival, was perceived as doing), the more hostile they will be to him.  ”Journalists” like David Gregory are nothing if they are not desperate defenders — loyal servants — of the Washington establishment, and they venerate those who protect and defend it.

…

There is some genuinely good news today from the Obama camp:   following up on the appointment of the excellent Dawn Johnsen to be OLC Chief, it was announced yesterday that Johnsen’s second-in-command at OLC will be Harvard Law Professor and vehement Bush critic David Barron, who, among other things, co-wrote this superb Law Review article arguing that the President’s “war powers” have been wildly overstated over the last many decades while Congressional power in this area has been vastly understated. Also joining the Justice Department in a still-unknown capacity is one of the smartest, most principled, and most unyielding opponents of the legal radicalism that prevailed over the last eight years:  blogger and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman (who co-wrote that law review article with Barron on the Constitutional limits on the “commander-in-chief” powers).  It is virtually impossible to imagine that particular group of individuals placing political allegiance to Barack Obama over the principles they have so forcefully advocated over the last several years.
…
Let’s just repeat two sentences.  Turley:  ”President Obama is going to find it very hard to go around the world and say: ‘we’re now again a nation of laws,’ if the first act he commits as President is to walk away from a confirmed war crime.”   Maddow:  ”And [people around the world] are going to view us as an outlaw regime for not arresting him on our own soil.”
…
To the standard Washington reporter, nothing is more contemptible than those who want to hold political leaders accountable — and that fact is as potent a reflection of how diseased our political culture is, since journalists, in theory, ought to be those leading the crusade for such accountability, not leading the lynch mob against citizens who are demanding it.  Yet since the zombie-like march behind the Leader during the run-up to the attack on Iraq, there hasn’t been a more complete, virtually lockstep consensus among our media class than their vehement opposition to investigating the crimes of our political leaders.
…

Here we have, yet again, the claim that American Jews should and do base their political assessments on what is best for Israel:   a claim that is allowed to be made when it comes from those (and there are many of them) who make this blatantly tribalistic appeal in order to manipulate support for their right-wing agenda, but is deemed offensive and even anti-semitic when the very same claim is advanced by those wishing to explain why U.S. policy is so one-sided in its blind support for Israeli actions.

Beyond that, as Daniel Larison points out, Kristol’s claim that an American political leader is doing something politically courageous or costly by supporting the Israeli government may be one of the most laughably false assertions ever to make it into a major media venue, even if one includes Bill Kristol’s entire oeuvre.  If Kristol’s claim is true, then every American President for the last several decades, not to mention virtually every current member of the U.S. Congress, are stalwart, courageous, fearless, self-sacrificing leaders who lend full and blind support to the Israeli Government despite the grave risks to their political careers, because — as Kristol put it with regard to Bush’s politically courageous support for Israel — “he thought it the right thing to do.”

Other than Bill Kristol, is there anyone who actually believes — or is even willing to say in public — that the politically difficult posture for an American politician to take is to support whatever the Israeli government does, that that takes political courage (of all things) to do, and that, conversely, the safe and easy thing for a politician to do is to criticize or oppose Israeli actions? I genuinely wonder if there is anyone who actually believes that.“

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Advertisement