I’m taking a few days off. Posting will resume when I return.
Welcome
The Destin Log is the twice-weekly newspaper devoted to covering the crown jewel of the Emerald Coast.
Archive for June, 2008
Why would a terrorist attack help McCain?
June 24th, 2008, 12:05 pm by fshermanOne of his advisors made that statement recently. Nothing startling in that, actually; one or two Republicans over the past few years have said a terrorist attack would be a good thing by forcing America to recommit to Republicans — I mean, realize the importance of the war on terror.
I think this is false. Sure, it makes sense for McCain’s man to say it, because it leads directly into the usual talking points: McCain is the guy who has the most national-security cred, McCain is the tough one, McCain will keep us safe.
But the Republicans have had close to eight years to run the country. The fact we haven’t had a terrorist attack since the anthrax letters has been held up as proof that Bush is doing a wonderful job. And McCain supports most of Bush’s policies on eavesdropping, torture (despite his personal distaste for it) and the Iraq War.
So if the policies McCain supports now can’t protect us, why should we expect him to do better if elected?
And another blow to the Constitution
June 20th, 2008, 11:19 am by fshermanCongress just passed the telecom’s get-out-of-jail free bill.
Oil in the Gulf won’t save us from high prices.
June 20th, 2008, 11:13 am by fshermanFor one thing it will be seven to eight years, minimum, before oil comes up.
For another, our government’s Energy Information Administration predicts the effect on oil prices will be negligible.
And personally, I seriously doubt that the flow of tankers carrying oil–which I’m inclined to agree poses a bigger risk of spill–will dry up if we start drilling in the Gulf.
Just follow your government’s orders
June 20th, 2008, 10:54 am by fshermanAs you may know, a bill was introduced into Congress yesterday that would give the telecommunications companies who provided the government with information about Americans’ phone calls immunity from lawsuits (since giving that information without a warrant would be illegal). The bill would require the courts to dismiss any suits if the Attorney General says the president ordered it and told the telecoms it was legal.
Which means all suits, and any information that might have come out in court about who the president has spied on and why will never see the light of day. And if they spy some more, they don’t have to worry about ever being called to account.
Our elected officials’ attitude to this was, it seems summed up by Missouri’s Republican Senator Kit Bond: “I’m not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.”
No. If the government isn’t right, we don’t. That’s part of being American.
A reminder about the habeas corpus decision
June 19th, 2008, 10:46 am by fshermanIt doesn’t free any terrorists. None.
All it does is give accused terrorists the right to have the evidence weighed in a real court. Which will hopefully allow us to let out all the innocent ones.
This is a bad thing?
Stupidest spout off of the month
June 17th, 2008, 10:30 am by fsherman“I’m not in the military, but if I was, I have a good idea how I would respond to the recent Supreme Court decision on terrorists: Take no more prisoners. Ever.”
Many of the Gitmo detainees weren’t captured on the battlefield. They were turned over to us by bounty hunters or snatched from their homes. Other detainees (non-Gitmo, that is) were seized on vacation, or while changing planes at JFK or picked up while going about their business in the US. Which would be fine if they were wanted criminals who were then convicted and jailed; instead, many of them were held without charges, sometimes tortured, even after our government admitted their innocence.
So is this spouter suggesting our soldiers should just break into the houses of suspected terrorists and summarily execute them without trial? Or did he just not think about what popped out of his mouth?
Even though it’s a lie, it’s a BELIEVABLE lie!
June 17th, 2008, 9:52 am by fshermanYou may be familiar with rumors that Michelle Obama was taped ranting against “whitey.” To date, no evidence of such a tape has turned up.
Not a problem for neo-neocon, who argues “Such a tape would have indicated a victim mentality and an anger that has persisted despite all her advantages and successes in life — and, far more importantly, an attitude that would have belied her (or her husband’s, had he been the source of the quote) [!] claim to be beyond race… The reason the fake story had such legs is that Michelle Obama is on record as having said a number of things that indicate she may in fact harbor just those feelings…”
It’s a good trick for getting extra mileage out of a smear (as Roy Edroso points out): After it’s disproved, use the fact people believed it to carry on just the same as if the subject had really said it.
Not a good way to run a war
June 17th, 2008, 7:18 am by fshermanAccording to the New York Times, Charles M. Smith, the civilian Army official who managed the KBR contract for providing food, housing and other services in Iraq was removed from his job in 2004 after he refused to pay more than $1 billion in questionable charges to KBR.
Smith told the Times he refused to sign off on the payments because KBR didn’t have data or records to justify the payments: “Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.” He was then moved to another job and his replacement paid most of KBR’s charges.
The reason? “Army officials denied that Mr. Smith had been removed because of the dispute, but confirmed that they had reversed his decision, arguing that blocking the payments to KBR would have eroded basic services to troops. They said that KBR had warned that if it was not paid, it would reduce payments to subcontractors, which in turn would cut back on services.”
A plausible threat since one KBR manager had, earlier in the war, threatened to stop serving food and providing other supplies at one camp if its invoices weren’t paid (the company had gone overbudget and wanted to know it would be reimbursed). But I don’t think a corporation should ever be in a position to make threats like that, then carry them out. Not in a war zone.
For more information: New York Times . obsidian wings also discusses this.
Newt Gingrich: Obeying the Constitution will destroy America!
June 17th, 2008, 5:32 am by fshermanOkay, Gingrich himself doesn’t put it taht way, but here’s how he reacts to the recent Supreme Court decision on Gitmo:: “On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . . . Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: . . . This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you’re prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . .”
Glenn Greenwald documents Gingrich making the same argument to say we must attack Iran, must curtail free speech, etc.
Which is nothing new. “it will lead to chaos!” is the standard attack on the Bill of Rights and always has been: We can’t allow people to say Those Things, we can’t allow them a religious exemption from the law, we can’t forbid the police from searching without warrants, because chaos will ensue.
Amazingly enough, it hasn’t.
And let’s not forget that judges are routinely called on to make decisions of life and death. And that the national security issue Gingrich is raving about is habeas corpus, the right of American prisoners, held indefinitely without charges, to prove that they’re being held unfairly, a fundamental principle of law, America and human decency. A rule on which courts have been ruling as long as we’ve had the Republic.
The idea that these decisions should be entrusted to the president just because he claims the prisoners are terrorists is the kind of dictatorial power Republicans have always claimed to oppose. But as the past eight years have shown, a lot of them were lying about that. Apparently Gingrich is one of them.
