The Bush administration opened Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba shortly after the “terrorist” attacks of September 11th to hold ‘enemy combatants,’ people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban. This prison has been harshly criticized for the detentions themselves, aggressive interrogation tactics, and torture that were conducted there
In a reproach to President Bush’s administrative and supposed “anti-terror” policies, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba deserve habeas corpus. In order words, the detainees must know the reasons they are being held. Furthermore, the prisoners have the right to appeal to U.S. Civilian Courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges. Of course, President Bush disagreed with the Courts’ decision and even suggested the he may seek further laws that could keep terror suspects detained in various prison camps, as his lame duck presidency comes to an end. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has repudiated his executive decision on Guantanamo Bay several times, our great President seems to not get the clue of what the American people truly wants.
Writing the opinion of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." As if anyone was shocked, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in saying "this will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." I disagree with Scalia’s comments and believe the reason so many Americans are being killed is because the Bush administration fallacies on terrorism. Not only do they bring misleading notions to the forefront, they take hundreds of people, detain them, torture them, and act as if there hands are clean because they put them on a naval base not directly on U.S. territory. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners were released because lack of evidence, but this torture camp was still active. Our government continues to have “bloody hands” and I am glad the U.S. Supreme Court came to this deeply divided decision.
Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.' If the administration were truly doing everything to protect the American people, it is my belief that we would not be in this predicament in the first place. Doing everything you can to protect the American people would be to actually investigate and find people who are harming American values, not to find anyone who wears a head scarf and “looks like a Muslim,” whatever that may mean.
Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the decision of the court for striking down what he considers “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” I am so sure that the prisoners detained are thanking the United States for the generosity our government has given them, especially when they use interrogation tactics, a.k.a. torture tactics that they pretend don’t exist.
Either way, I have not been to thrilled with recent decisions of the Supreme Court (mainly Baze v. Rees), but I am pleased to know that the Court decided to grant habeas corpus rights to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and recognizing a rule of law established hundreds of years ago – the right for a court to determine whether a prisoner is being detained lawfully.
For reference: Senator Barack Obama was in support of the Court’s decision, while Senator John McCain expressed his disapproval of the Court’s decision
Majority Opinion: Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer
Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito
Mother Jones has a cool video piece up about what St. Francis College students think of President Bush's economic stimulus package. Suffice it to say, the students' perspectives are much more grounded in reality than our aloof President. Check it out!
I just read something on politico.com that almost made me punch the wall in disgust. Bush has been nagging Congress in speeches to do several things: 1. Fund his failed war. 2. Pass a budget that includes his cuts in valuable social programs. 3. Pass an Altnerative Minimum Tax fix that is not paid for.
The House had passed a war funding bill with a withdrawal timeline, although the bill died in the Senate. Senate Republicans killed an AMT fix that is paid for by raising taxes on Hedge Fund Managers (the richest people in the country). So, it's not like Congress was sitting idly by. Today, the Democrats offered a compromise, knowing that Bush has the power to deny any legislation that comes to his desk. They offered to cut the budget by 11 billion dollars, fund the war with no strings attached, and pass an AMT fix that does not raise taxes. I was initially angry that the Democrats had capitulated and sold out on these important issues.
THEN, I had to wipe my eyes when I saw that Bush threatened to VETO this compromise package. The Democrats basically compromised on EVERYTHING, but the President is still stubbornly rejecting them. Why is he being such a stubborn loser (to speak colloquially)? First of all, he has nothing to lose. He will be gone in a year and won't have to face voters who lost jobs because of his budget cuts or those who have relatives who died in his disastrous war. Second, if he compromises, he loses his zinger about how the Democrats run a "do-nothing" Congress, and "aren't fulfilling their duties to the American people." Third, he can count on the fact that most Americans don't pay attention to the processes of our Government. If someone sees that legislation is not getting passed, they don't care who is obstructing it. Finally, he can reclaim the mantle of "fiscal conservatism" that he never had in the first place. (Nevermind the fact that he never ONCE vetoed a spending bill before this year, even though they were regularly over his requests.)
My advice to everyone, is to pay attention to what you could have had this year if the President hadn't been so rigid in his ideology. We could have a comprehensive energy bill that rolls back irresponsible subsidies to oil companies. We can have an SCHIP bill that covers 10 million of America's children. We could have a Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that restores cuts to vital programs. We could have an Iraq War that would be winding down, instead of one that is still gearing up.
All of this proves that President Bush is like the spoiled child who gets everything from his parents, but still complains that he's not getting more. You could give him a pound of chocolate ice cream and he'd throw it against the wall because he wanted two pounds. Hopefully, next year we can elect an adult to serve in the White House.
In a few hours, President Bush will be pardoning a turkey for the 60th annual event, and then sending it on a first class plane ride to Disney World, acording to USA Today:
The bird will have a red-carpet entry to Walt Disney World. Visitors to Magic Kingdom can see the bird on Thanksgiving Day. It will also serve as grand marshal of the holiday parade before joining the resort's permanent live-animal collection.
This is the first pardoned turkey to be sent to Disney World. Two others have gone to Disneyland.
Even though people say that politicians always break promises, it is rare that these broken promises have been so explicitly laid out. President Bush, in his 2000 campaign talked about compassionate conservatism, which supposedly meant that he would be conservative, but would not eliminate government programs that help the neediest among us. Today, he did just that. Don't let the right wing megaphone fool you. The SCHIP bill, which passed with overwhelming support, isn't a path to universal health care. It isn't even enough to cover 2/3rds of the uninsured children in our country. It is also not government run health care, it is a public-private partnership. Three quarters of the SCHIP patients are covered by private insurers. So those insurance blowhards will still get their money anyway. For crying out loud, this bill is supported by the American Medical Association. The legislation is a modest step that expands a popular program to cover 8 million more children, for a fraction of the cost of the disastrous Iraq War. Today Mr. Bush silenced any of the lingering believers, who thought that Bush just might care about people.
Why did Mr. Compassionate veto this bill? There are several answers. First, he wanted to reestablish his fiscal conservative credentials, after totally blowing it during his first six years in office. Second, he has misread the bill, mistakingly thinking that it has changed eligibility, when in actuality it is only adding funding. Most importantly, however, he vetoed the bill because he believes in a strict right wing ideology. This ideology states that any Government program is fundamentally wrong but it "gives" benefits to people who somehow don't deserve them. I will never understand people like him, who don't understand the real lessons of the bible, that if you don't help the least of these brothers of mine, you are not helping me. Or better yet, love thy freaking neighbor. The President and his conservative bretheren will never understand what most people, including our founding fathers, did. That is, even if you didn't do anything to deserve it, simply by being human, you are entitled to basic rights. I think this absolutely applies to children, who through no fault of their own, do not have health insurance.
Finally, let's think about the kids who would be benefitting from the SCHIP bill. They are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, meaning their parents are working. Odds are, if you look at the parents' income level, they are working at blue collar jobs, putting in hours so that their family can live more comfortably. I hope everyone joins me in believing that the President's ideology is cold-hearted, at best.
Tomorrow is the big anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. which you’ve hopefully by now seen signs for on your college campus. The protest, organized by Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), begins with a rally near the White House, continues with a march to the U.S. Capitol, and concludes with a “die-in” that organizers estimate will involve approximately 1,000 people lying down near the Capitol in a symbolic effort to represent dead U.S. soldiers and dead Iraqis.
To get you pumped for the action, I thought I’d belatedly share some photos from the last anti-war event I attended, a “Take A Stand Town Hall” co-sponsored by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and MoveOn.org. The event was targeted at Senator Specter who “chose to stand with President Bush and his reckless Iraq war policy instead of his constituents” by failing to attend. (The organizers left an empty chair on the panel to remind the audience of Specter’s absence.)
An in-depth front page article in the New York Times yesterday lays out clearly how the war in Iraq has compromised success in the war in Afghanistan and how the Bush Administration's policy has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The article lays out that once President Bush shifted focus from Afghanistan, a country harboring Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that actually attacked us on 9/11, to Iraq, a country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11 and was kept in check by UN sanctions, the situation in Afghanistan began to deteriorate.
Jon Stewart found the latest nugget of wisdom from President Bush when he was interviewed by Fox News's Neil Cavuto yesterday. In response to a series of questions about how it feels to be called names, Bush responded:
"I have been around long enough to be able to understand how it works and — yes, look, nobody likes to be called names, on the other hand, there is — we have got a bigger enemy than name callers. That is al Qaeda or people losing jobs."
Yup, Bush just equated the unemployed with al Qaeda. Conservatives have always thought that welfare recipients were the real terrorists, I just can't believe that Bush went ahead and said it! Now I know that a tanking economy sunk Bush I's presidency (excuse the pun), but don't you think that W is taking it a bit too far by implicitly declaring war on it? Perhaps he is due for vacation...
Right-wing radio hosts keep on getting invited to private meetings with the president. After having Hannity & Co. over last year, he brought his old friends back yesterday. These guys are pretty ubiquitous as it is with corporate-owned, conservative mouthpiece radio stations dominating the airwaves, but Bush can’t seem to get enough of ‘em so he keeps bringing them down to the Oval Office for off-the-record tea parties.
Today I witnessed a funeral for a fallen soldier from my hometown killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. It was the first time that someone from my hometown or area has been killed in Iraq. I lived just a few miles down from him and his family. Lt. Chris Rutherford’s life was cut tragically short by the senseless violence in Iraq. He was only 25 years old, a Marietta College graduate, a son, and a friend to many. They had to have the funeral at his high school a few miles from my home because of the outpouring of support from all his family, friends and neighbors of the close-knit community of Newport and Marietta where he grew up. It was incredible to watch as thousands of people came out of their houses and lined the 22 miles of road that passes by my house to lay him to rest, waving flags and messages of support. His casket and the family were taken by military escort to the burial site; a sheriff helicopter led the way, with police, fire, and thousands of Harley riders who followed them. I watched as the family was escorted by the police, I will never forget the look on his mothers face as she looked at me and my family as we stood by the side of the road in support. It was heartbreaking to see the sadness, and at the same time the honor and gratitude they showed.
By now you’ve heard the president commuted Scooter Libby’s 30-month prison sentence yesterday (unless you ditched the morning news to watch Sportscenter’s new poorly-conceived, poorly-executed but semi-entertaining Who’s Now? series…today was fourth-seeded Dwayne Wade vs. No. 5 Shaun White in the “Jordan Region,” but I digress…)
In January, President Bush told Congress and the American people that he would be temporarily sending 21,500 troops to Iraq to end a sectarian civil war being fought by the Sunni and Shiites. We later found out that the number of troops in the so called "surge" was actually much higher than announced by Bush. President Bush failed to mention that the 21,500 troops only included the number of combat troops to be deployed to Iraq, not the additional support troops that would need to be sent. We have also now learned that this “temporary” “surge” of troops would last for an undetermined length of time.
The President said he would take “every proposal” from the Iraq Study Group’s Report “seriously”, but one has to question how “seriously” he really took the recommendations. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report provided a detailed framework for moving forward in Iraq and included a plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq by March of 2008. Chairman James Baker warned Bush not to treat the report like “a fruit salad” and cherry picking only a few of the recommendations, because the report was designed as a “comprehensive strategy”. Instead of cherry picking the report, President Bush chose instead to throw the entire Iraq Study Group Report out the window.
I feel sorry for those who live in the dystopian world of the Emily Post Institute. The family of etiquette writers has developed detailed rules for everything that could ever happen to you. Ever. (How do you tell someone they smell? In a condescending, 100-word lecture, that’s how.) And, in true WASP fashion, the family also discourages the expression of opinions on anything that isn’t related to the placement of a salad fork. However, an article on the Emily Post Institute’s website is proof that the group is actually a bunch of liberal, anti-freedom, blame-America-firsters in disguise. Here are some excerpts from “Etiquette Tips: When the Conversation Turns to War” – which, among other things, tells readers to change the subject to “the fish you caught this weekend” if confronted with the subject of Iraq – interspersed with some wonderfully ironic quotes from conservative politicians:
“Potentially Devastating”, that’s how Rich Umbdenstock president of the American Hospital Association describes the President’s Budget Proposal in a recent interview. Medicare and Medicaid finds itself under attack as the President sets out his agenda of budget priorities. The President spoke of the need to improve the healthcare system in his State of the Union address, but again his words are nothing more than the same tired rhetoric. In typical Bush style, the things he says and the things he does appear to be two separate things altogether. Read More »
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
