Bloodthirsty Liberal

I can’t keep straight all the false accusations of misconduct by American forces—I remember Haditha, Ishaqi, Gitmo (even Abu Ghraib was overblown).

Now, we can add Blackwater (e-e-e-vil laughter):

A federal judge dismissed manslaughter charges Thursday against five Blackwater security guards in the 2007 deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghad square, finding that prosecutors wrongly used the men’s own statements against them.

The September 2007 shootout in Baghdad’s Nusoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and two dozen wounded. The killings led Iraq’s government to slap limits on security contractors hired by Blackwater, now known as Xe, and other firms.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina found that the government’s case was built largely on “statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution,” a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the five men charged.

“In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation,” Urbina wrote in a 90-page decision.

Federal prosecutors “repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors assigned to the case” in doing so, he found.

Urbina also sharply criticized prosecutors and federal agents who developed the case, calling their explanations for using the guards’ statements “all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

“In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants’ statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” he wrote.

Obviously, the 17 dead Iraqis indicate something serious, even terrible, happened. But can we stop trying in the press our soldiers and contractors serving the nation?

Doesn’t their service alone warrant better, not worse, certainly not shameful, treatment?

As the leftists in our administration never tire of reminding us, our values are what make us strong. I’d say the right against self-incrimination is up there among values worth protecting. Let’s give those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at least the same consideration we’re giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Deal?

First, he started talking like an Iranian (or Venezuelan) dictator:

First it was his comment, “If you get sick, America, the Republicans’ health care plan is this: Die quickly.” Then, appearing on MSNBC, he said of former Vice President Dick Cheney: “I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking.” Finally, a radio interview surfaced in which he had called a female adviser to the Federal Reserve chairman “a K Street whore” — a reference to her former job as a Washington lobbyist. That one forced him to make a formal apology.

Mr. Grayson could be the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut.

But “whore” is just a gateway word. Soon, he hit the harder stuff:

“You know, on the Internet there’s an acronym that’s used to apply to situations like this. It’s called ‘STFU,’” he told Chris Matthews. “I don’t think I can say that on the air, but I think you know what that means.”

Matthews asked Grayson to “give me the first part,” and Grayson said, “shut.” STFU is an acronym for “Shut the F*** Up.”

Grayson’s office posted a video of the lawmaker making the comment to his YouTube page.

Now, he’s done with words. Now, he wants action:

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando took such offense at a parody website aimed at unseating him that the freshman Democrat has asked that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder investigate the Lake County activist who started the anti-Grayson website “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”

Specifically, Grayson accuses Republican activist Angie Langley of lying to federal elections. His four-page complaint highlights the fact that the Clermont resident lives outside his district, but that Langley still uses the term “my” in “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”

“Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to try to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don’t support me,” writes Grayson. “[She] has chosen a name for her committee that is utterly tasteless and juvenile.”

Grayson’s office did not respond with comment other than to confirm the letter exists — including its request that Langley be fined and “imprisoned for five years.”

“Tasteless and juvenile” are his political planks, his middle names.

I don’t understand. He looks like such a nice man:

I’m glad to see at least one person his his… uh… er, back:

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is known for slinging devastating zingers at his political opponents, said that Mr. Grayson had the potential to be a smart, serious lawmaker. He said that Mr. Grayson needed to be careful to avoid inappropriate remarks like the one about Ms. Robertson but that the speech on health care was within bounds. “That was legitimate satire,” he said, adding: “I welcome Grayson’s taking the fight to them. I think he has got to be a little more careful about his punches, but I am glad he’s throwing them.”

I guess dissent is the highest form of treason now.

Looks like Switzerland’s Muslims are going to have to text their calls to prayer—in a follow-up to our earlier post:

Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.

More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban.

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland’s image, particularly in the Muslim world.

But Martin Baltisser, the SVP’s general secretary, told the BBC: “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.”

The BBC’s Imogen Foulkes, in Bern, says the surprise result is very bad news for the Swiss government which fears unrest among the Muslim community.

With respect to the lovely and talented Ms. Foulkes, what the [bleep] does she know what’s good for the Swiss government—and why should the Muslim community automatically be assumed to turn to unrest? They may well torch the whole country—French Muslims would—but I am deeply offended by the gratuitous and bigoted presumption that they will. In fact, the only vandalism so far has been anti-Muslim.

Another point:

Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims and has just four minarets … and planning applications for new minarets are almost always refused.

Only four minarets? And they already have a method for preventing more? Not very pluralistic.

Europe. Feh.

It’s not what you might think it is, but when you read this, I ask you to cite any statement more disgraceful, any initiative more insulting to the history of this country:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

…

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt.”

If you’re not already throwing up in your mouth, you should be. The United States making joint human rights policy with Egypt? E-freakin’-gypt???

What common policy do we share with Egypt? I hope you’re sitting down. Soon, you’ll be lying down:

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

…

The idea of protecting the human rights “of religions” instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.

Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution’s adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that “human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions.” The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that “the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media” goes “well beyond” existing international law and “the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms.”

The European Union is the rear guard of inalienable rights? An American president has sold the First Amendment down the river?

I need to draw on Sir Alec Guiness again: Dear God, what have we done?

You know, I could swear the Constitution said something like Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You know, more or less.

But Congresswoman Maxine Waters proves me wrong:

“I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed,” Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. “I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers.”

That sounds like intimidation to me; or “abridgment” as the Constitution might put it.

But even if I’m right about that, I’m wrong about the bigger picture. Let’s go to someone smarter to see that:

RUSH: I actually think this is a great idea. I think it’s absolutely a great idea. She went on to say if you put the microphones in front of them, if you do the interviews they’ll tell you what they believe, what they think. It’s a great idea, Maxine. Let conservatives tell the State-Controlled Media what they think, and why. Actually go out and cover the rally, don’t just rely on a C-SPAN camera. Actually go out there and cover the rallies and talk to these people, find out what it is they’re doing there and why they’re doing there. And then everybody will be shocked when they hear no explanation that contains racism.

Of course, Congresswoman Waters has other concerns right now.

Hey guys! You’ll never guess who’s now a big fan of the Patriot Act—can’t get enough of it.

Well, maybe you can:

The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law’s authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called “lone wolf” terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens’ library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans’ private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don’t weaken the effectiveness of the law.

I love the highlighted part. Professor Obama has stroked his chin, smoked his pipe, consulted volume after volume of case law, and found that—hey, whaddya know!—Bush was right.

But, of course, he pays a little lip service to privacy protections and civil liberties, and that makes everything okay.

Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration’s position “a mixed bag,” and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues, particularly the collecting of international communications, and a specific bar on surveillance of protected First Amendment activities like peaceful protests or religious assembly.

“We’re heartened they’re saying they’re willing to work with Congress,” Richardson said, adding that is “definitely a sea change from what we’ve seen in the past.”

Like what, toots? Will someone out there name me a single event, occasion, or instance in which George Bush violated the civil liberties of a single US citizen? One?

I’m serious; I’d like to know.

Roxana Saberi will be freed:

A court in Iran has cut US-Iranian reporter Roxana Saberi’s jail sentence to two years suspended, and will free her later on Monday, her lawyer says.

The court heard Ms Saberi’s appeal against her original eight-year prison sentence on Sunday, after an international outcry.

She will be able to leave the country but has been banned from working as a journalist in Iran for five years.

Oh yeah, like that’s going to hurt.

We obviously didn’t spring Ms. Saberi (Miss North Dakota 1997) on our own, but while the rest of the media played along with the Islamic Republic by reprinting only images of her wearing a head scarf, we dug a little deeper.

Look for her at a beach near you.

Congratulations, Roxana.

Third term, same as the first two:

When will Barack Obama apologize to George Bush? He spent the entire campaign impugning Bush’ handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, claiming that they required access to federal courts and that military detentions were not necessary. On Friday, Obama took another big step towards Bush by deciding to fight a federal court that essentially endorsed Obama’s views on the campaign trail:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

…

Terrorists and insurgents captured by military and intelligence personnel engaged overseas do not get habeas corpus. Not even the Nuremberg defendants got habeas corpus in American courts, the example Obama liked to use (and got wrong) on the campaign trail.

Judging by his attitude toward the pirates, President Obama will deny terrorists not only habeus corpus, but their corpora themselves. Just like his daddy (in presidential terms) did.

Can waterboarding be far behind? (I hope so not! I hope not.)

Et tu, ACLU?

Free speech advocates from across the political spectrum are accusing President Barack Obama of impinging on First Amendment rights and are gearing up to take their case public.

At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama — who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.

Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.

“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,” reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online.

The rule is intended to prevent stimulus funds from being “distributed on the basis of factors other than the merits of proposed projects or in response to improper influence or pressure,” according to the memo.

While applauding that goal, Michael Macleod-Ball, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and himself a lobbyist, questioned the means, saying, “The question is whether this restriction, as it’s drafted, is the best way to achieve that end with the narrowest amount of limitation on an individual’s rights possible.

“From our perspective, the pretty clear answer is ‘no, it’s not.’”

I’ve tried to avoid as much as possible the tired construction “what if Bush did this?”, but it’s impossible. President Obama has turned the Executive into Fiat Central—and I don’t mean the Bravo:

Every initiative he announces starts off with him telling us “how it’s gonna be”.

Here’s an idea: if the normal functioning of government can’t be trusted to be fair, honest, and transparent, then maybe it’s not the right way of doing things. Obama seems to be saying at one and the same time that government is the only solution we can trust for our problems—and we can’t trust government.

I’ll give him credit for being half right.

It never rains human rights violations, but it pours:

The Guantanamo Bay prison meets the standard for humane treatment laid out in the Geneva Conventions but could use some changes in how it handles its more dangerous or less compliant prisoners, according to a Pentagon report.

The report was prepared for President Barack Obama, who has ordered the terrorist detention center closed within a year.

The recommended changes include an increase in group recreation for those prisoners, according to a government official familiar with the study. The report also suggested allowing those prisoners to gather in groups of three or more, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been released.

So the “great crime” committed in the gulag of Guantanamo is insufficient recess?

That’s why Obama wants (or doesn’t want—consistency isn’t his strong suit) to shutter the place?

Pretty much:

As a presidential candidate, Obama criticized the detention center that human rights groups and many in the international community widely condemned for harsh treatment of prisoners during the Bush administration. The military has defended its actions, saying prisoners have been treated humanely since the center was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, the international rules that require the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, like the war on terrorism. The camp’s controversial force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes was also found to be compliant with the Geneva guidelines, a second government official confirmed.

Just in one morning we’ve learned that Hillary has told the world’s 350 million Buddhists to get in line behind China’s 1.3 billion consumers; we’ve learned that President Obama wants 650 Afghan prisoners to rot in jail for all eternity; and now we’ve learned that Guantanamo is no more restrictive than your average parochial elementary school.

He really is Dick Cheney’s cousin, isn’t he?

Oh, ye lefties, ye radicals of spirit! How will you take this news? He’s our president, but he was your candidate. And now he’s shown to be nothing more than John Ashcroft in blackface.

Nothing could make a Bloodthirstani happier—but what about the rest of youse?