Obama's version of 'upholding values'

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Obama did not mention Guantanamo Bay, nor indefinite detentions of detainees at Gitmo and other prisons despite a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. You know, the basis for incarcerating a human being.

The closest he came was this passage:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

"Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values."

The gall it takes to utter this breathless phrase is pretty appalling when considering his government's policies.

Via Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, one of the most dogged reporters on the issue of Guantanamo Bay:

A yearlong review of evidence against men who are being held as terrorism suspects at Guantanamo has concluded that most of them should be released or transferred to third countries.

The review has angered human rights advocates, however, by concluding that "roughly" 50 of the detainees should be held indefinitely, even though there isn't enough valid evidence to prosecute them.

Only 35 of the men should face trial, either in civilian or military courts, the review concluded. That's far fewer than the 60 or 70 cases that the Pentagon's chief prosecutor has said his unit is preparing to try before military commissions.

The review, whose results have been divulged to a handful of reporters but not publicly announced, provides the first specific numbers for what the Obama administration thinks should be done with the detainees who are still at Guantanamo.

To posture as if he is attempting to uphold American values while endorsing indefinite detention, not to mention advocating the assassination of American citizens overseas, completely void of a trial or verifiable evidence, is insulting, dishonest, shameful and morally bankrupt.

Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg. Obama, quite predictably, refused to mention the legally-dubious program of unleashing Predator and Reaper drones throughout the world.

All this on the day after the death of the great freedom fighter Howard Zinn.

Zinn's last essay in The Nation touched on Obama:

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

Mr. President, the world is not your battlefield.

Save Yourself

365: From an alley off of H St. NE

We're all Devo

I've learned in recent weeks that Devo is working -- or finishing -- a new album, their first in 20 years. The band's lead singer Mark Mothersbaugh shared his thoughts with Paste:

Mothersbaugh says the album has no title yet, and while he has toyed with the idea of leaving it untitled, he says, “We probably won’t opt for that.” He’s also avoiding being too specific about what kind of music the album will contain but says it started with an urge to go back to the group’s roots, and ended up becoming a modern re-imagining of those roots. “I had this strong desire to make 12 songs that sounded totally interchangeable with our first or second album,” Mothersbaugh says. “But then, after we started writing things, and that’s the first place that they went to, we were kind of like, ‘Well, let’s think this out more,’ and they became more modern. We decided if we were really true to Devo, and Devo just started today, we wouldn’t be doing music that was historical.”

For a band that has always been more concerned with the future than the past, this approach makes a certain kind of sense. Even so, Mothersbaugh feels the new record might shake up some longtime fans. “I’m sure we’re going to have our fair share of Devo fans that are shocked by the record,” he says. “But, we’re also hoping that we’re going to connect with people that wouldn’t already be the choir. It’s an experiment for us.”

I'll agree with him that if they were to be true to the warped Devo vision, they wouldn't recreate their first albums, which were classics. I hope they deconstruct modern times, not rehash the late 1970s and ignore the present moment. The point is that Devo's music is just as relevant now as it was 30 years ago. With our democracy facing down one nihilistic political party (and a feckless party in power), renewed corporate influence in politics, two wars and the ungodly-named menaces known as Predator and Reaper drones, I think it's safe to say we have not evolved.

Long live devolution.

Stop

365: Stop in the West Village

When comedians are our best defense

Why is it up to comedians to point out how much of a sham our media and political institutions are?

Stephen Colbert dissects the Right's oxymoronic tactic of simultaneously calling Obama an ineffectual milquetoast president and a great evil that is dismantling America, whatever that means.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Two-Faced
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

And Jon Stewart points out that a president trying to appeal to Americans by treating them like adults is, well, a losing battle.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Political Shift in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Stewart's critique of an unhinged Keith Olbermann is another relevant one to watch.

American politics is now operated through carefully-constructed PR campaigns. The government runs like a corporation. Admit no fault. Engage in reckless behavior, deny, obfuscate, move on. Our mainstream media is perfectly comfortable with this charade. In fact, it's encouraged. Our modern media apparatus has taught Americans to want theatre. Complex problems that beg for rational solutions are not sexy. They don't "play well" on cable news. Therefore in a time like the present, when this country has a lot to fix, our media and political cultures can't handle. The media won't demand accountability, so politicians are allowed to ... dither, as they say. Fiddle while Rome burns. It's a big game to our media and political classes: Who's up, who's down, and how to I stay in office? It takes comedians to point that out now.

Denigrated, disregarded and demoralized

In a particularly acerbic post (for him), Ezra Klein nails the state of the modern Democratic Party and its connection with base voters.

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

There's no Democratic leadership. They campaigned on things like health care. They spent months debating it, which ultimately became the glaring problem ... it took too long and now they're feeling the heat of that drawn-out charade. And by the way, both chambers already voted for health care!

Now they're going to pull back on health care because of Scott Brown? They still have a vast majority. The filibuster is not the end all be all of the Senate. Can you imagine George Bush-era Republicans backing down like the Democrats are, and have all year? Not that I'm endorsing Bush-era bullying, but a large electoral mandate is just that. All you need is 51 votes my friends. Democrats are so afraid of being labeled liberals that they have consistently given in to a Republican party full of conniving demagogues that are only worried about securing power rather than the monumental problems our nation faces -- ones they have a sizable claim to.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if Democrats had any balls or coherent sense of leadership. But, alas, they are ineffectual, two-faced, sad-sack losers. One party is too stupid to lead. But the other is too gutless. I'm not sure which is more disheartening.

Safety first

365: Ladder on E. Capitol Ave.

Get a load of these guys

Is it funny to anyone else that Bush came back to Washington after months of silence to say this?

"I know a lot of people want to send blankets and water," Bush said while making his first visit to the White House since his presidency ended. "Just send your cash."

Thanks for coming by George. Can't you tell a lot about these three by their looks in this photo? Their expressions seem to match their personas. Clinton is concerned and compassionate (whether honest or politicking), Obama as the ultra-serious, deliberate cautionary and Bush the ... dim bulb. Or are those the stereotypes of them that have been drilled in my head?

(AP Photo)

United States Tax Court

Had to include this one.


See more at my Flickr page.

Capitol Hill

365: On Capitol Hill, DC.

The torture Right's tunnel vision on interrogation tactics

In light of word that Riduan Isamuddin aka Hambali -- the man accused of plotting the 2002 bombing in Bali that killed 200+ -- will be tried in Washington, D.C., former Bush speechwriter and torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen spews some predictable bile.

Thiessen's post from National Review's The Corner:

Hambali is being called the mastermind of the Bali bombings. That may be an accurate description, but it understates his importance. He was in fact the leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned to after 9/11 to carry out the “Second Wave” — a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. (KSM knew we would be on the lookout for Arab men, so he asked Hambali to recruit a cell of Southeast Asian operatives to infiltrate the United States. I tell the full story of the takedown of the Hambali network in Courting Disaster.)

Hambali and the key members of his terror network were captured only because of information gained from KSM after he underwent enhanced interrogation techniques. (Indeed, it seems that virtually everyone the Obama administration wants to put on trial in civilian court was captured as a result of the CIA interrogation program that Obama shut down.) After 9/11, we were unaware of the Hambali network or its plans — until CIA detainees were captured and questioned. Those detainees told us what we needed to know to take the network down.

The torture Right refuses to acknowledge the actual chronology of KSM's capture and the disintegration of the Library Tower plot. Adam Serwer at TAPPED again explains:

... the most prominent example in the supposed "wave of suicide hijackings" supposedly disrupted by waterboarding KSM, the attack on the Library Tower in L.A., had been canceled before KSM was captured. Bush had bragged about disrupting the L.A. Towers plot in 2002, but KSM hadn't been captured in 2003.

Under interrogation by the CIA at a black site, Hambali revealed plans for a "wave" of attacks on U.S. subways and businesses and a planned attack using anthrax -- except as Jane Mayer reported in The Dark Side, those plots had already been disrupted by December 2001, and the scientist developing the anthrax was already in U.S. custody.

As for whether the information KSM gave led to Hambali's capture, some of it may have. It's politically convenient for the the GOP to draw a direct line between KSM being waterboarded and Hambali being captured, but that presupposes that the U.S. had no assistance from overseas partners. In the imaginary world of 24, all you have to do is torture a suspect to get information. But in reality, piecing together intelligence information is a complicated process, and it's highly unlikely that KSM provided the only information that led to Hambali's capture. The Bush administration's prior misleading characterizations of how useful information gleaned through torture was don't exactly inspire confidence.

In a separate post, Serwer documents the only part of America that's losing its head over the attempted attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the GOP, while Obama's response seems to have helped his approval ratings, according to a Pew poll.

Torture has become a crucial plank to one political party's platform, as U.S. Senate candidate (and the current darling of the Right) Scott Brown underscored with his own endorsement of "enhanced interrogation techniques." This is the legacy of the Bush-Cheney years.

The MSM could give a damn

Once again, the job of keeping the government in check regarding nasty things like the legality of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is left to diligent groups like the ACLU while our vacuous press masturbates to the latest gossip shitbrick book about the '08 campaign.

The ACLU, via Spencer Ackerman:

“The American public has a right to know whether the drone program is consistent with international law, and that all efforts are made to minimize the loss of innocent lives,” said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. “The Obama administration has reportedly expanded the drone program, but it has not explained publicly what the legal basis for the program is, what limitations it recognizes on the use of drones outside active theaters of war and what the civilian casualty toll has been thus far. We’re hopeful that the request we’ve filed today will encourage the Obama administration to disclose information about the basis, scope and implementation of the program.”

As the ACLU inquires on what is possibly the most immediate concern within our modern warfare complex, the mainstream media prefers the low-hanging fruit fed to them by fellow anonymous-source obsessed, politics-as-celebrity hacks.

We owe you nothing, you have no control

In the age of the modern president endorsing indefinite detention, whether based on perceived dangers to America, or country of origin or plain arrogance, a Supreme Court case like U.S. v. Comstock gives legitimate pause for concern.

The case is challenging the federal government's plea to allow the further incarceration of federal prisoners even after they've served their time in jail. In this case, the defendants are all sex offenders deemed "too dangerous" to be set free. While it's hard to sympathize with sex offenders that are judged unfit for freedom (by whom?), my worry is where this can lead.

The Washington Post:

A majority of Supreme Court justices seemed inclined Tuesday to accept that the federal government has the power to indefinitely hold prisoners who are deemed sexually dangerous, even if they have completed their sentences.

[...]

But (Solicitor General Elena) Kagan told the court that it is simply an extension of the federal government's recognized power "to run a responsible criminal justice system." She said that if the federal government cannot find a state willing to take responsibility for a sexually dangerous prisoner about to be released, federal officials have to step in.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to agree. "You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people," Ginsburg said. "The government has some responsibility."

Surprisingly, it was arch-conservative justice Antonin Scalia that most vigorously opposed the government's argument, though his qualms likely rested in protecting states' rights. Regardless:

Kagan's chief antagonist was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society from sexual predators." He rejected Kagan's argument that the federal government had a responsibility because the states were not taking on the task.

"This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said. "The states won't do it, therefore we have to do it. It has to be done and therefore the federal government steps in and does it."

And this paragraph on the argument made by Kagan that a valid precedent is prisoners with communicable diseases seems alarming to me.

Others -- Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens, notably -- seemed responsive to Kagan's analogy that the federal government would be within its rights to detain a soon-to-be-released prisoner who had a dangerous communicable disease.

If this is given a pass as constitutionally viable, what category of prisoner is next? What path are we choosing, if we haven't already made our decision?

8 years of Gitmo

365: Demonstrator marches from the White House through downtown DC.

NYT: Break out the weak Democrat meme

I'm guessing Helene Cooper gets paid by the article. This is a pathetic piece. That's all I'll say. Some selected spots:

The Label Factor: Is Obama a Wimp or a Warrior?

Like every Democratic president since John F. Kennedy, President Obama is battling the perception that he’s a wimp on national security.

[...]

And labels count, as a poll taken last August by the Pew Center for the People and the Press illustrates: When voters were asked which party could do a better job of dealing with terrorism, they expressed more confidence in Republicans than in Democrats, as they had consistently since 2002. The 2009 margin was 38 percent to 32 percent. But when asked which party could do a better job of making wise decisions about foreign policy, 44 percent chose the Democrats, 31 percent the Republicans.

[...]

But labels can stick, as Mr. Carter himself found out so well, and as the Republicans also know from their experience parrying the opposite stereotype — of cowboy-style recklessness, first under Ronald Reagan and later under George W. Bush (whose own father, oddly, was said to have suffered from a “wimp factor”).

[...]

Then there’s terrorism. Mr. Obama will also have to demonstrate some tangible action there, the experts say, to dispel the notion put forward by the Republicans that his plans to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, makes Americans less safe. The Christmas Day attempted plane attack over Detroit failed in many ways, but it succeeded in doing one thing: reintroducing the issue of terrorism into the American psyche. Now, Mr. Obama is under pressure to show that he considers fighting terrorism to be a priority.

The problem though, is that many of the steps he can take against terrorism — like intelligence co-operation, drone strikes and covert actions — are, by their very nature, often invisible. “He needs visible victories there, like hits on Al Qaeda leaders, so no one is able to put together a narrative that says he’s weak,” said David J. Rothkopf, a Clinton administration official and author of “Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power.”

Society's cleaners

365: I keep meaning to take a picture of this. I love it. This is a cleaning place just to the side of the Safeway parking lot near the Potomac Metro.

Broder mails another one in, hopes Obama gets serious

There's no better source to find what the modern, conventional, Beltway groupthink of the day is than to read David Broder's columns in The Washington Post. Whether it's laziness, a warped worldview, stubbornness, all of the above, I don't know. But Broder's column today is pretty typical of the collective thought bouncing around Washington regarding Obama's reaction of and attitude toward the FAILED attempt to bring down an airliner on Christmas. It seems Broder simply used his columnist-version of Mad Libs to mail in another one.

Worn-out Beltway trope #1: Our modern president, aka Daddy, must protect us at all times, lest he be caught off guard, which, in Broder's mind, would be all his fault and an indicator that he isn't "serious" or worthy of official Washington's respect.

Was Christmas Day 2009 the same kind of wake-up call for Barack Obama that Sept. 11, 2001, had been for George W. Bush?

The near-miss by a passenger plotting to blow up an American airliner as it flew into Detroit seems to have shocked this president as much as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did the last.

Both presidents had had plenty of warnings in the form of threats and even incidents. But both were caught off guard: Bush reading to a classroom of youngsters; Obama on a family vacation in Hawaii.

It's as if the president -- to Broder, our supreme, benevolent, all-knowing commander -- must be locked away in a top secret War Room at all hours of the day personally monitoring the constant stream of incoming intelligence, domestic and international.

Beltway trope #2: Sound the war drum!

For now, we are conducting a proxy war in Yemen, but that may change. Al-Qaeda's local enablers must learn that there is a price to be paid when Uncle Sam is attacked from their bases.

Jesus. Hasn't this crotch-grabbing machismo gotten us into enough deep shit already? Is Broder completely unaware, or has he even ever contemplated the possibility, that this militant attitude is a prime, if not the preeminent, inflammatory recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, not to mention the attitudinal nexus of all that is wrong about America's view of itself and the rest of the world?

Beltway trope #3: Obama has tried to do too much and should now focus on terror -- as if he wasn't already in directing a five-front war -- as his "new priority."

--and--

Beltway trope #4: The naive, or "benign" as Broder calls it, leadership style of the president will only change when Barack Obama (and by proxy, Democrats) becomes "serious" and comfortable being a war president.

For Obama to establish a new priority would obviously be much more difficult than it appeared to be for Bush. And this new priority would be a much less comfortable fit for Obama than leading a war on terrorism was for Bush.

Nonetheless, events have their own logic. The Christmas plot appears to have shaken Obama like nothing else that happened in his first year. When he allowed the White House to quote his warning to his Cabinet colleagues that another "screw-up" like that could not be tolerated, he seemed to signal that his benign leadership style had reached its limits.

Many have been looking for a similar shift of tone in his dealings with the dictators in Iran and North Korea and even in his tolerance for the politics-as-usual maneuverings of many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

It's as if the DC media establishmentarians like Broder, boosted by the ratings trolls within the cable news industrial complex, refuse to do or allow any critical thought of the ramifications of America's policies in the Middle East and beyond, as well as the effects of what they write or say.

My issue here isn't that he's criticizing Obama, but rather, the criticism is lame, predictable and largely void of any value. Unfortunately, this is all too common from the DC media stars.

After eight years of incompetent, chest-beating leadership from the Bush administration that brought an endless stream embarrassment, failure, death and global chaos, Broder seemingly wants more. And the tragic irony is that Obama's policies aren't all that much different than Bush's. But the Broders of the world have no interest in critical thought. Arrogance and narrow-mindedness are not only valued but also rewarded. It's the Washington way.

Big eye, big guy watching me

365: The surveillance state.


Glenn Greenwald examines how our modern surveillance state has too much to process, therefore leading to the intel failures exemplified by the Abdulmutallab attempt on Christmas Day:

The problem is never that the U.S. Government lacks sufficient power to engage in surveillance, interceptions, intelligence-gathering and the like. Long before 9/11 -- from the Cold War -- we have vested extraordinarily broad surveillance powers in the U.S. Government to the point that we have turned ourselves into a National Security and Surveillance State. Terrorist attacks do not happen because there are too many restrictions on the government's ability to eavesdrop and intercept communications, or because there are too many safeguards and checks. If anything, the opposite is true: the excesses of the Surveillance State -- and the steady abolition of oversights and limits -- have made detection of plots far less likely. Despite that, we have an insatiable appetite -- especially when we're frightened anew -- to vest more and more unrestricted spying and other powers in our Government, which -- like all governments -- is more than happy to accept them.

More collected information doesn't mean more safety. It just means more convolution for our intelligence gathering officials to sort through. The Patriot Act again and again proves to be the poster child for egregious U.S. government policy on a variety of fronts.

The downward-spiral effect of America's terror policies

In the aftermath of President Obama's statement today on the "potentially disastrous" failure to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding an airliner in an apparent bombing plot, Spencer Ackerman points out a distinction that should be highlighted when discussing what has been called a breakdown in connecting the dots by the intelligence community. Obama said the intel was available, but he then repeated the line about professionals within the intelligence apparatus missing the connections.

Ackerman:

But it’s not true that there was sufficient information “that would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list.” As a U.S. intelligence official told me last week, there is a standard for moving someone from a person-of-interest list run by the National Counterterrorism Center to the FBI-maintained Terrorist Screening Database. That standard is “specific derogatory information leading to reasonable suspicion.” And that FBI-maintained database still has another procedural and evidentiary step to go through before placing someone on the no-fly list.

In essence, if Obama wants to change the standards of how one lands on a no-fly list, he should do it. But to blame officials for not "connecting dots" isn't really accurate. As the official told Ackerman, there are certain standards to follow; simple suspicion has to take that extra step. Ackerman once more:

Obama can say that common sense dictates that Abdulmutallab ought to have been on the no-fly list. But that’s reasoning backward from the conclusion. It’s appropriate after a failure occurs. But it’s not appropriate as an explanation for how that failure occurred. The standard for placing someone on the no-fly list is simply not met by the aggregated intelligence that Obama cited (and he didn’t unveil any new information).

For the president to hawk this as a connecting-the-dots failure seems to be either disingenuous political theatre to put on a show for our feeble minds, or just a misunderstanding of the issue.

Speaking of political theatrics, the administration announced that several Yemenis kept at Guantanamo Bay for years, then found innocent of any crimes, must stay incarcerated due to the "deteriorating security situation" in Yemen, all so Americans can know that their Daddy president is protecting them from the evil terrorists.

Reuters:

President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"It was always our intent to transfer detainees to other countries only under conditions that provide assurances that our security is being protected," Obama said.

"Given the unsettled situation, I've spoken to the attorney general (Eric Holder) and we've agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time," Obama said.

As Andy Worthington has pointed out in his dogged coverage of Guantanamo Bay, this rationale is bad policy at best (in that it only threatens to radicalize more than it protects anyone's safety) and against the rule of law at worst.

“only at Guantánamo can fear trump justice to such an alarming degree” that, “if [the officials’] rationale for not releasing any of the Yemenis from Guantánamo was extended to the US prison system, it would mean that no prisoner would ever be released at the end of their sentence, because prison ‘might have radicalized’ them, and also, of course, that it would lead to no prisoner ever being released from Guantánamo.”

Our monarchical structure says we can indefinitely detain anyone we deem a threat. From Bush to Obama, this is set American policy. Can anyone claim with a straight face that any president in the near future will reverse these policies based on A) today's support torture by (at least) one political party and an alarming number of Americans who have been instilled with fear at every turn, B) our spineless, constantly-posturing political class and C) an irresponsible, for-profit mainstream media that will exploit TERROR! and FEAR! and DANGER! to cull ratings.

So at this point, we're left with what could be called Terrorball, the unwinnable game of fear and paranoia brought to you by Washington's ruling and chattering classes.

Our national government and almost all of the establishment media have decided to play a similar game, which could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.

Read the entire post at Lawyers, Guns and Money. He shares statistics detailing the number of deaths in America unrelated to terrorism, but caused but things we have accepted as normal, as in starvation, homicide and lack of health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, your America in 2010.

War spending comically dwarfs airport security spending

The title says it all:

US Spends Ten Times More On Afghanistan Than Airport Security

The numbers indeed are sobering. In fiscal year 2009, the Transportation Security Administration was allocated $7.99 billion, $5.74 billion of which was earmarked for aviation security (Page 154). Only $128 million of that total was geared towards "enhancements at passenger checkpoints to improve the detection of prohibited items, especially weapons and explosives" which is roughly $100 million less than the tax break granted to Alaska fishermen in the stimulus package passed early this Congress.

Contrast those numbers with the dollars being poured into the two wars. A report released in September by the Congressional Research Service estimated that $94.8 billion was spent in Iraq in FY09. Another $55.2 billion is going to Afghanistan (more than ten times the amount spent on aviation security) with the number rising to $72.9 billion in 2010. That total, does not include the expected $30 billion that will be required to pay for additional troops.

You're next Yemen.

Matthews recognized Politico's charade

As much as Chris Matthews is a useless gasbag, he can occasionally stick it to someone -- or Politico in this case.

Matthews was with Politico's Jonathan Martin, who, to be fair didn't have any of these Cheney "exclusives" they come up with that give Cheney an open, uncontested platform to say whatever he wants. I think it's mostly Mike Allen who is the scorned former VP's stenographer. But still, pretty funny.

MATTHEWS: I mean, he’s got his own news conduit.

MARTIN: You know, we aggressively report on both sides.

MATTHEWS: It’s not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He’s feeding you guys this crap. [...]

What’s he call up and say? “I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what’s your email address?” Is that what he does?

It's official Politico. Everyone gets the schtick. Get clicks, news value and integrity be damned.

Nothing seems to kill me, no matter how hard I try

Spencer Ackerman chronicles the follies of the current climate around releasing Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Congress and, more importantly, the administration seems content on keeping them locked up no matter what their status of guilt.

Critics of President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are saying that the Yemen connections of would-be plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab ought to prevent the administration from repatriating dozens of Yemeni detainees currently held at Guantanamo. “It would be irresponsible to take any of the Yemeni detainees in Guantanamo and send them back to Yemen,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) said on ABC News’ “ThisWeek” on Sunday.

[...]

The Yemeni official declined to comment on the impact a lack of repatriation would have on the two nations’ relations. Nor would the official comment on the congressional calls to keep the Yemeni citizens at Guantanamo. But the official said, “The detainees that have been sent to Yemen were detainees that have been cleared by U.S. courts, and therefore are presumed innocent, or at least nothing stands against them.” (Few, if any, Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo have received a hearing before a civilian U.S. court.)

You know what you create when you keep a newly freed (and ultimately cleared and innocent) man incarcerated for "security concerns" of America? A man that screams BLOW UP THE OUTSIDE WORLD!!!!!!!

How much longer can we make the decisions we seem to be making with Yemen here? What is the end of this constantly moving focus on al-Qaeda throughout the world? How much longer can we chase these nihilists throughout the world while simultaneously serving as the prime recruiter of angered Muslim young men full of hatred for America? We are maiming their innocent citizens through inexact drone strikes. It's increasingly difficult -- as if it was ever easy -- to verify who exactly was hit in these strikes. It seems the U.S. will characterize anyone near affiliation with anyone in al-Qaeda as associated with the group, in a malicious, indoctrinated way. Tribal leaders claim a multitude of citizenry, especially children, as the victims of these strikes. Reality is blurry. But the plain truth is that innocents are being murdered by these strikes, and the effect on those with and without ties to al-Qaeda is immeasurable.

Think before thy speak

I love the way Limbaugh posed for his adoring fans amid his own possibly troublesome heart conditions over the holidays in the progressive Hawaii health care system.

The SEIU's site:

Whether he realized it or not, Limbaugh was praising the care he received from union nurses in one of the country's most progressive health care systems. On behalf of the labor movement and health reform advocates everywhere, THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, Rush!

Overeating and Oxycontin never helped either Rush.

Welcome 2010

365: The fallout begins.

The value of justice

It pays to read until the end of a story. In today's WaPo story on Iraqi reaction to the decision by a U.S. judge to dismiss the charges against the Blackwater guards that opened fire on innocent Iraqis in Baghdad in 2007, this pearl comes as the finale:

Firas Fadhil Abbas, whose brother Osama was killed at Nisoor Square, said that "if someone kills a dog in America, they do not escape punishment. I don't understand this trial."

The value of an Iraqi life is in question, and Abbas nails it. He's right, so where's the outrage? I understand that the judge probably had to make this decision based on the abuse of protocol by members of the Bush-era federal government. That said, I sincerely hope an investigation is done by the DOJ to figure out why these protected statements from the accused guards were allowed to be seen/used by prosecutors. How did they not know what was allowable in this case? It seems inexcusable that they did not know, so what was thought process here? Was it intentional? Just careless? I doubt it.

Abbas says the execution of a dog would go punished in America. He's right. What happens when 17 innocent Iraqis are murdered? Where's the justice? What happens next? I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this case, but, really, how likely are these guards going to face a real trial at this point?

Sound of Silver, talk to me

I'm a little late on this, as it's Jan. 2, 2010, but my pick for best album (and most profound) is LCD Soundsystem's Sound of Silver, 2007. Note: That is before I think hard and revert back to the prophetic Kid A from 2000.

My favorite track on Sound of Silver is North American Scum. The title says a lot, but the song is equal parts antagonistic, apologetic and (oddly) appreciative of the ugliness the world sees in North Americans.



This album, I believe, encompasses so much of the melancholy and desperation (in the form of "dance-punk" music) of the post-9/11 world, when two wars raged and next to no one could keep up with the massive transformations happening around the world. If Kid A was Radiohead's prediction for the times, Sound of Silver was the representative of the fallout.