March 31st is the last day to submit an original, 25 lines or less, poem for the Friends of the Arapahoe Library District 2004 Poetry Contest. Put your name, address, and phone number on the back of the poem (keep your original!) Drop your poem off at Koelbel main library, 5955 South Holly St., Centennial, CO, 80727. Contact- Padma Poleppedi at 303-220-7704 for information.
Check it out on the web!
A few items that I've noticed on other blogs:
From Talk Left-
"The International Court of Justicein the Hague will issue its decision Wednesday in the case of 51 Mexican nationals on death row in the U.S. The case is Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). The suit concerns the U.S.’s failure to comply with the Vienna Convention’s guarantee of allowing foreign nationals access to consular officials prior to interrogation."
Although the ICJ has no enforcement authority it would be further evidence that BushCo is a rogue state by which it ignores international law by word and action.
From Daily Kos-
Can the 3rd CD in Ohio be competitive? I think the money situation between the two candidates- Democrat Jane Mitakides and incumbent Republican Mike Turner is closer then expected. Mitakides has about $25k versus Turner's $195k currently. As Daily Kos notes that Turner was kicked out after two terms as mayor of Dayton by a Democratic, woman challenger in 2001.
My view is that blogs can be very effective in raising money. The long term would be to see how the blogosphere matures and nurtures political activism on a personal level for literally millions of Americans through several election cycles. Those people who do feel disenfranchised can now see that their voice and pocketbook can be heard by political candidates at a level which invites real interaction with candidates and office holders. The level I'm talking about would be at the House of Representatives level.
From the Orcinus blog-
From the tortured reasons that Ms. Rice today about the need to give candid advice to the President to the history of Nixon's imperial presidency there is, to quote extensively from the Orcinus blog-
"What is noteworthy about the Bush power grab is that the administration has leveraged the "war on terror" specifically as a tool for expanding its powers. As I've explored previously, its assertion of military powers for arresting and controlling civilians suspected of abetting the "war on terror" under the guise of its "enemy combatant" status and military tribunals is based on a similar worldview -- namely, that the executive branch's powers under wartime are virtually illimitable, and not accountable to any civilian court.
Recall, if you will, Olson's logic in defending the secret court system underpinning the Bush 'war on terror', as recounted by the Washington Post, in which he described the criteria that would be applied in determining who's an "enemy combatant":
"There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this," Olson said in the interview. "There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances."
And what's to restrain the president? Only the prospect of losing re-election:
Administration officials, however, imply that the main check on the president’s performance in wartime is political -- that if the public perceives his approach to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will vote him out of office.
“At the end of the day in our constitutional system, someone will have to decide whether that [decision to designate someone an enemy combatant] is a right or just decision,” Olson said. “Who will finally decide that? Will it be a judge, or will it be the president of the United States, elected by the people, specifically to perform that function, with the capacity to have the information at his disposal with the assistance of those who work for him?”
The obdurate handling of Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission is part and parcel of this power grab: Bush, Cheney, Olson and Co. all see any concession of testimony before any other body, congressional or otherwise, a concession of its constitutional powers.
It's all about the Imperial Presidency. The principle -- just as it was for Nixon -- is the power of the president and his advisers to lie, fumble, and even break the law without consequence. Just because he's president.
The concern that Americans might have about getting to the truth of how 9/11 happened, especially in the way of preventing its recurrence, must take a back seat to such principles, evidently."
Please note in the bold text the fact that there is no objective criteria for naming a person an "enemy combatant" but only on changing circumstances by one person- the president. No standards which will pass muster under a judge in order to hold a person in this new, illegal system of "justice" that ultimately turns its back on 800 years of legal precedence of the concept of "habeas corpus".
Air America the progressive radio network starts at noon tomorrow!
Check it out on the web!
A few items that I've noticed on other blogs:
From Talk Left-
"The International Court of Justicein the Hague will issue its decision Wednesday in the case of 51 Mexican nationals on death row in the U.S. The case is Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). The suit concerns the U.S.’s failure to comply with the Vienna Convention’s guarantee of allowing foreign nationals access to consular officials prior to interrogation."
Although the ICJ has no enforcement authority it would be further evidence that BushCo is a rogue state by which it ignores international law by word and action.
From Daily Kos-
Can the 3rd CD in Ohio be competitive? I think the money situation between the two candidates- Democrat Jane Mitakides and incumbent Republican Mike Turner is closer then expected. Mitakides has about $25k versus Turner's $195k currently. As Daily Kos notes that Turner was kicked out after two terms as mayor of Dayton by a Democratic, woman challenger in 2001.
My view is that blogs can be very effective in raising money. The long term would be to see how the blogosphere matures and nurtures political activism on a personal level for literally millions of Americans through several election cycles. Those people who do feel disenfranchised can now see that their voice and pocketbook can be heard by political candidates at a level which invites real interaction with candidates and office holders. The level I'm talking about would be at the House of Representatives level.
From the Orcinus blog-
From the tortured reasons that Ms. Rice today about the need to give candid advice to the President to the history of Nixon's imperial presidency there is, to quote extensively from the Orcinus blog-
"What is noteworthy about the Bush power grab is that the administration has leveraged the "war on terror" specifically as a tool for expanding its powers. As I've explored previously, its assertion of military powers for arresting and controlling civilians suspected of abetting the "war on terror" under the guise of its "enemy combatant" status and military tribunals is based on a similar worldview -- namely, that the executive branch's powers under wartime are virtually illimitable, and not accountable to any civilian court.
Recall, if you will, Olson's logic in defending the secret court system underpinning the Bush 'war on terror', as recounted by the Washington Post, in which he described the criteria that would be applied in determining who's an "enemy combatant":
"There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this," Olson said in the interview. "There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances."
And what's to restrain the president? Only the prospect of losing re-election:
Administration officials, however, imply that the main check on the president’s performance in wartime is political -- that if the public perceives his approach to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will vote him out of office.
“At the end of the day in our constitutional system, someone will have to decide whether that [decision to designate someone an enemy combatant] is a right or just decision,” Olson said. “Who will finally decide that? Will it be a judge, or will it be the president of the United States, elected by the people, specifically to perform that function, with the capacity to have the information at his disposal with the assistance of those who work for him?”
The obdurate handling of Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission is part and parcel of this power grab: Bush, Cheney, Olson and Co. all see any concession of testimony before any other body, congressional or otherwise, a concession of its constitutional powers.
It's all about the Imperial Presidency. The principle -- just as it was for Nixon -- is the power of the president and his advisers to lie, fumble, and even break the law without consequence. Just because he's president.
The concern that Americans might have about getting to the truth of how 9/11 happened, especially in the way of preventing its recurrence, must take a back seat to such principles, evidently."
Please note in the bold text the fact that there is no objective criteria for naming a person an "enemy combatant" but only on changing circumstances by one person- the president. No standards which will pass muster under a judge in order to hold a person in this new, illegal system of "justice" that ultimately turns its back on 800 years of legal precedence of the concept of "habeas corpus".
posted by Ken at 9:53 PM
<< Home