Saddam's Trial

So now Saddam claims he has been both physically and mentally tortured. Whoopie. Now I am sure that there are groups that think we need an investigation into whether this was true. The whole credibility of the United States could be at stake here i mean. But really, does anyone actually believe this. Assuming for a moment that all torture is wrong, is there any actual proof. I mean really, do we have to hear every ridiculous allegation that comes from his, and other people's mouths if its bad about the US? I mean we have no proof of this, the Red Cross has attentively looked at Saddam's condition and found nothing. Not a single doctor will testify that he was beaten or "phychologically abused." What the hell does that mean anyway? Perhaps he is having a breakdown since he can't torture people himself anymore so thats torture to him? But then again, since we are sooo ready to believe the words of the most heinous people on the planet, perhaps he is smart for making allegations.

Another thing here is his lawyers. I am still disgusted that Ramsey Clark is defending this man. I know that everyone needs to have representation, at least here in the US, but the attorney general for Clinton? That just sends beyond the wrong message and shows you where people's true loyalties lie. Oh and here is a money statement from one of his lawyers:

"The Americans informed us that a security firm wanted $7 000 to protect us to and from the airport but we rejected the offer and told the Americans we would hold them responsible for our safety," Ghazzawi said.

This is just silly. We won't pay what it costs to keep us safe, but we will hold you responsible. Fucking lunatics. If you try to defend a mass murderer of your own free will, and won't pony up the cash you so easily have for protection, then you have no right to hold the US responsible. Perhaps it would have been much better for that dude who found Saddam in the spider hole to just have arranged Saddam's meeting with the Almighty. Oh wait a second, the US doesn't do that!

The 3 Iraq Options

Here are the three Iraq options. Now its seems to me that the best option was the third. It might not be the best option on everyone else's menu, but lets stop the lying about the reasons for war and actually look at the situation.

Twas the night before Xmas...from Santa's Point of View

Attributed to Marine stationed in Okinawa Japan


Twas the night before christmas,
he lived all alone,
in a one bedroom house made of
plaster and stone.


I had come down the chimney
with presents to give,
and to see just who
in this home did live.


I looked all about,
a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents,
not even a tree.


No stocking by mantle,
just boots filled with sand,
on the wall hung pictures
of far distant lands.


With medals and badges,
awards of all kinds,
a sober thought
came through my mind.


For this house was different,
it was dark and dreary,
I found the home of a soldier,
once I could see clearly.


The soldier lay sleeping,
silent, alone,
curled up on the floor
in this one bedroom home.


The face was so gentle,
the room in such disorder,
not how I pictured
a United States soldier.


Was this the hero
of whom I'd just read?
Curled up on a poncho,
the floor for a bed?


I realized the families
that I saw this night,
owed their lives to these soldiers
who were willing to fight.


Soon round the world,
the children would play,
and grownups would celebrate
a bright christmas day.


They all enjoyed freedom
each month of the year,
because of the soldiers,
like the one lying here.


I couldn't help wonder
how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas eve
in a land far from home.


The very thought
brought a tear to my eye,
I dropped to my knees
and started to cry.


The soldier awakened
and I heard a rough voice,
"Santa don't cry,
this life is my choice;


I fight for freedom,
I don't ask for more,
my life is my God,
my country, my corps."


The soldier rolled over
and drifted to sleep,
I couldn't control it,
I continued to weep.


I kept watch for hours,
so silent and still
and we both shivered
from the cold night's chill.


I didn't want to leave
on that cold, dark, night,
this guardian of honor
so willing to fight.


Then the soldier rolled over,
with a voice soft and pure,
whispered, "Carry on Santa,
it's Christmas day, all is secure."


One look at my watch,
and I knew he was right.
"Merry Christmas my friend,
and to all a good night."

Quickies

Yet more evidence that the wiretapping bullsh*t was not only legal but necessary. This from Max Boot of the LA times.

For instance, in August 2001, FBI agents in Minneapolis stumbled onto Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the Al Qaeda plotters. The 9/11 commission later concluded that a "maximum U.S. effort to investigate Moussaoui … might have brought investigators to the core of the 9/11 plot." But officials didn't seek a warrant to search his laptop because they lacked "probable cause" under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is the law that Bush is now accused of circumventing.

I'm still miffed that no one in the MSM seems to be talking about the problem of these leaks. We heard all about Valerie Plume, an agent that worked relatively openly in Langley as an analyst for months, with special investigations on who leaked her name. Does anyone really think that comprimised national security? But then we have actual national security programs, such as the rendition, the agressive techniques, the wiretapping, and the idea of (with no proof) of secret prisons. All of this was revealed by the MSM and apperenly there is no questioning of if that hurt our national security. Which its very likely to do. I'm really sick of stuff like that.

AHHHHHH! As if the nuclear weapons they are trying to build isn't enough, the civil liberties are being trashed! This should give everyone a reason that we need to invade right now!

Iran Bans Western Music

More from the crazy woman, Cindy Sheehan. Apperently, the press didn't give her enough coverage. I think she really might be totally, mentally, unhinged.

Cindy Speaks!

More shite from those crazy Iranian Government Sponsered Propagandaists:

Money Quote: "In 1883, about 150 French children were murdered in a horrible way in the suburbs of Paris, before the Jewish Passover holiday. Later research showed that the Jews had killed them and taken their blood."

Iran Propaganda

More great ideas from democrats.

The I word

I think you really have to wonder about the timing of the release of the wiretapping stuff. The NYT had it for a year. They were explicitly requested not to report the classified information. They didn't for a year then they did immediately after the Iraqi elections. The timing is odd isn't it?

State of the Union

Can't really agree more with the sentiment of SGT Stryker. Even more so when we see the comparison of how much the press is talking about the leak here and what was leaked compared to the Valerie Plame scandel. Can we say "intentional malicious double standard?" I knew you could.

Legal Wiretapping

Just checked from powerline for a legal analysis of the wiretapping saga. They point to this particular piece of evidence.

For now, let me simply quote the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001:

The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

And those are cases that deal with electronic intercepts inside the United States. A fortiori, intercepts outside the United States that coincidentally sweep in messages sent from America would seem to be obviously within the President's inherent Article II powers. So far, I have found no authority to the contrary.

Seems open and shut to me. Perhaps better done through FISA, or further explained, but not illegal in the slightest.

The MTA Union Strike

I don't have a whole lot of input that can be added to the MTA Union strike. However i do have some. First, the MTA has in its collective bargaining agreement from before, and i all contracts given, that the union will not strike because it is such an important part of the city. I don't know but would suspect that the union got concessions from the MTA to make it this way. So its illegal.

Also I think the problem is that the union is not understanding the situation. They are pointing the budget surplus and saying well, you have all this extra money, how are you going to ask us to cut benefits for all future employees? On the surface, thats a reasonable question. But the MTA is offering a 10% increase in pay over the next 3 years; they are worried about the long term situation of rising benefits and healthcare costs. Its a problem that is occuring in many sectors because people are living longer and healthcare costs are exponentially increasing. Earning has not kept near pace with retirement costs in the past 30 years.

A similar situation is occuring at GM. Many of my professors used to work there and still know many of the current engineers and they are convinced that the only way to right the ship is a massive total firing with new contracts.

So not really sure what the best answer is. If people live longer and more things are treatable (making them live even longer) then retirement is gonna cost more and more every year, assuming retirement age isn't pushed outward. Is it reasonable that companies are expected to keep paying for these costs? Where does that money come from?

Update:
The MTA has a website if you want to read what their position is, check it out here
Not to be outdone, here is the unoffical webblog of the Union here

Update on Wiretapping

Well, since the issue is being vetted completely in the press, lets look at the argument. It seems a main one isn't that its illegal as much as its a departure of the norms. But, as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds posts, its not so much a departure from the rational. Under Clinton, in 1994, the deputy attorney general Gorelick (note the commissioner of the 9/11 Committee) states in his testamony to the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "Has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." He goes on to say that the president needs only feel that the person is a threat to conduct a warrentless search. This might be wrong, but its the argument that has been used for over a decade. I do note that it does seem unsettling and that its fairly obvious that Bush has used it more after 9/11. I am just thinking that we are looking at the wrong thing of "OMG Bush is killing our civil liberties!" to whether this actually is legal or right.

Democrats Blundering?

Real Clear Politics brings up the idea that perhaps all the emphasis on Gitmo, Losing in Iraq, the Patriot Act...etc... might really be hurting democrats. I tend to agree. If you want their version, its pretty good, but i am gonna try to put it in my own words from how i see it.

The mistake is that its all criticism, but not constructive. I liken it to being the guy that watches you work on your house and points out everything you are doing wrong, but doesn't tell you how to fix it or do it better other than call a professional. As far as I can tell, there is no real clear plan by the democratic party (note: I said party not individual politicians). You have Murtha saying that Iraq is a failure that is unwinnable and needs to have "redeployment" as soon as possble with everyone out in 6 months. There is no telling where we will redeploy to, what types of units are staying, how we are supposed to help with infrastructure, no mention of what we do about the areas that are not ready yet to be fully taken over by Iraqi police, etc. Its almost like its just vague ideas but no concrete plan of we do "a" "b" and "c". I mean we have attacks on the patriot act but no alternative to it even when there is a consensous we need something. We have hear all about the attrocites of Gitmo but there is no mentioning of what we got from using aggressive techniques. Pretty much all we hear is bitching. It almost seems like, ecspecially with the torture allegations, that the left is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than it is protecting US citizens and servicemembers.

Given this lack of alternatives, i believe that the country is sick of it. We have the president saying that things are wrong but we have a plan and can point to particular instances of success. Elections, numbers of battalions that take the lead, etc. When presented with this evidence of positive success, and contrasted with the constant negativity and gloom and doom from the left side, it looks more and more not only out of touch but just plain defeatest. Its one thing if we are just trying to paint a rosy picture here but its a far more accurate one as well. I think that it shows a large disconnect, kinda similar to what happened to the right 2 years ago er so when Iraq was painted as better than it was. I think my major problem with it is that if you are going to err, wouldn't you want to do it in a positive way? I mean thats my opinion. The democrats just seem to bitch that stuff is wrong but then we never see and real alternatives or a plan that will lead us to victory instead of just running away, somthing that the people on the ground in Iraq, are vehemently against.

Wire Tapping

I'm not gonna like to a wiretapping articel given how easy they are to find. I see this as 3 issues involved.

The first issue is if this is illegal. The idea being that Congress can pass a law making anything illegal is wrong because the president has a lot of powers that are not overseeable by congress. I don't know if this is one of them but that is what seems to be argued here. It's more than a bit dodgy, and i would have been much happier if, in say 2004 the prez came out and said we are doing this program, at least to congress as a whole.

The 2nd issue is tha there seems to be an outcry from several democratic congressmen. But, by their own admission, there had been 2 briefed directly. Its not like this program was entirely unknown. Graham's denial of knowledge is tenuous at best because he essentually is saying a private meeting with 3 other top ranks and the vice prez, in the vice prez's office, that was sealed was to discuss no change in policy. That doesn't pass the bullshit test. And Pelosi even admits knowing about it even though she states she had serious misgivings. Neither challenged it as illegal.

The 3rd point that we should be looking at is where the hell did this leak come from. There have now been 2 serious leaks from the CIA (or another intel agency) that have directly brought national security programs into the spotlight. This is a serious problem and needs to be looked into alot. We get a great investigation into the Plame scandel but when there are other alligations, typically against the white house, there is never a question of investigating the leak. Its pissing me of about that.

The New Super Carrier

Here is a break down of costs and the inprovemnts of the new class of carrier that we are planning to build. Looks like a definite improvment to me since it encorportates alot of new tech with a very good existing superstructure and design.