BUSH BOMBS SYRIA: MCCAIN "GUARANTEES" ELECTION VICTORY

.
"OCTOBER SURPRISE" TODAY? OR JUST MORE MURDEROUS BUSHCO BUNGLING?

MCCAIN JUST HAPPENS TO "PRE-ANNOUNCE" HIS OTHERWISE UNLIKELY VICTORY ON THE DAY OF THE ATTACK ON SYRIA

YOUTUBE: MSNBC
"US attacks Syria"


YOUTUBE: NBC
"John McCain on Meet The Press"

Coincidence? Or Fair Warning Of Another Stolen Election: You Be The Judge, Jury And Executioner


Coincidence? Or Fair Warning Of Another Stolen Election: You Be The Judge, Jury And Executioner

Bush bombed Syria. Is this what McSame had in mind when he made this "prediction"? Or do the 'Pukes have something worse in store for America?

"McCain guarantees victory"

How can he "guarantee" victory, being so far behind? Exactly what does he base that "guarantee on? Why do these idiot corporate media lapdog reporters never ask the OBVIOUS questions in response to sh*t like this??? Oh, right, they wanna hang on to their cushy part-time jobs and their seven-figure salaries. I get it. "Country Last," eh boys?

' “I guarantee you that two weeks from now, you will see this has been a very close race, and I believe that I'm going to win it,” McCain told interim "Meet" moderator Tom Brokaw. “We're going to do well in this campaign, my friend. We're going to win it, and it's going to be tight, and we're going to be up late.” '

He's being very specific, like he knows something we don't know, in advance, something he couldn't know unless the fix was already in. Did he spill the beans today, or are we being prepped for another 2000/ 2004 election result?

The pollsters are suddenly providing back-story in advance, too:

' Reuters reported that Obama's lead has dropped over the last three days after hitting a high of 12 points on Thursday. Pollster John Zogby said: "Things are trending back for McCain. His numbers are rising and Obama's are dropping on a daily basis. There seems to be a direct correlation between this and McCain talking about the economy." '

McBush was talking about the economy? When was that? Was that the day the markets dropped record points? It's not exactly his strong suit. And who was listening? "Likely voters"? Like, straight white Christian evangelical Republican conservative retired miltary males over eighty with really bad hemorrhoids?

Better get ready for another October Surprise, or major election-theft, backed up by the Supremes. Time to start organizing a general strike?
.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!

SUPREMES PLAY GITMO

.
SCOTUS QUINTET MAY CLOSE THE SHOW TRIALS

INNOCENT MEN HELD FOR YEARS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS APPLAUD DECISION

Or They Would If They Could Move Their Hands

National Public Radio News Hour
"Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal Detentions"

Houston Chronicle
"Many detainees' ties to terrorism doubted"

The Australian
"David Hicks set to be Guantanamo's only convict"

Washington Post
"Habeas Ruling Lays Bare the Divide Among Justices"

LA Times
"Scalia's fear factor"

Fox News
"McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History"

NY Times
"Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President"

The corporate media that sold us the phony "War On Terror" are in a dither over the recent US Supreme Court decision that rejects Bushco arguments against due process for "unlawful combatants," ie, those poor bastards down in Gitmo, and elsewhere. Given the fact that dozens of them have been discovered to have been mistakenly arrested, and then held without trial for years, and tortured, it's about time the Supremes got off their asses.

It's tough for them to do, even now. Four of the nine Justices have played their role as Republican Party apparatchiks diligently over the years, ceding unprecedented powers to the corrupt, incompetent, Constitution-shredding Bush Junta. The usual excuses were dragged out: National security, executive privilege, there's a war on sorta, all that fucking bullshit. But when the other five justices finally found their balls, or ovaries, or consciences, or sense of Constitutional responsibility again, the bullshit broke.

Head hatchet-man, election-stealer and shooting buddy of the crypto-nazi Vice President, Antonin "I Love Dick" Scalia accidently spilled the beans: He hasn't been working as an impartial judge fighting "judicial activism," he's been engaged in blatant political activism from the bench.

It was all just a power grab. Few if any convictions on real terror charges have been won by the government. Most of the Gitmo detainees have been found harmless and let go, after years in unlawful detention. The real reason for the whole kangaroo court system is now obvious: Bushco couldn't stand public scrutiny in their failed war on terror.

The Bushco position on these cases was based on Johnson v. Eisentrager , from WWII.

Johnson v. Eisentrager is not a valid precedent in this case, if only because the Bush prisoners were held on U.S. soil. Their combatant status, if any, and the crimes that they were charged with, if any, are also not covered by Johnson. Bush cannot simply waive the U.S. Constitution when he finds it inconvenient. If he wants to cite Johnson, he should hold his prisoners on somebody else's territory. (Oops, I've said too much.) But then he'd be subject to their jurisdiction, and they might be found complicit. There are other problems with using Johnson v. Eisentrager as precedent:

1. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the prisoners had never been on US sovereign territory. They were in a German prison, administered by the US Army, but on German soil. U.S. Embassies and most military bases abroad are U.S. sovereign territory*; all are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, our law applies there. Some of the Bush prisoners were held on U.S. soil. The Constitution applies on U.S. soil. Gitmo is U.S. soil. Just ask Castro. Johnson doesn't apply on U.S. soil, under US jurisdiction.
2. "We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States." No prisoners in these terror trials and non-trials is or has been accused of being in the service of a government at war with the US. We are not at war. War has never been declared, by us or any other government. There is no enemy government. These prisoners are not soldiers in service of an enemy government in time of war. So Johnson v. Eisentrager doesn't apply.
3. Ironically, the plaintiffs in Johnson had been accused by the U.S. Army of violating the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe any of the accused in the Bush cases has been charged with violations of the Geneva Conventions. If anything, they may be victims of violations of the Geneva Conventions, by the U.S.
4. Some of the plaintiffs in the Bush cases are American citizens. The Constitution always applies to American citizens, wherever they may be, if they can find U.S. jurisdiction. Johnson simply does not apply here. Using it as precedent was a stretch at best. "But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens". The civilized world, as in, America before Bush.

The Bushies wanted to have it every which way: We're at war, but we're not at war. They're enemy soldiers, but they're not enemy soldiers. They're common civilian criminals, but we'll try them in military courts. We'll keep them out of the Homeland and away from judges, but we'll hold them on U.S. territory overseas. We'll give them trials, but we won't allow them due process. We'll cite U.S. law and the Geneva Convention, but we're not following them ourselves. U.S. Courts don't have jurisdiction, but we'll go to them for a rubber-stamp. We're defending the Constitution, but it doesn't apply to us. Legalistical horsesh*t, and very bad lawyering.

.
Actually, the issue is one of jurisdiction: The US Courts had no jurisdiction on German soil, in a German facility on German property not owned, leased, or controlled, or under US jurisdiction, specifically, by treaty with any legitimate German government.

*Not all US military bases abroad are sovereign US territory. That depends upon the "Status of Forces Agreement" for each base in each country. But every US military facility in the world is under US Courts' jurisdiction. The only question might be, is it a US military base, owned, leased or controlled by the US by treaty with a legitimate local government?

The German prison was not a US military base. Guantanamo is a US military base. A perpetual lease (requiring no action for renewal) on the land was given to the US by the Cuban government after the Spanish-American War. The Cubans retain sovereignty over the Bay, but the US has "control and jurisdiction." Subsequently, the US has been been making payments to every Cuban government since 1898 for Guantanamo. Castro has never set foot on the base. We might arrest him.

Actions of US military personnel on US military bases, or in the field in times of war, are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Actions of US military personnel off the base and in peacetime are subject to the UCMJ and/ or the local civilian Courts, according to the Status of Forces Agreement, and the discretion of the military authorities.

Actions of soldiers in the service of an enemy government in time of war are subject to the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Enemy soldiers are entitled to due process under the Conventions.

Actions of civilians or "unlawful combatants" are subject to the Conventions, and the laws of their native country, or the country where the actions took place. They are NOT under military jurisdiction under the UCMJ. They are NOT under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction if they never set foot on US soil, or US-controlled soil, such as a US military base. If they EVER set foot on such soil, they are under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction.

Once under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction, they can claim all the rights of a US citizen under the US Constitution to due process, including habeas corpus, and a speedy trial. If Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are not happy about this, they should move to a country not covered by the Constitution, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

They should also blame the arrogance and stupidity of Bushco, and their crooked compliant lawyers, who should have known that, even in time of war, the President can sometimes get away with bending the Constitution, but not breaking it. Ultimately, he is answerable for his actions, to Congress and to the Courts. That's what it says in the Constitution. The Wingers should read it, next time, before they wipe their asses with it.

The Constitution is what preserves and protects our liberties, the democracy and freedom and rule of law Bushco is pretending to export to the Middle East, while violating it here. The Constitution IS America. By violating it, Bush has betrayed us all. He has violated his oath of office, committed high crimes and misdemeaners, and should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. No time for that now. But he MUST be indicted for these and all his other unlawful acts, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, after we take back our country. I hope Obama has the balls to do that. It needs to be done. Otherwise, they will be back, just as Nixon's and Reagan's old gangs came back.

[Cross-posted at THEAMERICANSTREET.]
.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!

HAWAII SUPREME COURT MAKING NEW LAW?

.
NOT EXACTLY HOW THEY PLANNED

MORE LIKE OLD LAW, REAFFIRMED

"States' Rights" May Trump Native Hawaiian Rights In Federal Court

Ever since President Clinton signed the Congressional Resolution apologizing for the United States' involvement in the Overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, people here have been expecting some sort of resolution to the questions left unanswered by the historical process from Kingdom to Republic to Territory to State to Whatever?. This ain't it.

Whatever the truth may be about this process, the process is unfinished. Issues of rights and responsibilities, land and money, democracy and sovereignty, law and justice still hang over everybody's head in Hawaii. Until they are settled, we will never be able to move forward.

The Akaka Bill, still stalled in Congress after eight long years, may or may not pass in its' present form in the next, presumably Democratic Congress. Many here hope that it does not, including some Hawaiian sovereignty activists. It has been marketed, but not quite sold, as the last best deal the kanaka maoli, or native people, will ever get. Judging by the time and trouble this bill is taking, that may be true.

Meanwhile, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court may just slap down the Hawaii State Supreme Court, telling our Justices that they have been too liberal with the law, or too free-handed with the former Crown Lands now controlled by the State. As much as ten per cent of all the land in Hawaii is owned or managed by the State: 1,200,000 acres. Some of it is unusable for any purpose. Some of it is critical to the functioning of the State. Some of it produces taro and mangoes, some of it produces millions of dollars in revenue each year. Much of it belongs to the Hawaiian people, or it did; and it may again, some day.

The division and use of land is the essence of State power. It is the foundation of monarchies and republics. Who gets what, and who gets to decide who gets what, are what everything is all about. It's the life-blood of politics. If all politics is local, then it should be up to the local people to decide how Hawaii's land and its' produce are used and apportioned. That is a political process, not a judicial one. To have so vast an amount of land and treasure given or taken away by a judge or judges is a violation of our political process. By attempting to violate this, our State Supreme Court has simply thrown our fate to a higher Court on the Mainland. They overstepped their bounds in trying to short-circuit the political process. They were wrong on the law, and wrong on the politics. By trying to rush the process, they have stalled it. But why?

There is no terrible urgency to this. The issues are over a hundred years old. No one is dying, no one is starving, no one is rotting away in prison over ceded Crown Lands. If they ever are reapportioned, it is highly unlikely that the neediest people will get much of anything. The lands currently managed by the State Office of Hawaiian Homelands are not now given or sold, but leased out, usually for 99 years. The lessees are held in thrall to the State, owning nothing, having few rights other than mere occupancy, subject to various conditions. They are tenants, like sharecroppers, and have not much higher status than medieval peasants. There are native Hawaiian families that have been on the waiting list for land for generations.

The State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which controls much of the money accruing to the Hawaiian people, spends most of its' time in squabbling and self-aggrandisement. They spend millions every year on all sorts of things: Court cases, for one. Yet Hawaiians have some of the worst social and medical problems of any group in the country. Obesity, diabetes, asthma, drug addiction, mental illness, family violence, depression, unemployment and homelessness are all worse for Hawaiians than any other group in Hawaii. The sovereignty movement, the State agencies, and the incredibly wealthy old Hawaiian ali'i families, trusts and estates don't seem to be in any hurry to help the real problems of the real Hawaiian people. They're too busy fighting for personal power and wealth, only posturing and making meaningless points on behalf of the kanaka.

The question arises, who do these people represent? Whose interests? Who are the real representatives of the kanaka maoli? Who will fight for their interests? At this point, in our political system, there is no one fighting for those interests, no one of any consequence, no one with the will or the power to actually do anything. The Hawaiians, in effect, have no power, and very little voice in how Hawaii is run. This is why our Justices tried to short circuit the political process. But it didn't work.

There is no mono-ethnic, racialist or racist solution to this problem. Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawaii: Less than 250,000 out of over a million claim even partial Hawaiian ancestry. There are fewer and fewer people in the Islands with even 50% Hawaiian blood. Still, most people of all bloodlines here believe in an Hawaiian ethos, however mythical. Most people would like to see these issues resolved, and justice done by all. If a State-wide referendum were held, the majority would vote for return of some portion of the old royal properties or their revenues to the Hawaiians, in some fashion. The problem is, there is no one to organize and promote such a referendum. There is no one trusted by all to speak for the Hawaiian people, who could legitimately receive anything in their name.

There is talk of a new State Constitutional Convention. There is a great resurgence within the majority Democratic Party, as people are caught up in the campaign of local-boy Barack Obama. The ingredients are there for a solution to many of these problems. Entrenched interests on all sides will fight, or stall, to hang on to their wealth and power and position. But if a great majority of all of the people of Hawaii stand up together, and actively work together for a solution, we might not have to rely on lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and special interests to solve it for us. That might be pono.


The Apology Resolution: 17 JAN 1993
"UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150"

Honolulu Advertiser: Local news: 11 JUN 2008
"Bennett receives support on ceded land"

Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Editorial: 12 JUN 2008
"Hawaii Supreme Court ruling tampers with federalism"

Hawaiian Independence
"Hawaiian Nation"

Hawaiian Monarchy
"Hawaiian Kingdom"
.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!