Wednesday, 19 September 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here is the article from the Washington Post --- not as a major story on the front page where it should be, but as a tiny six-paragraph nothing, buried on page A10.  The bold print is mine:.

Marine Corps Exonerates Captain in Iraq Killings

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A10

A U.S. Marine company commander who led the unit that killed as many as 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq, has had all criminal charges against him dismissed nearly two years after the shootings occurred.

Marine Corps officials announced yesterday that Capt. Lucas M. McConnell no longer faces two counts of dereliction of duty in allegedly not investigating the Nov. 19, 2005, shootings and not reporting up his chain of command. Three senior officers above McConnell received administrative punishments this month for their own actions and inactions after the incident.

McConnell, who was not at the scene of the killings, has long maintained that he and the Marines of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, reported the incident to higher authorities and that he thought the shootings were part of an appropriate response to a complex insurgent attack. In the incident, a Marine squad killed a group of Iraqis on a roadside immediately after a huge bomb killed a member of their unit, and members of the squad then raided nearby homes, killing women and children as they hunted for the enemy.

The dismissal of the charges, officially dated Sept. 12, amounts to a full exoneration for McConnell, who was one of four officers charged with crimes related to the aftermath of the shootings.

"It's long overdue," said Kevin McDermott, McConnell's civilian attorney. "It is clear that everything these guys knew went up the chain of command."

Another captain -- a battalion lawyer -- was also cleared. Two officers, including the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, still face charges. Murder charges are outstanding against two Marines who killed people in Haditha, but an investigating officer has recommended that one of the cases be dropped. .

john murtha, the dirty, dishonest, amoral scumbag house member from Wevotedforanidiot, PA, called every one of the accused marines "cold blooded murderers".  He did so before any trial, before the presentation of any evidence and before he had a clue as to the facts of the case. 

Now that most of the accused are exonerated - and the few left may be as well - do you think this unsurpassed idiot is going to apologize for his accusation?  

If so, you must come from Wevotedforanidiot too. 

Needless to say, I hope you come from somewhere else.

An honest Republican.... Thank You Chuck Hagel. Now FOX will discredit you.

Barry Sinrod

Hagel On Escalation: The Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Blunder in this Country Since Vietnam


Ken Berwitz

Want to see a genuinely excellent editorial?

Here is one from Investor's Business Daily (IBD) that is that, and then some.  Unfortunately, however, the subject matter is bone-chilling.  Bold print is mine.

The Normalization Of Terror

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: A third al-Qaida video marking the 9/11 anniversary urges jihadists to make terror "a normal part of life" in America. If this doesn't wake us up to the threat, nothing will.

The video has received little press, but it's more chilling than the two earlier messages by Osama bin Laden. It calls on Islamic radicals to sow terror in the hearts of Westerners by creating a regular climate of fear.

The hope is that by turning our cities into Tel Avivs, where violence is accepted as routine, we will capitulate to the demands and ways of the jihadists.

"We must take terrorism to Western countries so that it becomes a normal part of life, like natural disasters," a voice-over says. "In that way, we will have acts of mass extermination in which people will feel that their affluence also brings death . . . and we will have created a balance of deterrence between us and them."

Some experts view this as a new gambit by al-Qaida to increase the tempo of attacks in the West and not wait for spectacular plots to unfold.

One in that camp is Juval Aviv, a former Israeli agent who consults on counterterrorism. He says the next attack will not involve plane hijackings, since airlines' increased cockpit security has made that a nonstarter.

He says it will be as simple as a terrorist walking up to a busy airport check-in counter and detonating two suitcases full of explosives. Or hitting subways, malls, casinos and amusement parks in several cities simultaneously. Rural areas, with virtually no protection, would also be targets, according to Aviv.

Others think by "mass extermination," al-Qaida means to use radiological weapons, possibly nukes.

Or perhaps it's all just talk. Maybe. But we can't take that chance.

With fresh Saudi funds and a safe haven in Pakistan, al-Qaida's high command has been able to recruit and train a new class of terrorists.

From its base, it is also sending out a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda tailored to appeal to American converts and African-Americans in particular. The propaganda includes video wills of suicide bombers and actual footage of attacks and terror training the kind of thing that might appeal to disaffected young men.

The latest video is the 76th issued this year by al-Qaida's media arm the as-Sahab Institute an average of one every three days, or double the rate at which they were released in 2006, according to the IntelCenter, a government contractor that monitors Web sites used by Islamic militants.

U.S. authorities warn there are now some 4,500 jihadist Web sites on the Internet spreading messages from al-Qaida and performing virtual training in bomb-making and other terror techniques.

The threat is real and spreading. And yet we are becoming more complacent by the day.

The enemy is counting on us lowering our guard, and too many of us have already inured ourselves to terrorist bloodshed. Some say 9/11 was a fluke or a government conspiracy. Some say it wasn't so bad, get over it, distant past. Some think we can live with terrorism.


Israel over the years has, regrettably, accepted a level of terror it should never have accepted. Pressured by apologists and appeasers to be more tolerant, it agreed to coexist with its enemy instead of permanently expelling it.

But our enemy doesn't want to coexist. And they don't just want the "infidels" to leave Muslim soil, as has been claimed. They hate us and want to destroy us because of our "decadence" and "affluence" which means our culture, which means our religion.

We value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They value death. They think they have the advantage in the long run. If they can just sow enough fear and keep attacking, we, too, will get used to the violence and stop fighting it, stop pre-empting it.

But we must endure not the violence, but the threat of violence, by remaining on guard, always listening, watching and disrupting, and always staying on the offensive. Even if we have to keep doing it for decades.


What is it I say at the end of every installment of "A Taste Of The Future"?

"If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.....We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril."

Some of us understand this.  Inexplicably, some of us don't.  Incredibly, some of us never will. 

But make no mistake, the survival of our civilization depends on a lot more people in this country -and a helluva lot of people in western countries other than the USA - waking up, and waking up soon.



Ken Berwitz

It has been almost a week, and hillary clinton's sickening insult to General David Petraeus - without offering any basis in fact - is still out there.  Most media have decided to, er, moveon(.org). deserves a mention here, a very prominent one.  Because it is likely that Senator clinton's insult was done to ingratiate her to the nutcakes of that organization and to assorted other LAMB groups.  

The New York Post certainly understood this.  Here, belatedly, is last week's editorial on the subject:



September 13, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday found herself positioned firmly to the left of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding that disgusting New York Times/MoveOn "General Betray Us" attack on Gen. David Petraeus' integrity.

That's not an enviable position for a woman who's trying to convince the American people that she's fit to be president of the United States.

Further complicating her life was the position former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took yesterday on the general, the importance of victory in Iraq and . . . the truth. You couldn't ask for a more stark contrast at this stage in a possible Giuliani-Clinton presidential face-off.

At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday's Times, attacking Petraeus' honor as a man and as a soldier.

How disgusting was it?

Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she'd have "preferred that they won't do such an ad."

But Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who'd "betray" his nation.

Giuliani, by contrast, had it exactly right.

He called the MoveOn ad "one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics."

Added America's Mayor: "The failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate."

To say the least.

Meanwhile, the Times' own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.

To the tune of more than $116,000.

MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.

So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee - or to Hillary herself?

As if.

Actually, MoveOn might feel cheated: Just a day earlier, The New York Times Magazine ran a free 4,900-word puff piece ("Can Lobbyists Stop the War?") hyping the group and an anti-war coalition it formed.

Maybe the value of that should be declared, as well.

On the merits of Sen. Clinton's attack on Petraeus' report, we wonder:

* Does she have specific data to refute the general's numbers?

* Can she explain why someone like him would risk his career and reputation and lie to Congress?

* Will she show how the two intelligence agencies that vouch for him erred - or, worse, conspired with him to deceive the nation?

Of course not. On all three counts.

But Hillary's slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. "There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation," said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. "I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander."

Clinton & Co. need to explain. .

Personally, I tried to be fair. I waited several days to see if media held hillary clinton to account for her comment.  I waited to see if other Democrats would.  I waited to see if she would retract it or backtrack from its apparent meaning. 

I'm through waiting.  She didn't and won't.  She needs the hard-left and their organization, fundraising and media influence too much to do that. 

Which means that if she wins this is who she will owe her victory to.

Read up on and see who will be pulling the strings if there is another clinton in the white house.  Then act accordingly.


Ken Berwitz

Here. from the Islamic Republic News agency, is the following statement from an Iranian official - Iran being a country on record as stating it wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth:.

Zionist regime's allies to receive response on World Qods Day

Tehran, Sept 19, IRNA

Supporters of the Zionist regime will receive their response during the world Qods Day's rallies, government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, said Wednesday.

The spokesman made the remarks during his weekly press conference while commenting on the current visit to the occupied Palestine of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Qods Day is held each year on the last Friday of Muslims fasting month of Ramadan after it was nominated by the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, as a day to voice the protest of the Islamic Ummah against the Zionists.

The day falls on October 12 this year.

"The US loses all opportunities to cooperate with regional and other world states by trying to support a regime (the Zionist regime) which is now at its weakest political and social position," Elham said.

He warned that Washington's insistence on its wrong policies and arrogant approaches would have no result "but further political disgrace" for itself.

Referring to the approaching World Qods Day, the spokesman stressed, "Supporters of the Zionist regime will definitely receive the final response for their support on that day."  .

Asking again:  If you're Israel what would you do?

How about the UN:  What will it do - other than wonder how to explain away the oil-for-fraud scandal and raping of underage girls in third world countries - which seem to be its greatest accomplishments of recent years.

How about the USA?  Will the hard left have an apoplexy if we work with Israel to defend itself from these hitler wannabes?

October 12 is three weeks away.  What should Israel do?  What would YOU do? 


Ken Berwitz

Last week I posted a column by John Stossel which debunked michael moore's claim that Cuba had a superior health care system to the USA.  Stossel promised a second helping, this time taking moore up on his challenge to compare USA health care to that of Canada and Britain.  I promised I would post it too.

Well, promise kept.  Here it is:.

Socialized Medicine Is Broken and Can't Be Fixed
By John Stossel
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Last week I pointed out that Michael Moore, maker of the documentary "Sicko," portrayed the Cuban health-care system as though it were utopia -- until I hit him with some inconvenient facts. So he backed off and said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things."

OK, here we go.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

"People line up for care; some of them die. That's what happens," Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, told "20/20". Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months."

Michael Moore retorts that Canadians live longer than Americans.

But Canadians' longer lives are unrelated to heath care. Canadians are less likely to get into accidents or be murdered. Take those factors into account, not to mention obesity, and Americans live longer.

Most Canadians like their free health care, but Canadian doctors tell us the system is cracking. More than a million Canadians cannot find a regular family doctor. One town holds a lottery. Once a week the town clerk gets a box out of the closet. Everyone who wants to have a family doctor puts his or her name in it. The clerk pulls out one slip to determine the winner. Others in town have to wait.

It's driven some Canadians to private for-profit clinics. A new one opens somewhere in Canada almost every week. Although it's not clear that such private clinics are legal, one is run by the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, because under government care, he says, "We found ourselves in a situation where we were seeing sick patients and weren't being allowed to treat them. That was something that we couldn't tolerate."

Canadians stuck on waiting lists often pay "medical travel agents" to get to America for treatment. Shirley Healey had a blocked artery that kept her from digesting food. So she hired a middleman to help her get to a hospital in Washington state.

"The doctor said that I would have only had a very few weeks to live," Healey said.

Yet the Canadian government calls her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

Not all Canadian health care is long lines and lack of innovation. We found one place where providers offer easy access to cutting-edge life-saving technology, such as CT scans. And patients rarely wait.

But they have to bark or meow to get access to this technology. Vet clinics say they can get a dog or a cat in the next day. People have to wait a month.  .

Incidentally, after posting last week's Stossel column, I received an interesting comment from someone claiming to be a doctor (Based on what is said, I don't doubt that he/she is one, but can't be 100% sure.  See what you think).

His/her comments are well worth reading - as, I hope, is my response.  It's worth looking back to see why.


Ken Berwitz

Reuters, which isn't exactly the PR arm of the Bush administration, commissioned a political poll that was conducted by Zogby - whose CEO, John Zogby, is an avowed Democrat.  The article below details key results of that poll.

While I do not accuse Reuters or Zogby of cooking the numbers, I think it would be fair to say that if these folks were going to lean in one direction or another it probably would be in the Democratic direction.

Here is the Reuters article: 

Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent1 hour, 43 minutes ago

President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

The Reuters/Zogby Index, a new measure of the mood of the country, dropped from 100 to 98.8 in the last month on worries about the economy and fears of a recession, pollster John Zogby said.

"Since the last time we polled we have had the mortgage crisis, and we are hearing the recession word a whole lot more than we've heard it in the past," Zogby said.

"There are things that happened in the September polling that drove the number down a bit, and they are mostly economic worries," he added.

The Index, which debuts this month, combines responses to 10 questions on Americans' views about their leaders, the direction of their country and their personal situations. Polling for the Index began in July, and that month's results provide the benchmark score of 100.

A score above 100 indicates the country's mood has improved since July. A score below 100, like the one recorded in September, shows the nation's mood getting worse. The RZI, which will be released the third Wednesday of each month, had remained at 100 in August.

"The public mood is not just dark. What's darker than dark?" Zogby said. "The mood is getting ugly."

The national survey of 1,011 likely voters, taken September 13 through September 16, found barely one-quarter of Americans, or 27 percent, believe the country is headed in the right direction. Nearly 62 percent think the country is on the wrong track.

About two-thirds of Americans think the value of their homes will stay the same or drop in the next year, and about one-third expect a recession in the next year amid a housing slump and credit crunch.

The poll also found little confidence in U.S. foreign or economic policy, with 68 percent of Americans rating economic policy as just fair or poor and 73 percent calling foreign policy either fair or poor.

Most of the polling was done after a speech by Bush and testimony to Congress by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, indicating the United States would make some reductions but planned to keep high troop levels in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Zogby said continuing uncertainty about Iraq contributed to the bad public mood and helped push down ratings for Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress.

"I think we are seeing an anti-institution mood here," he said. "Post-Katrina, and now with Iraq and the economy getting worse, people just don't have faith that anybody is solving their problems."

In the 2008 White House race, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York led the Democratic field with 35 percent. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was second with 21 percent and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was third with 10 percent.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden drew the support of about 3 percent each.

For Republicans, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the 2008 field with 26 percent, while newly minted candidate Fred Thompson, a former senator and Hollywood actor, was second with 24 percent.

Arizona Sen. John McCain was third at 13 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was fourth with 7 percent.

In both parties, about 20 percent of likely voters said they had not made up their minds, leaving plenty of room for the races to shift.

The national telephone survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.  .

If these data are reasonably accurate, they could have a significant affect on how the 2008 campaign runs. 

Here is how I see things:

The Republican problem is that, if  President Bush's ratings stay this low, their congressional - and presidential - candidates will be saddled with an unpopular incumbent.  That's not a good situation. 

The Democratic problem, however, may be a good deal worse. 

Democrats are the majority party in both houses of congress.  An 11% positive rating - which is not just low, it is amazingly, almost impossibly, low - goes directly to them. 

If Republicans have any idea of what they're doing (a big "if", that's for sure), they will tar every Democratic candidate with this level of unpopularity.  They will tell voters that if President Bush is considered unpopular with 29% positive ratings, then what is congress, with almost two thirds LESS positive ratings? 

They will then say that the reason congress is so unpopular is ___________ (a recital of Democratic actions during the last two years).  They will say that even in its worst days the Republican congress came nowhere near this level of dissastisfaction and it's time to undo the mistake of 2006.

Put another way, if the Democratic model is to force Republicans to run from Bush (and I assure you that's what it is), then the Republican model should be to force Democrats to run from themselves.

This is going to be quite a campaign.


Ken Berwitz

jesse jackson has a problem.  When he opens his mouth what comes out are the thoughts of jesse jackson. 

Here is a case in point, courtesy of  As usual, the bold print is mine:.

Jackson criticizes Obama

Presidential candidates response to Jena, La., case called too weak


The Rev. Jesse Jackson called Tuesday on Democrats seeking the 2008 nomination for president to give S.C. voters "something to vote for" when they go to the polls in January.

On a statewide tour to register new voters, Jackson said South Carolina will determine "who has momentum" in the primary when it votes Jan. 29.

Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for "acting like he's white" in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La. Jackson, who also lives in Illinois, endorsed Obama in March, according to The Associated Press.

"If I were a candidate, I'd be all over Jena," Jackson said after an hour-long speech at Columbia's historically black Benedict College.

"Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment," said the iconic civil rights figure, who worked with Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1965 Selma civil rights movement and was with King at his 1968 assassination.

Later, Jackson said he did not recall making the "acting like he's white" comment about Obama, stressing he only wanted to point out the candidates had not seized on an opportunity to highlight the disproportionate criminal punishments black youths too often face.

Jackson also said Obama, who consistently has placed second in state and national polls behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, must be "bolder" in his political positions if he is to erase Clintons lead.

Jackson is the only African-American ever to carry South Carolina in a presidential primary election.

Obamas South Carolina campaign pointed to a statement it released last week in which Obama called on the local Louisiana district attorney to drop the excessive charges brought in the case.

"When nooses are being hung in high schools in the 21st century, it's a tragedy," the Obama statement said. "It shows that we still have a lot of work to do as a nation to heal our racial tensions."

Thousands from across the country, including some from Columbia, are expected to converge on the small town of Jena today to protest the "Jena 6" arrests.

Jackson told the 500 to 600 students in his audience at Benedict that "criminal injustice," instead of a rope, is the pressing civil rights issue of their day, but that voting remained their strongest ally.

"Your fight is not about ropes, it's about hope," Jackson said, blasting the flood of guns and violence he said permeates many black communities.

Civil rights, he said, has become the counterculture of the day rather than the prevailing culture. "You can't call on the Justice Department anymore; its not there."

Jackson, who became only the second major black candidate to run for president, won five primaries in his 1984 bid for the office, then 11 primaries and nearly 7 million votes in his 1988 run.

He said the 2008 presidential candidates must speak most directly to the pressing S.C. issues of housing, high tuition costs, health care and a plan to end the war in Iraq.

"The candidates have got to speak to South Carolina," said Jackson, who was traveling also to S.C. State University in Orangeburg and to Charleston Tuesday evening before wrapping up his registration drive tonight in Aiken.

A Greenville native, Jackson said he hoped to register thousands of new voters during the statewide swing, which began Saturday in Rock Hill.

"Their votes must equal change," he said, referring to residents in a state where only 1 in 4 eligible voters go to the polls. "I want to make sure the right agenda is being voted on in 2008.".

It has been said many times, but it bears repeating here:  jesse jackson needs to pretend the civil rights struggle is still in the 1960's, to keep that $$$ coming.  The gains - and they are enormous - in civil rights in this country must be downplayed, ignored or denied.

Yes, there is still racism in the USA, and plenty of it.  There is racism EVERYWHERE and the USA is part of everywhere.  But there is no country in the world that has fought harder against racism or provided more legal redress for its victims than the USA.

Does jackson know WHO hung that noose?  Does he know for sure that it wasn't a Black student trying to create an incident?  That has happened a number of other times in recent years.  How does he know it didn't happen at Jena? 

I suggest you go to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute webpage and read the excellent article on this phenomenon.  It is too long to post here, so just click on

And now that we've discussed everything else, what the hell does jesse jackson mean by attacking Barack Obama for "acting like he's White"?  If that isn't overt racism, what is? 

What would jesse jackson say if a White candidate attacked another White for "acting like he's Black"?  Would he question it?  Would he believe the candidate who said it if that candidate then said he didn't remember saying it? 

Will any Democrat of any significance condemn jackson for it----and risk his wrath?  Will any of them risk what he can do to them among some (thankfully not all) Black Democrats? 

Don't expect any of them to do so - except, Ironically, Obama, who IS Black, and only because he was the one directly attacked.

Rhetoric is in great supply among Democrats these days.  Cajones are not.

UPDATE:  In reading further about the Jena incident I find that the principal of the school determined three White students put up the noose.  Unless there is additional information I am not aware of, I will assume he's right.


gerald cherry Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton are made of the same materials. LAIRS (09/19/07)

Jack Jesse Jackson needs to retire and do it quietly. As a member of the black community I feel he is irrelevant. He's really just looking for media exposure (09/20/07)

The disgraceful 43 Senators who voted against restoring Habeas Corpus.

Barry Sinrod
And it included Joe Lieberman.  The People in Connecticut should recall this damn traitor.

A year after lawmakers abandoned American principles on the rule of law and stripped detainees of their right to challenge their detentions in court, the Senate today turned back an effort to return some sanity to our rule of law. A bipartisan majority supported restoring habeas corpus, but Republican obstructionism wouldnt allow a vote.

The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Wednesday that would have given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

The 56-43 vote against the bill, by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was a blow for human rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism. []

NAYs ---43
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


Ken Berwitz

This is pulled verbatim from the link Barry provided in the previous blog.  It is well worth reading -- especially the parts I have put in bold print:.

In 2006, Congress passed and Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act, which established a military-run tribunal system for prosecuting enemy combatants. The provision barring habeas corpus petitions means that only detainees selected for trial are able to confront charges against them, leaving most military detainees in custody without a chance to plead their case.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., one of the architects of the law, said the system includes checks and balances to determine whether a person is being held unlawfully. Granting a ban on habeas corpus petitions would allow terrorism suspects to go "judge shopping" around U.S. courts to find a sympathetic ear, he said.

Added Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Never has such an unprecedented legal right been granted to a prisoner of war or detainee."

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the ban on habeas corpus petitions is constitutional, although no argument date has been set..

Habeas Corpus is a wonderful thing.  I fully support it for USA citizens. 

I do NOT support it for enemy detainees.  And it has never been available to them --- for damn good reasons.

The US constitution is not a suicide pact.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!