Well, it's over, thank god it's over!
The in
nauseration seemed to go on forever.
Some interesting things were said - and what was that goofy womans poem all about -
only in DC!The old black man (
HARNESS PUPPY)Reverend Joseph Lowry, that gave the prayer - whewee, you didn't have to be a between the lines reader there did you? (When the Yellow get mellow (which has the Asian community up in arms by the way)and the
"When Whites Will Embrace Right" comment was a look inside the black heart).
I guess we were all just supposed to chuckle like he was a cute little nappy headed alzheimers patient from the local nursing home who accidently got past security and wondered up to the mic, right! What's with his rascist Black, Brown and Indians coombaya crap.
I'm starting to worry I might be rounded up in the middle of the night and packed off in a truck with a bunch of other white folks never to be seen again! (sound familiar?)
If all the whites packed up and started a new country somewhere, North America would go the way of Somalia, Mexico or Nigeria within days!
The Blacks wouldn't go back to Africa even in their wildest dreams. Even during the slave days they had it better here than in africa!
The Hispanics are falling all over themselves to come here and it ain't because Blacks are giving them jobs.
And the Indians were just, well, Indians. Cochise took the Cadilac and drove off!
The Asians have to bar the doors and guard their shops every time the Blacks rob them or get a hard on and start burning shit down!
The excuse that the Asian stores take advantage or charge too much is just an excuse for being slackers. To the point, they can't drive (don't own a car)or can't scrape up bus fare to go to a different store in another area thereby creating competition in the community rather than forcing the free market to cater to their welfare mentality.Ok, the Whites ain't right and the "Change You Can Believe In" is to begin with the closing of Gitmo and nobody
(not even the terrorist murdering bastards home countries)want them.
Well, are you ready?(This one drives me crazy)And his choices for posts in the Great White Tower;
Eric Holder,
Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder's involvement in the ugly and controversial
clemency grants given to members of the violent Puerto Rican terrorist groups
FALN and
Los Macheteros.
Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder's role as "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board" -- a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000
Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week -- an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama's transition team indicated late Tuesday.
Senate Republicans have requested information about Attorney General nominee Eric Holder’s role in the
Elian Gonzalez controversy as part of a broad probe into his tenure with the Clinton administration and potential ties to presidential scandals during that era.
Eric Holder’s intercession on behalf of fugitive Marc Rich is so inexplicable that he has always viewed ignorance as his best defense. It’s as though Holder believes that a deputy attorney general looks better for having remained studiously unaware of critical facts in a criminal case before throwing his weight around. But that’s Holder’s story, and he’s sticking to it: even if it turns out not to be true.
Holder is President Obama’s choice to become attorney general. That means the
Marc Rich case is a big problem for him today—just as it was in 2001, when an outraged Congress demanded an explanation of the controversial affair. President Clinton had pardoned the fugitive financier on the recommendation of Holder, who was then deputy attorney general. The only feeble response Holder could muster was that he didn’t really know much about Rich’s case and that, as Justice’s number two official, he was simply too busy to learn about it.
OBAMA"S PUTTING A TAX CHEAT IN CHARGE OF THE I.R.S. (to give refunds to people who don't pay taxes ie: WELFARE and then call it
"The Stimulus plan" It's still a pig !Tim Geithner,
tax cheat;
Bill Clinton saw two nominees for attorney general go down when the public responded with fury to revelations that they’d hired illegal nannies. George W. Bush lost a cabinet nominee in the same way. And in 2006 members of Congress found themselves on the wrong end of totally unexpected outrage over a deal to lease American ports to a foreign company, Dubai Ports World.
In many or most of these cases, media commentators and even members of Congress initially reacted with shrugs. Only later, after public anger flared, did Washington join the frenzy.
“This does look like an honest mistake,” Tom Brokaw said on the “Today Show.”
In the same populist tone, Limbaugh declared: “Imagine if it were reversed and I was the one making the mistake. I mean, there would be penalties. Whew! I shudder to think.”
Jay Leno joined the fun on his late-night show, joking: “Whenever politicians don’t pay their taxes, ‘Oh, it’s an honest mistake.’ Huh? You know what they call it when you and I don’t pay our taxes? ‘Exhibit A for the prosecution.’”
The chorus of Geithner-critics got a few more members Thursday, suggesting the controversy may not have played itself out just yet.
The managers of the conservative website Redstate.com published a post Thursday afternoon titled: “Leona Helmsley Went to Jail. Tim Geithner Might Go to Treasury.”
“Average Americans do not get to cheat the tax system and become Treasury Secretary,” they wrote. “Either no American should be prosecuted for cheating on their taxes or Mr. Geithner should be rejected as Treasury Secretary.”
Again, if this is an example of the TARP program that's supposed to save the day, then we'll never see the bottom of the pit we're free falling into.
I know it does nothing to help my confidence which means I won't be getting off my mattress anytime soon ! Gitmo prisoners: will they go to a town near you?
Rebuking Bush Admin, Justices Rule Gitmo Prisoners Can Challenge Imprisonment in US Court.
In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners. We speak to Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of detainees at Guantanamo.Refugee Resettlement Watch;
Blulitespecial did this story about the brewing storm over Obama’s promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba housing hundreds of Islamic fanatics captured in the war on terror. Already the rush is on to stop their move to one of three locations—one in South Carolina, another in Kansas and the third in California. Read all about the maneuvers to keep them out of someone’s backyard.
This is what I was interested in because I believe that in my earlier reading on the issue it was suggested that those who might be released into the US would be treated as asylees. Asylees are treated the same as refugees and get all the same perks and special treatment: a volag (supposedly volunteer agency) will place them in a city, a caseworker will be assigned to help them find a job. Their initial apartment will be subsidized housing, and they will get food stamps, initial medical care, English language lessons and so forth.
One complexity is that the U.S. government has cleared more than 60 of the Guantanamo detainees for release, but the governments of other countries where they have lived don’t want to accept them.Kind of tells you something if their own governments don’t want them back. Be prepared for Obama’s change you can believe in.
They have written on several occasions about the first group, the Chinese Muslims (Uighers), considered for release here.
Gitmo Prisoners Have Rights
By Michael DoyleRepudiating the Bush administration, the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority concluded that foreigners retain the same rights as U.S. residents to seek writs of habeas corpus.
WASHINGTON (MCT) — A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Guantanamo Bay detainees can challenge their extended imprisonment in federal court, and struck down as inadequate an alternative review system that Congress set up.
Repudiating a key tenet of the Bush administration's war-on-terrorism policy, the court's 5-4 majority concluded that foreigners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, retain the same rights as U.S. residents to seek writs of habeas corpus. The landmark ruling will permit several hundred accused enemy combatants to see the evidence that justifies their captivity.
"Some of these petitioners have been in custody for the past six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Their access to the writ is necessary to determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not obtain the relief they seek."
The long-awaited ruling in the combined cases known as Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States is the latest in a string of judicial defeats for the Bush administration. It marks the third time in four years that the Supreme Court has repudiated the administration's efforts to exclude foreign prisoners from traditional legal protections.
The twin cases, which Kennedy noted "lack any precise historical parallel," also mark the first time in U.S. history that constitutional habeas corpus rights have been extended to alien fighters detained overseas. The ruling covers some 270 men currently held at Guantanamo. It doesn't directly address the 20 or so men who now are facing trials before separate military commissions.
"It's been a long struggle," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the first lawsuits challenging the detentions. "It's a major vindication."
David Cynamon, the lead attorney for a detainee named Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah, added that the ruling was a "complete victory not only for our clients but for all Americans and citizens the world over."
The court's conservative wing — comprising Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — dissented, at times with sharp words of its own.
"The nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia warned.
Al Odah, a Kuwaiti native, Algerian native Lakhdar Boumediene and their fellow detainees were seized abroad and have never been held on the U.S. mainland. The long-awaited ruling doesn't question the Bush administration's authority to detain the men. Instead, it resolves a long-running fight over what legal protections cover them.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Bay detainees had a right to challenge their detentions under a statute passed by Congress. Congress responded by stripping federal courts of their jurisdiction, thereby blocking further habeas corpus petitions. The Supreme Court next ruled that the 2005 law didn't apply retroactively to Guantanamo Bay petitions that already had been filed.
Congress returned with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, blocking all Guantanamo habeas corpus cases.
In Latin, habeas corpus means "produce the body." A legal principle dating perhaps as far back as the 13th century, it enables prisoners to demand in court the legal justification and factual basis for their detentions.
"The (Constitution's) framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty," Kennedy wrote, amid a lengthy historical recitation in his 70-page opinion, "and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom."
The Bush administration contended that the men don't have habeas corpus rights because they're foreigners and aren't imprisoned on U.S. soil. The United States has leased the 45-square-mile Guantanamo Bay property from Cuba since 1903, and the court noted that the United States maintains an "objective degree of control" over the overseas facility.
"Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this," Kennedy wrote. "The Constitution grants Congress and the president the power to acquire, dispose of and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply."
The Pentagon and the Justice Department refused to make an on-the-record response to the court's ruling, one of the most anticipated in recent years. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said President Bush was still reviewing the decision.
While traveling in Italy, Bush said: "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented."
One key White House ally, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, added that the court's ruling was "tremendously dangerous and irresponsible," and he complained that the civilian justices didn't understand military necessity.
Currently, the Guantanamo prisoners go through three-member combatant status review tribunals. These panels determine whether the detainees are properly considered enemy combatants. The military panels can rely on classified evidence that isn't given to the prisoners. The prisoners have "personal representatives," but not lawyers. The tribunals' officers are required to assume that the government's information is genuine and accurate
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit then can review the tribunal's proceedings. The combatant status tribunals can continue under the court's ruling. Now, though, the prisoners also will be able to challenge their detentions through the traditional habeas corpus route of going to a single federal judge. The court's majority concluded that the narrower review process is "an inadequate substitute" for the traditional habeas corpus review.
"The detainee has limited means to find or present evidence to challenge the government's case against him," Kennedy noted, further noting that the tribunals aren't permitted to release prisoners even if evidence is found to be insufficient. Federal courts can, however.
Since when does the Catholic Church know shit about anything - they should stick to what they know best -
(thank God my children aren't Catholic)They should also lose their tax free status!
The Papist child molestors should share a cell with the Gitmo prisoners!Brownback says no to Gitmo prisonersU.S. Senator Sam Brownback is saying "no" to Gitmo prisoners.Brownback is against a proposal to bring terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay to Fort Leavenworth.
Today, he toured the building and explained why Kansas is not the right place for the 250 prisoners.
"These are very dangerous guys that are high value targets of terrorist organizations. Leavenworth is not set up to keep people from trying to enter a base and it is set up on the Missouri River. You've got a railroad that goes right next to it as well and then you've got school kids. It is set up primarily as an educational facility, not as a contained fort," Brownback said.Those prisoners are suspected of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
