News Review

For the last couple of days, the headlines have been filled with tidbits of news from all over, but nothing to write a long post about. So I've decided to throw them all together--the one's I can remember--into one post; appending comments as necessary.

 

Here's a good one. The Senate decided to have a vote on a non-binding no-confidence resolution regarding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Bush, hearing of this vote, made the following remark while at his last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe. From an AP article titled, "GOP blocks Gonzales no-confidence vote":

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria. (Emphasis added)

The words, 'my government' don't sit well with me. Especial when you consider that Bush was the one who uttered, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." At least we get a glimpse into the inner workings of his mind. I think he honestly believes the United States government is his to do with as he pleases. That's like a servant claiming to own the plantation which he's been enslaved to.

 

At the end of that same article, we read:

"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything." (Emphasis added)

Maybe we should. But that job belongs to the people, not to you, Mr. Lott. And you really don't want us to go there. Everyone I've talked to has just about had it with you clowns in D.C. ruining this country.

 

Moving on...

 

Did you realize the U.S. government has spent well over a trillion ($1,000,000,000,000.00) dollars between 2005 and 2006 on military spending alone? Oh, and that's a trillion dollars we didn't have. We borrowed it. Nice, huh? The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released it's report on nuclear weapons proliferation, which stated:

The United States remained the world's biggest military spender last year, devoting about $529 billion to its military forces while China overtook Japan as Asia's top arms spender, the report said.

 

U.S. military spending grew from $505 billion in 2005 mainly because of the "costly military operations" in Iraq and Afghanistan, SIPRI said. (Emphasis added)

Disgusting! Read more here.

 

You may have seen this headline recently: Court rules in favor of enemy combatant. Talk about spin. The court didn't rule in favor of the enemy combatant. The court ruled against the United States government oppressing a U.S. person. There's a difference and the Associated Press should know this. Furthermore, the court even explained to the U.S. government that they can't hold Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, in indefinitely because:

"The [Military Commissions Act] was not intended to, and does not apply to aliens like al-Marri, who have legally entered, and are seized while legally residing in, the United States," the court said. (Emphasis added)

 

The court also said the government failed to back up its argument that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, gives the president broad powers to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant. The act neither classifies certain civilians as enemy combatants, nor otherwise authorizes the government to detain people indefinitely, the court ruled.

The court went on to say that the U.S. government has never classified Ali al-Marri as an 'enemy combatant' and...

...the [Military Commissions Act] doesn't apply to al-Marri, who wasn't captured outside the U.S., detained at Guantanamo Bay or in another country, and who has not received a combatant status review tribunal.

So he cannot be an enemy combatant. The AP's headline is deliberately misleading the reader into believing he is an enemy combatant.

 

"But why is this case significant?" you ask. Well, in case you can't make the leap for yourself, let's spell it out:

If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold anyone indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention. (Emphasis most definitely added!)

You would be stuck in the government's hastily thrown together military tribunal system. You know, the one where you have no rights or protection save those allowed by your captors. Where evidence against you can be withheld from you. Where torture is permissible. Where habeas corpus doesn't exist. You'd be stuck in the 21st Century version of the Spanish Inquisition. Good luck... You're going to need it!

 

I guess that's enough ranting for today. Take care.