Here's the real issue in Nevada: Will Vegas Strippers
Win the Right to Caucus at Their Workplace?

I've heard a lot of progressives on the radio say that networks such as Fox and MSNBC need to play fairly because they are using the "public airwaves."

Isn't it correct to say that these cable networks are not using the public airwaves? They're using cable lines and satellites, correct?

I heard this argument today on Ed Shultz's show (by the Lord of the Rings guy, Viggo Mortensen, a Kucinich supporter).

Lollimom @ 3:

I've heard a lot of progressives on the radio say that networks such as Fox and MSNBC need to play fairly because they are using the "public airwaves."

Isn't it correct to say that these cable networks are not using the public airwaves? They're using cable lines and satellites, correct?

I heard this argument today on Ed Shultz's show (by the Lord of the Rings guy, Viggo Mortensen, a Kucinich supporter).

You're right Lolli. The cable news channels aren't using public airwaves.

Anyone catch the 11:34 MSNBC three-way against lobbyists... then Chris Matthews calls out Clinton's surrogate for working at Patton Boggs???? Amazing.

Seder is the man. Mark Green is a moron for hiring Lionel

speaking of FDR.. national Headline News host Glenn Beck called him an "evil son of a bitch".

http://achorn.blogspot.com/2008/01/glenn-beck-fdr-was-evil-son-of-bitch....

FDA Announces Plan to Eliminate Vitamin Companies

Codex Alimentarius

Gary M @ 8:

Wexler Calls For Cheney's Impeachment

Frontline: Cheney's Law

How did Edwards do tonight?

Oh, how I would love to see the Republicans in such shambles and disarray that they have a brokered convention! The people of their party won't get to know which lunatic will be their nominee until afterwards, and the vast majority of them will be disappointed.

THE LATEST MICHIGAN BREAKDOWN

Mittens............................39.0%

Gone InSane....................29.7%

Religious Huckster...........16.1%

Ron and the Paul Bearers...6.3%

Frauderick of Hollywood.....3.7%

Captain 9/11.......................2.8%

Two percent uncommitted. Remainder to other names on the ballot.

Karen @ 19:

Oh, how I would love to see the Republicans in such shambles and disarray that they have a brokered convention! The people of their party won't get to know which lunatic will be their nominee until afterwards, and the vast majority of them will be disappointed.

THE LATEST MICHIGAN BREAKDOWN

Mittens............................39.0%

Gone InSane....................29.7%

Religious Huckster...........16.1%

Ron and the Paul Bearers...6.3%

Frauderick of Hollywood.....3.7%

Captain 9/11.......................2.8%

Two percent uncommitted. Remainder to other names on the ballot.

Your good!...love thoes names,you must be a joke writer on strike?...lol.

Lota white folks in that video.

McCain and his campaign worked very hard to achieve the result they deserved.

Looks like Clinton, Edwards and Obama are going to form a triumvirate of good will to guide the USA to unprecedented heights, share the White House, and spend each evening having a post-prandial snifter of Cognac, after their daily feast on the issues, on the Truman balcony, just as the principles of Boston Legal do.

And sweetness and light will reign through the land, evermore.

So lets eliminate Gooliani and Thompson from the the next debate for getting beat by Ron Paul in Michigan , with their pathetic performance .

Brit Hume's epileptic and loaded question about U.S. naval commander's " passive response " and would you respond more forcibly , even though the facts on the water indicate the whole episode was questionable and over blown , during the last Rep debate , was followed by Tim " the evil pumpkin head" Russert's loaded question , "will you fight vigorously " for the right of military recruiters to recruit on campuses , and for funding to be cut if they don't . Unfortunately, all candidates agreed to support the governments " right" to cut funding . if recruiters weren't allowed . Not surprised Russert , an employee of war profiteering GE , would ask a loaded question, however it's unfortunate , Universities don't have the right to refuse the military , and not have funding cut .

Side note , I'm sick and tired of talking heads asking each other , " what does (fill in the blank) have to do " to (come back),blah blah blah, hey shut up and report the damn news and stop the amature speculation , blitzer, mathews , Williams oDonnel , etc. etc.

nonbeliever @ 12:

So how about Ron Paul handing it to Rudy and Fred again? I want to see if they'll exclude Rudy from the next debate.

Gotta love it! 4th this time. Next stop, 3rd place! I'd really like to see a state where he finishes ahead of both McCain and Huckabee.

There's no way that FAA (Fat Ass Ailes) would exclude St. Rudy of 9/11.

what a nonsensical piece.
I should think that most Dems today would rather vote for FDR, JFK or ol' Bill rather than the crop they have. and 2 of them are dead.

Full disclaimer! I'd rather vote for Lincoln or Jefferson myself!

well folks , freedoms not free you have to bribe somebody to get it!

Were corpses posthumously baptized as Mormon allowed to vote in the primaries?

Ronald Raygun and Mitt Romney = Both bad actors.

Breaking From Bloomberg:

Elections Regulator Can't Regulate Most Expensive U.S. Contest

By Jonathan D. Salant and Lorraine Woellert

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- John Edwards, who is relying on federal money to help fund his presidential campaign, may not get any more. The list of lobbyists raising cash for the candidates, and how much they have brought in, remains hidden.

The Federal Election Commission doesn't have enough members to oversee what is expected to be the most expensive election in U.S. history. Down to just two of its six commissioners, the FEC can't assemble the quorum of four votes required to approve federal campaign funds, enact regulations, undertake fraud investigations or provide legal advice to candidates.

The reason: Senate Democrats have refused to confirm former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky to a seat on the FEC, and, in response, Senate Republicans won't let through President George W. Bush's three other nominees.

``There are decisions that need to be made; now there is no one to make them,'' said Gary Kalman, a lobbyist with the Boston-based U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which favors stronger campaign-finance laws.

Would explain a lot.... Click the link for the full story.

~Nyc

Tequila @ 22:

Prices are on the rise; freedom is on the decline...

Demand is weakening and costs are rising. This is the worst possible combination.

Wolfman Blitzkrieg: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Wolfman Blitzkrieg of Corporate News Nonsense.

Tim Fucker: And I'm Tim Fucker from NoBody Cares.

Wolfman: Well, the Michigan results are in. It looks like Mittens finally got his gold. Perhaps the Olympics metaphor is finally working for him. After all, a good metaphor is what the people really want in a president. What do you think, Tim?

Fucker: What do I think, Wolfman? As a consummate professional, you should know that we ask questions first, think later.

Wolfman: Right you are, Tim, as always. Well, it looks like Mittens is about to give his victory speech. Let's take a listen.

Mittens: Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Michigan. You're too much. No, thank you. [Turns to speak to campaign worker behind him] Ok, you can turn down the applause machine. It's time for me to speak. [Turns back] Thank you Michigan! I won the gold!

Wolfman: [interrupting] A golden metaphor for a new golden age, wouldn't you say? Ok, back to the speech.

Mittens: . . . . and that is why I think we should all thank god -- which ever god you believe in -- that is, as long as you do believe in one -- that my dad was a governor of this great state. That and the fact that the economy is just so rotten right now gave me a perfect storm to win this state. What excellent blessings. Just call me the Stormin' Mormon. Clearly, Michigan understands that I, your cute and adorable little pair of Mittens, am the true heir to Ronald Reagan. I've got the look, the hair, the beliefs -- everything a president needs. Thank you again! Let's go for the gold in the next primary! Wherever that is again. Thank you!

Wolfman: I still say it's the metaphor that did it. Politics is a lot like the Olympics. People competing in contests and all.

Fucker: Beautiful speech, wouldn't you say, Wolfman? Very presidential. Very presidential. A man for the people.

Wolfman: Absolutely. And.....oh, folks, it looks like Gone InSane, the senator from Arizona is about to give a concession speech. Let's go there.

InSane: Woo hoo! They wrote us off for dead, but we ain't dead! Mac Is Back! It's Mac Tonight! Yum! Beebles! You want change? I'll show you your change! Down with torture against all but my enemies! Yowser, I'm gonna put a screen door on every submarine! Let's stay in Iraq for 10 million years! Flood be unto he who walketh by the snodgrass....

Wolfman: Oookay. Um, well, that was interesting.

Fucker: Wolfie, I'm not sure the voters know that Gone InSane was born in 1846. I think they should know that, lest they judge him too harshly.

Wolfman: At least he's not a Democrat. Can't be completely senile if he's got the sense not to be a Democrat.

Fucker: Sweet Jesus! Wolfman, we have to break away from Sen. InSane's speech. The Religious Huckster is about to talk.

Wolfman: By all means, let's turn our attention that way.

Huckster: Friends, Christians, Countrymen! Jeepers, we're doin' well! The godless heathens in the liberal media might have written us off before a single vote was cast, but we're well on our way. And since I'm doing so well, I think it's time to unveil my plans for a Constitutional Convention upon taking office in 2009!

Fucker: A bold move! Wow! This should be interesting.

Huckster: My fellow Christians, we worship the only true living god. And it's high time that our Constitution recognize that. Thus, at the Constitutional Convention of 2009 -- getting deliciously close to the glorious apocalypse that awaits us -- we will repeal Amendments 1, 5, 8, 9, 14, and any Amendment that gives the vote to women and heathens. We will add in an Amendment that says, "Any rights contained in this Constitution are naturally limited to the ways in which they may be exercised in a Christian context." And another that says, "We the Christian People of the United States do reordain and reestablish this Constitution as an officially Christian nation." [Loud cheers erupt. People in crowd speak in tongues.]

Wolfman: Quite a platform, eh, Timmeh?

Fucker: Well, Wolf, what you have to understand is that we are a Christian nation by original intent. Now, that doesn't mean that we necessarily have the kind of Theocracy that the Religious Huckster wants, but if he wins, that's democracy.

Wolfman: But could such a brazenly religious platform cost him votes at all?

Fucker: He's a Republican, so not really. He's viewed as a strong, faithful man. Besides---, oh, wow! Look, Wolf! The Paul Bearers are carrying the coffin this way! I'm gonna run off and see if I can't get an exclusive interview with the man inside! [Runs] Excuse me! Paul Bearers! Excuse me! Would your Snowball's-chance-in-hell candidate like some press exposure with NoBody Cares?

Paul Bearer 1: You gotta give us a real interview, Fucker. Don't trash us. We're in this to win it.

Fucker: Look, you want an interview or not?

Paul Bearer 2: Oh, hell, open the coffin.

Ron: [Emerges] Thank you, Tim. Good to be with you. You know, it's time to resurrect the old-guard, paleo-conservativism and orthodox Libertarianism that made this country and the Republican Party so great. I mean, seriously, have you been listening to my opponents? They're out of they're fucking minds!

Fucker: Forgive me, Congressman, but that's not what you said four years ago. I have here a quote directly from your mouth about the crop of presidential candidates. You said, and I'm quoting, "They're not completely crazy, but I don't like the direction of my party." How do you square the two quotes?

Ron: What? I wasn't running then. It was a different batch of candidates four years ago. There weren't even Republican primaries last time, so I don't even know the context of your quote.

Fucker: But, Congressman, Congressman. I have another quote here----

Ron: Oh, to hell with your quotes, Fucker! Look. It's just high time that we restore our Constitution. We need to get back to the good old days, when we valued freedom so much that the power to oppress and tyrannize belonged not to the federal government, but to the states.

Fucker: Ron and the Paul Bearers, ladies and gentlemen. Back to you Wolfman!

Wolfman: Thank you Tim. While you were away, I managed to track down Frauderick of Hollywood. Fraud, not too long ago, you were touted as the savior of your party. The Reaganesque man of show-biz who would sweep in with the good looks, great smell, and give us some old fashioned common sense. Yet your showing in these primaries has been pretty shitty. Is it time to start thinking of heading back to Hollywood, Fraud?

Fraud: Whatever.

Wolfman: Frauderick of Hollywood. Man of few words. Very presidential.

Fucker: Indeed.

Wolfman: Oh, look! Up in the sky! There he is! I almost forgot he was even on the ballot. Here comes Captain 9/11.

Fucker: Ouch! Bad landing. I hope he didn't break anything.

Wolfman: I think he tripped on his cape.

Fucker: Thankfully, though, the picture of the burning Twin Towers emblazoned on his chest wasn't sullied.

Wolfman: Captain, are you ok!

Captain 9/11: Ok?!?! I'm better than ok, Wolfman!

Wolfman: Due respect, Cap, but you kinda came in last place. How are you better than ok?

Captain 9/11: Wolfman, one thing I learned from 9/11 is that certain battles are truly worth fighting. Others are not. You have to figure that out if you're truly going to battle the forces of evil in this world. You can't just go willy nilly into every single primary. You gotta pick and choose your battles. All good super heroes know that. Frankly, I've got everyone right where I want them.

Wolfman: So, Michigan is not a battle to fight?

Captain 9/11: No, Wolf, not at all. The real battle is in Florida. Haven't you learned anything about politics since 2000? It's all about Florida. I mean, I would at least hope that since 9/11 you've learned what counts and what doesn't. Ok, I'm off to fight the forces of evil.

Wolfman: What an incredible batch of candidates we have, Tim!

Fucker: Indeed.

Wolfman: Well, that's all for tonight folks. Signing out, I'm Wolfman Blitzkrieg for Corporate News Nonsense.

Fucker: And I'm Tim Fucker, NoBody Cares.

Uncommitted/Uncommitted 2008
-paid for by Uncommitted Citizens

This just in: lenders are parasites.
Bush conceded that, in reality, increasing ouput would be difficult. The demand for oil, particularly from China and India, is stretching available supplies, he said. And "a lot of these oil-producing countries are full out" in terms of what they can produce, he said.

In case anyone missed the earlier Sam Seder 23/6 video (on the NH Guliani (lack of) campaign) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncRVkoLKRo

The GOP's first corpse candidate choice - Adolph Hitler - is sadly disqualified due to his foreigner status.

jr @ 9:

Seder is the man. Mark Green is a moron for hiring Lionel

green's sharp on a lot of things, but lionel is not one of them. li is a huge reason to dump air america. sam rules all the way.

My AAR premium's gonna finish in Febuary (I cancelled my subscription because of the downgrading of Seder (it was the final straw for me)), and there's not that much left there to miss unfortunately. Mr. Green would be wise to (at least) fill The Young Turks (http://www.theyoungturks.com/) old time slot with Mr. Seder.

Ron Paul Bearers...haha

I dig it!

Maybe a variation

The Ron Paul Bearer's and the Bad ass Beats.

I was amazed to see this crazy shit in my inbox today forwarded by a relative that usually sends religious messages:

Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...
this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States ...
better heed this and pray about it and share it.

We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM
from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced.

His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta .

He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a
Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best.

In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct
influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was
enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta .

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States,

Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands
over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level -

through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4

"It is time for all people of Conscience

to call upon America

Come Back Home"

Martin Luther King Jr.

http://freeatlast2008.com/

RBK @ 56:

Lollimom @ 3:

I've heard a lot of progressives on the radio say that networks such as Fox and MSNBC need to play fairly because they are using the "public airwaves."

Isn't it correct to say that these cable networks are not using the public airwaves? They're using cable lines and satellites, correct?

I heard this argument today on Ed Shultz's show (by the Lord of the Rings guy, Viggo Mortensen, a Kucinich supporter).

SHIT, it just hit me! Now I know why I LOATHE the idea of TV switching to all digital signal by 2009. There will be no public TV airwaves left! I hope I'm wrong, please tell me I'm wrong.

Oh my.

A little more investigation on Google yielded this little story, just published TODAY:

Airwaves to be Auctioned Off

Looks like our little butt-boy, Kevin J. Martin, has things all wrapped up.

Did anybody know of this?

Tequila @ 66:

The FDA looks the other way on cloned food.

Can you believe that shit....and they say they don't have the 'authority to label it'

This is the FDA

Vioxx with death's of over 25000, this is the FDA.

RBK @ 56:

Lollimom @ 3:

I've heard a lot of progressives on the radio say that networks such as Fox and MSNBC need to play fairly because they are using the "public airwaves."

Isn't it correct to say that these cable networks are not using the public airwaves? They're using cable lines and satellites, correct?

I heard this argument today on Ed Shultz's show (by the Lord of the Rings guy, Viggo Mortensen, a Kucinich supporter).

SHIT, it just hit me! Now I know why I LOATHE the idea of TV switching to all digital signal by 2009. There will be no public TV airwaves left! I hope I'm wrong, please tell me I'm wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. The spectrum is now used for "analog" transmision, there will still be over the air digital broad casting. The technology is different, the medium is still the same. No reason to freak out...

yeah! ron paul beat frederick and rudolph tonight!

though it is beyond hard to find solace after watching a mittens victory speech, we gotta look at the big picture...a completely fragmented GOP.

good job guys, i suppose.

ugh...i just hate the guy so much.

Tequila @ 72:

Congress wastes more time going after a steroid-user than a cocaine-user who started an illegal war...

Demok Rat's would rather play paddy cake with Mitt.

I can't figure out what's worst, having our Democracy pissed on and being insulted by a light bulb manufacturer or one that makes BomBs . The nerve of these people Deciding to leave Dennis Kucinich out of the debate , why because a bunch of arrogant , anti-Democratic corporatist sat around a mahogany table deciding how to defend the indefensible, oh " we have ALL , ALL , ALL, the top candidates " oh ya corporatist , you mean the ones you talk about all the FN time , the ones you hype and pit one against each other candidates , the ones you speculate about non-stop ignoring REAL news .

It's time to make these anti-democratic corporatist understand , we are tired of getting played and we're turning you off , we are tired of your arrogant , condescending, sensationalistic , half ass journalist , now trying to decide the outcome of OUR COUNTRY .

If G.E. thinks eliminating Dennis Kucinich is some kind of great marketing scheme ,to create drama or a deliberate attempt to silence Anti-War , Anti-Occupation , Anti-War Profiteering Voices, it doesn't matter, we know now what side of the fence you are on .

Monitoring all of Chris mathew's idiotic , neurotic rants like Hillary Clinton is only there because of Bill's affair ", is not even worth the time any more and from your jingoistic , unprofessional , banner parroting ' Operation blah blah blah " to Brokaw attending the Bilderberg Meeting , firing probably the most knowledgeable , and articulate Progressive on TV, PHIL DONAHUE ,,was insulting enough .

It's time to stop rewarding an Anti- democratic corporation .

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

New Hampshire Democratic Race to be recounted starting TOMORROW.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5560

SecState's office pulls fast one on money demand and (temporarily?) blocks recount of Republican side.

• This will be a MAJOR EVENT. It is the first full-scale recount in evote (fraud) history. Diebolders sweating buillets tonight.

War for the Whitehouse: Romney's Homophobia in Doubt

Freedom isnt free because of people like Bush.

Bush’s Good Right Hand
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19080.htm

"But even a cabal as muscular as this might find it difficult to install an unpopular, felonius administration and implement an agenda that hundreds of millions of people reject. It takes a great deal to overwhelm the fundamental decency of most Americans. Enter the Democratic Party leadership and senior Congressional Democrats."

Giuliani over Reagan, anyday.
Shelley from SuTree

Hey C&L,

Are you going to pick up this story?

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4657123.html

My guess is that some of our good friends are involved...

hareli @ 84:

Read the Las Vegas Review Editorial backing Obama.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous, intellectually lazy and vapid political endorsement it has ever been my displeasure to read. In fact, it's not much of an endorsement at all.

The thrust of the article: Although Obama is a political naif who babbles vaguely about change and supports stale, welfare-state ideas, at least he's a likable chap, and more importantly, he's not Clinton or Edwards. Clinton is unelectable because of all of her husband's scandals and because of her disastrous health care plans, while Edwards is an anti-capitalist crusader who will doom America to suffer indescribable economic misfortunes.

Is there anyone who takes this undiluted drivel seriously?

The author actually argues that Clinton will "ensnare" the Democrats

in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits. [ ] For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and "co-president" Bill Clinton invited onto a "This is Your Life" talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.

I do not support Hillary Clinton, but I'll say this: If any politicians have proven that they can escape the political equivalent of the La Brea Tar Pits, it's the Clintons. It's their specialty.

Besides, no matter whom we nominate, the Republicans will smear, slime and sully him with anything they can think of, truth be damned. It's what they do best. In fact, it's the only thing they know how to do well. We could nominate a ticket of Jesus Christ for President / General Patton for VeeP, and the Republicans would begin Swift Boating before our delegates finished casting votes at our convention.

Trying to find the candidate Republicans can't smear is impossible. What kind of pundit could seriously make such a case having already seen what they've tried to do to Obama already? I mean, is he the only pundit in the world who doesn't know Barack's middle name?

What kind of pundit? I guess the kind that would suggest that John Edwards would

plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."

Good. Fucking. Grief. But hey. At least Obama is

a good politician, in the non-insulting sense that he knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns.

Did the author get paid to write this piece? Can I work for the Nevada Review Journal? I could write better punditry in my sleep.

Ah the Myth of the Reagan Deity.

I wounder if they would vote for someone with the exact same positions of Reagan if the name wasn't there. Like a blind taste test.

Karen @ 87:

hareli @ 84:

What kind of pundit? I guess the kind that would suggest that John Edwards would

plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."

Good. Fucking. Grief.

Did the author get paid to write this piece? Can I work for the Nevada Review Journal? I could write better punditry in my sleep.

Karen.....I think I can answer this schmo (who reeks of the fair tax/free marketist stupidity gene)....

I guess the kind that would suggest that John Edwards would

plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."

Hmmmm....like the 'free marketists' tax cutting/trade agreement shoving/unregulated utopia for corporate pilferage...hasn't done wonders for the U.S. economy....in his own stupid words....what he's advocating HAS plunged our economy into a dark night....does he shoot up, read a couple chapters of 1984 and then pen his idiotic drivel????

I'll put this simply...so even the fair tax toothfairies out there and their equally insane flat earth 'free market'/people killing corporatists can understand what their evil driven stupidity is doing to this country....

US WORKER PRODUCTIVITY IS AT ITS HIGHEST EVER: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm
BUT>>>>>>
REAL WAGES ARE LOWEST PERCENTAGE OF GDP SINCE 1929 (Great Depression)
http://skeptically.org/wto/id19.html

So.....we're to believe that stupid/sub-moronic straw man notion that con-servatives/free marketists/fair tax tooth fairies continue to flaunt 'its productivity' (we aren't working hard enough - yet their GOP presidential candidates continually tell them otherwise on the stump)....

Instead....re-read the above...and like a 5 year old, put it together....higher productivity + lower wages = SLAVE ECONOMY/Corporate paradise No more democracy....dividend class rule

Also, please read up on Unions....instead of being spoon fed the garbage from these bozos...you'd be suprised what organized labor has forced corporations to grant to workers...things you enjoy without a second thought every single day...

You can run a country like a corporation (see Saudi Arabia, Iraq - great examples) or you can have a democracy (a democratic government keeps capitalism in check from becoming oligarchic monopoly rule - see Mexico, great middle class economy there...cough)

I think this deserves it's own thread.....

"Diebold caught editing their wiki page"

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

Just in case you need some more confirmation....

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, December 04, 2007
It's the Economy, Stupid -- But Not Just the Slowdown
According to new polls, the economy is the number 1 issue for American voters. But that's not just because the economy is slowing and mortgages are harder to come by. The real reason is middle-class families have exhausted the coping mechanisms they've used for over three decades to get by on median wages that are barely higher than they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Male wages today are actually lower than they were then; the income of a young man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.

The first coping mechanism was moving more women into paid work. The percent of working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 -- from 38 percent to about 70 percent. Some parents are now even doing 24-hour shifts, one on child duty while the other works. I call these families DINS - double income, no sex.

When families couldn't paddle any harder, we started paddling longer. The typical American now works two weeks more each year than 30 years ago. Compared to any other advanced nation we're veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.

As the tide of economic necessity continued to rise, we turned to the third coping mechanism. We began taking equity out of our homes, big time. But now that home prices are sinking for the first time in decades, this final coping mechanism no longer keeps us afloat. As Moody's reported last week, defaults on home equity loans have surged to the highest level this decade.

In short, it's the economy, stupid -- but not just the current slowdown. The underlying problem began around 1970. And any presidential candidate seeking to address it will have to think bigger than stimulating the economy with tax cuts or spending increases. The fact is, most Americans are still not prospering in the high-tech, global economy that emerged three decades ago. Almost all the benefits of economic growth since then have gone to a relatively small number of people at the very top. The candidate who acknowledges this and comes up with ways to truly spread prosperity will have a good chance of winning over America's large and largely-anxious middle class.

Heartbreaking Credit Stories

People literally die for their credit cards.

I don't like any of the other candidate mentioned in the video, but why are so many people so inclined to regard Mr. Reagan with such esteem? Have they allowed ABC docu-dramas and tributes to fog their memories? Maybe they were just big into coke in the 80s.

[Correction]
See what happens when you’re greedy?

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/tv/s_547600.html?sourc...

To: xoites defends the Constitution -

Ronald Reagan is already on the ballot: Ron Paul.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulscores.html?ci...

Send in the clones... yummm, tasty...better than soyent green! Hey, it's all good folks, the FDA says so.... (like that outfit has any credibility anymore...paa-leeze!) Kinda funny, a process that is expensive, noone wants, and will likely raise the cost on food at all levels because of the high cost of creating this frankenfood... It's a trifecta... Yea.. kinda funny, but not in the ha ha sort of way....Hmmm, Cloned food, it's what's for dinner... Thanks to some shadowy group of business farmers not ever named specifially, merely referred to as mid-west cattle ranchers. Well maybe this explains why a lot of red state types appear to be going insane in the membrain...insane in the brain! Just a thought...

Frankly. all gallows humor aside, my main response to this news is,
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!! None of this B.S. has ever been studied for the length of time it would take to provide proper evidence for or against this cockamamie idea... I'd like to see the names and addresses of all the people from farmer thru the corporate food conglomerates and right on up the food chain to the FDA and other politicians and gov-mint flunkies who support this disgusting idea.. Yea, I'd definitely like to know who backs this so I will know specifically who to sue into the freekin ground when it all starts going sideways and people start dying or come up with incurable food borne diseases... Because that's where this insanity is going to end up before it's all over. I don't believe for a moment we have the science down on any of this... It's strictly about making a fast buck on a big time gamble.................JD

Rasputin @ 86:

Judicial Watch's Annual List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007 is interesting. They are a public interest group

OH! No they aren't.

"Judicial Watch is an American government watchdog organization founded in 1994.[1] The group uses litigation as its primary tool and came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration."

"Judicial Watch receives funding from mainly conservative sources. In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation[8] and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Both foundations are Managed by Richard Mellon Scaife. [8] The year before the Scaife Foundation gave $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.[8"

You freakin LIAR.

Karen @ 94:

New Bushism

"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say, victory was achieved by the United States for the good of the world..."

"...as the U.S. FINALLY put on trial 500 members of Bushco.

Convictions led to the top twenty-five being hanged for TREASON, as the whole world rejoiced.

Abbybwood @ 107:

To: xoites defends the Constitution -

L Ron Reagan is already on the ballot: L Ron Paul.

After all, privatizing all 1.8 BILLION ACRES of federal lands, as L Ron wants to do, would be the biggest boondoggle since Reagan raped the coastal redwood old-growth forests.

You just can't find people willing to RAPE the country for privatizing mining, logging, and housing development just anywhere.

First of all, you have to be a Rapepublican, like both L Ron's.

Rasputin @ 116:

If you are going to cut and paste from Wikipedia,

Sure, blame your whoring for Scaife on wikipedia.

You just got flushed.

Funding Father of Right --Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire who has financed numerous anti-Clinton activities, helped fund the creation of the modern [fascist] movement in America.

By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities played a central role in the rise of the right, giving at least $340 million to [fascist] causes and institutions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaife050299.htm

Although Scaife has dedicated vast sums of money to influencing the way the public thinks, he prefers to operate behind the scenes, granting few interviews. When former Wall Street Journal reporter Karen Rothmyer attempted to interview him in 1981, he responded by calling her a "fucking Communist cunt" and telling her to "get out of here."

Between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated

$15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation;
$7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis;
$6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace;
$6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS);
$4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute;
$2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research;
$1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute;
$1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and
$1,697,000 to the Cato Institute.

For the years 1985-2001, the Scaife Family Foundation donated

$702,640 to the Heritage Foundation;
$590,000 to the American Enterprise Institute;
$275,000 to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University;
$200,000 to the CSIS; and
$175,000 to the New Citizenship Project, Inc., alone.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife_Foundations

The following link details the support for David Horowitz's RACIST "Stop Islamo-Fascism Week" last year -- including SIX MILLION DOLLARS from Scaife for his extreme-right "Freedom Center."

the greatest [amount] of funding is actually coming from a single source, the Scaife foundations, which consists of (a) the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, (b) the Carthage Foundation, (c) the Allegheny Foundation, and (c) the Scaife Family foundation. Combined, they have given $6.4 million dollars to the Center, roughly 40% of the organization’s funding.

http://jinnzaman.hadithuna.com/the-fascist-roots-of-islamo-fascism-aware...

Oh yeah! That's some real rightwing crap you're peddling!

For Sure that's some great insight you're getting from your rightwing Clinton hate mob and their warmongering oil money.

I wonder where he got all his money?

The Mellon fortune is built on at least 5 pillars;

the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corporation,
the family's monopoly ownership of Alcoa and Alcan going back to 1891,
ownership of Koppers and Carborundum corporations,
and their participation in the uranium cartel. -- Sourcewatch

H'yeah, I'm sure they're a real independent reporter, Rasputin.

You ought to dunk your head into a bucket of snot.

Rasputin @ 117:

By the way, I am no fan of Scaife

No, that's why you're here whoring for them.

Klayman on invading Cuba:

"It's time to remove Castro once and for all, by force if necessary," said Klayman, a former Justice Department attorney. "He's had free reign for too long."

Klayman, trying to get illegal donations to his 2004 Senate campaign:

Jensen claims that in September he went with Klayman to a conference in Colorado Springs of the Council for National Policy, an organization of prominent conservatives.

According to Jensen, four wealthy conservatives--William Ball Jr., Stuart Epperson, Dick Bott and Rich Bott--were attending the conference, and Klayman "was prevailing upon [them] to loan one million dollars each to American Target Advertising for its use to [ILLEGALLY] fund a direct-mail campaign to benefit Klayman's candidacy."

...I called Ball, an Indianapolis-based businessman and board member of the Center for Scientific Creation, and asked if Klayman had [ILLEGALLY] urged him to lend $1 million to Viguerie for use in developing a direct-mail list for Klayman's campaign. Ball replied, "Yeah."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/corn

Klayman on the relative criminality of Bushco, versus the Clinton Administration:

During my 10 years as founder and chairman of Judicial Watch, I had seen similar scenarios played out time in and time out by a Clinton administration whose corruption makes the current administration look like Boy Scouts.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47162

Sure they do, Larry.

Rasputin @ 118:

By the way, I am no fan of Scaife, hate the man as a matter of fact, and some of Judicial Watch's activities listed on that Wikepedia page do seem a bit ridiculous, but without their lawsuits the public would have never learned about John Huang's illegal fund-raising activities during the Clinton administration, or details about Cheney's secret energy task force under the Bush administration. Those sorts of activities are to be applauded and the information learned from them deserves to see the light of day.

Notice that "Paul" isn't refuting any of the facts, he's just attacking the messenger for exposing his sacred cows--members of the Democratic party.

My question to "Paul" regarding Scaife funding is if that is better or worse than say Hillary Clinton being funded by the arms industry or Wall Street?

Yes, the Clintons are corrupt. They have been since their days in Arkansas. The list of felons and "Dixie Mafia" thugs they have been closely associated with is a long one. And, yes, many leading members of the Democratic party are corrupt. The fact that this is not something that certain people like to hear about doesn't make it untrue.

I swear this site is like an echo chamber sometimes. It's like the Blue Team version of the Freeper site, where the hive mind seeks to filter out unpopular information.

Mais, qui, Rasputin !! Of course - don't let this AIPAC troll to deflate you. That's his mission on this board. He was the worst poodle also yapping AIPAC bs propaganda the other night on Hill's Iraq'd thread all-night-brawl. He's really bent to be a pitbull No.1 it seems - has NOT a clue this is not the forum for such abusive anger. lies, and constant BS abt nothing.

There never was he didn't have the last BS word here, or that he was not "right". It's awfully lonely being so perfect, or, is it his lithium deficiency getting even worse?
This is the type who spits on the mirror seeing his own image. Let him roll in his own spit.

"I swear this site is like an echo chamber sometimes" - yes it is, indeed, due to nasty/ negative element as this assigned to this site by his handlers .. Re: this theme, I left you a late response in the last Sunday thread we discussed Edwards and other positive stuff.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/13/late-edition-john-edwards-still...
Have a lookie, pronto ;)

Thank you again for good words in
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/msnbc-white-house-rankings-john...
That was a very neat quote - goes for you as well.

We'll have an Edwards rally this Sat in NYC. Where are you yourself ? I'll post later for all. Don't waste your effort on this jerk any more. Mobilize pple (friends, relatives, etc..) to support Edwards. He's called names almost everybody here whoever said anything meaningful. He has no other audience - like cancer w/out blood flow, will dry out into nasty little crusty wart. Let him.

Blackwater Contractors' Prosecution at TPM

There's something that smells with this situation: Geneva and Nuremberg precedents, not withstaning US law, still apply. Is there not anything under Geneva or Nuremberg precedents that would, in effect say: "you should have known this was illegal." Otherwise, if "no law" governs Blackwater, then they are -- under Geneva -- _outside_ the criteria of a "lawful combatant", and are "unlawful combatants.

Suppose they are -- for the purposes of this comment only -- "unlawful combatants" and "outside Geneva": Then all _verbal/oral/written statements_ they were provided as an inducement to speak were part of an " interrogation". Someone who is _outside_ the US laws and Geneva knew, or should know "any agreement that is premised on being _inside_ the law is not valid.

Indeed, consider the US precedents at Guantanamo: DOJ argued before the Federal Court that the defendants, because they were "unlawful combatants" could be subjected to abuse; that their statements could be used against them; and that "some" evidence -- which they could not see -- could be used against them _without access to trial."

- Is it the government's position that "some" unlawful combatants -- regardless the validity or invalidity of that designation -- _are_ entitled to protections which they, as combatants, do not recognize? In this case, we're asked to believe that Blackwater, as a "combatant" _is_ protected by the problem of "gaps in US law"; yet, that "gap" would implicitly bind those combatants to the higher requirements of Geneva which they knew, or should have known applied.

[deleted--please don't do long cut & pastes. Just link and excerpt.]

Anonymous @ 125:

Blackwater Contractors' Prosecution at TPM

There's something that smells with this situation: Geneva and Nuremberg precedents, not withstaning US law, still apply. Is there not anything under Geneva or Nuremberg precedents that would, in effect say: "you should have known this was illegal." Otherwise, if "no law" governs Blackwater, then they are -- under Geneva -- _outside_ the criteria of a "lawful combatant", and are "unlawful combatants.

Suppose they are -- for the purposes of this comment only -- "unlawful combatants" and "outside Geneva": Then all _verbal/oral/written statements_ they were provided as an inducement to speak were part of an " interrogation". Someone who is _outside_ the US laws and Geneva knew, or should know "any agreement that is premised on being _inside_ the law is not valid.

Indeed, consider the US precedents at Guantanamo: DOJ argued before the Federal Court that the defendants, because they were "unlawful combatants" could be subjected to abuse; that their statements could be used against them; and that "some" evidence -- which they could not see -- could be used against them _without access to trial."

- Is it the government's position that "some" unlawful combatants -- regardless the validity or invalidity of that designation -- _are_ entitled to protections which they, as combatants, do not recognize? In this case, we're asked to believe that Blackwater, as a "combatant" _is_ protected by the problem of "gaps in US law"; yet, that "gap" would implicitly bind those combatants to the higher requirements of Geneva which they knew, or should have known applied.

[deleted--please don't do long cut & pastes. Just link and excerpt.]

It wasn't an excerpt. It was the origial content.

You've deleted it. It wasn't posted at TPM; TPM was linked to here to read "the details that were here".

Thanks anyway. Any way you can recover it?

Paul in LA @ 128:

Sorry, double negative. They CANNOT be considered mercenaries under the laws binding mercenaries (UN compact).

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

They are therefore U.S. combatants.

Article 1 of the Hague Conventions says:

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Weasel words and legal cavils aside, it is clear that they are in fact U.S. combatants, and they should be court-martialed. However, they are currently considered contractors (under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA), and as such, if they kill someone in cold blood, and caught, they stand accused as murderers, to be tried under U.S. courts in the normal criminal fashion.

Whether they're combatants or not, are they "unlawful or lawful" combatants?

Anyone, by chance, have a copy of the content that was posted at this comment? As you can see, C&L has deleted/truncated the original content. Maybe someone has a copy before C&L deleted it here? It didn't exist on the TPM-link provided.

Open thread, or short thread? That took a long time to write. First time this has happened here.

Very good points, Paul in LA. Thank you for your citations and comments: Good job. This is a very complicated area of the laws of war:

Paul in LA @ 128:

Sorry, double negative. They CANNOT be considered mercenaries under the laws binding mercenaries (UN compact).

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

They are therefore U.S. combatants.

Article 1 of the Hague Conventions says:

Article 1

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Weasel words and legal cavils aside, it is clear that they are in fact U.S. combatants, and they should be court-martialed. However, they are currently considered contractors (under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA), and as such, if they kill someone in cold blood, and caught, they stand accused as murderers, to be tried under U.S. courts in the normal criminal fashion.

Again, Paul in LA, I appreciate your comments and information. THank you. This is subject to ongoing debate within DoJ, Congress, and remains unsettled:

What happens if Blackwater acts "as if" they are not subject to _any_ law? My view, they are _Not_ "lawful combatants" because they are acting "outside" a system of laws.

This is key, which you well cited: "To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." -- the alleged basis for the "confusion" about Blackwater was that they were "not" subject to the UCMJ, Geneva, or US laws. That was their argument; not saying that I agree with it.

Rather, my view is that they _are_ subject to GEneva privileges/protections, but as unlawful combatants, because they were _not_ willing to be subjected to Geneva, as required.

However, in my view, they are _not_ entitled to "privileges" that only are related to a law "They did not recognize." For example, if Blackwater acted "as if" US law wasn't applicable to them while in Iraq, then they cannot reasonably expect US legal privileges to have been provided or enforced. Specifically, by asserting by their actions and policies that they were "not subject" to US laws, then it is unreasonable for them to expect to enjoy any protections or privileges related to promises, agreements, or assurances about immunity in exchange for information. Unlawful combatants should have been told, "When we operate outside US laws, any promise of immunity is not enforceable under US law. Remain silent."

Paul,

You've made some fine points. We'll have to "agree to disagree" on whether there are or are not "lawful or unlawful combatants". Lawful combatants comply with the criteria you listed; unlawful combatants, as adjudciated by a tribunal, fall outside the standards. The key: A tribunal must make the determination for purposes of imposing Geneva-permitted punishments.

As to the claims about what the ICC would or would not do, it's the assertion of the ICC -- for now -- that US courts are "just fine" and the ICC has "no role". If the ICC revisits this remains to be seen.

We're not talking about what "reality" is, we're talking about: [a] what did Blackwater communicate about its apparent relationship to Geneva, or US laws; and [b] notwithstanding the applicability of Geneva or US laws in re combat, did Blackwater employees, by their conduct, classify themselves as "unlawful combatants"; and or did they, by their actions, impermissibly rely on "promises" which they knew, or should have known, were not enforceable, as the grants of immunity-for-testimony were not from a tribunal.

Your view -- that there are "no unlawful combatants" may be true; the problem is the President and others have -- in their words -- asserted that there _are_ unlawful combatants. If that designation is "made up", then udner Geneva, a similar designation of "unlawful combatant" -- as a retaliataory legal measure against the US persons -- could be applied to Blackwater, or others who were making frivolous legal arguments in re alleged war crimes.

I've inserted the above themes in responses to you, below:

Paul in LA @ 132:

Anonymous @ 131 "What happens if Blackwater acts "as if" they are not subject to _any_ law? My view, they are _Not_ "lawful combatants" because they are acting "outside" a system of laws."

No, the point is that they ARE U.S. combatants. Maybe 80% of Blackwater personnel are U.S. military who were privatized during time of war. Normally, the C-in-C would suspend any such employment by private companies and send these people to war as uniformed soldiers.

As such, they are warcriminals when they commit warcrimes. So is the C-in-C, so this is justice delayed, and probably denied, at least until next year (or forever, if something terrible happens).

Response: War crimes have no statute of limitations. Do not worry about "delayed" justice. It will happen.

+ + + + +

"That was their argument; not saying that I agree with it."

It's clearly bullshit. I'm not a lawyer, and warcrimes laws are famously flexible. The whole reason why the ICC is such an important development--because countries at war typically do not apply the law to themselves (in the absence of a positive will to do so).

Response: The ICC isn't on the horizon. Yet, but it may be.

+ + + + +

"Rather, my view is that they _are_ subject to GEneva privileges/protections, but as unlawful combatants, because they were _not_ willing to be subjected to Geneva, as required."

There is no such thing, legal, illegal. From the standpoint of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. treaty law under that (weasel words aside), they are combatants of the United States, no different than soldiers, no matter how paid, or how much paid.

Response: We'll have to agree to disagree: the President kept using this word; others can use this about the President's alleged mercenaries. Geneva permits like-abuses: When the US uses a non-sense word to justify abuse, then others may use the same word to impose like retaliation against Blackwater as a defendant.

+ + + + +

"Specifically, by asserting by their actions and policies that they were "not subject" to US laws,"

Warcriminals have always claimed that they were not bound by law. Let them make that claim in court. The Nazi's did. How'd that work out? Here in America, we barely have enough justice left to punish white-collar criminals, much less the warcriminals. We must demand justice, and we must continue to demand justice, and that's just the duty of these times.

Response: That's the point: By asserting, in effect, they were "not bound by any law," it's absurd to then Grant Blackwater protections/privileges -- non-tribunal-promise of immunity in exchange for interrogation evidence -- of they very legal system they _say_ they are not subject. Whether they are or are not subject to any law is not in dispute: They are subject to Geneva. Whether the US wants to enforce Geneva is a secondary issue: 5 USC 3331 binds US legal officers to enforce Geneva as if it were Supreme US Law, a Treaty. Indeed, for the US DOJ, Blackwater, or Members of Congress to pretend the US "has no laws governing Blackwater" is an absurd argument. The Supreme Law applicable to Blackwater is Geneva; and enforceably by US legal officers through the oath. There is no requirement to "codify" a treaty obligation. It speaks for itself, which the Senate ratified.

+ + + + +

This is OT, so it's my last comment on it in this thread. Glad people are thinking about this.

Because there is no statute of limitations of war crimes, no one can credibly claim "there are no resources" or "there is no time" to adjudicate these issues.

Thanks for the discussion, Paul. As you can see, these are important issues. You've raised some excellent points,and I hope you'll continue challengng me and others with your interest in these Geneva issues. Even if we disagree, please know that I respect your views and you as a person. Good luck,and let's see that Geneva is fully discussed. Thanks again, and please don't give up in your efforts to raise these issues.

The above issues are things which the JAGs well discussed with the OVP-WH-DOJ OLC going forward from 2001. There is memoranda.

My concern is this: Supposedly in Dec 2007, someone said there was a DoJ-Member of Congress meeting suggesting there are "problems' with the conviction/trial/investigation/adjudciation of Blackwater. Non-sense: 5 USC 3331 attaches the Geneva Conventions to the United States legal system: Blackwater is not outside the law, but is fully governed -- as a combatant -- under Geneva.

There is no credible case for the DOJ Staff counsel to make that there are "holes in US law as a bar to enforcing the law against Blackwater." Non-sense: The Conventions are enforceable against all; it's the job of the DOJ Staff counsel and Congress to permit the US treaty obligation through 5 USC 3331 oath of office to have full force, regardless the supposed "holes" in US law. Treaty obligations, per the US Constitution, are Supreme Law. There is no requirement for Congress to "codify" a treaty obligation. If that were required, then treaties should not have been separately mentioned as part of the "supreme" law. But, the oath does include treaty obligations; and there is _no_ requirement that with "asserted holes" in US laws, that Blackwater cannot be prosecuted under the umbrella of the Geneva Conventions.

Blackwater can be adjudicated under Geneva: It is the Supreme Law which they knew, or should have known applied to them as combatants worldwide. Conversely, not withstanding US laws, Geneva remains the Supreme Law which US Congress, DoJ Staff, and Judicial Officers/legal counsel shall enforce. At. All. Times. Regardless the direction of the political winds, or ability/interest/desire of the President to silence/marginalize/ignore the JAGs or proponents of policies that fully enforce Geneva, and contradicted with this President is alleged to have permitted, not stopped, and allowed: Prisoner abuse, war crimes, illegal warfare, treachery, and offering bounties inducing civilians to give up their protected status. It doesn't matter if there are "holes" in US laws; Geneva remains unblemished.