The Lack Of Torture Betrays Everything America Stands For!

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Hoekstra Blames Obama For Fort Hood Massacre:

"Hoekstra and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) charged that terror-fighting tools used until recently by the intelligence community had lately been restricted or placed off limits by the administration. “We know that there are tools and methods that were in use just a few months ago are not in use today,” said Rogers. “That is a problem.”

The GOPers declined to say which tools they were referring to, or to produce any other evidence to back up their claim. Nonetheless, they blamed the Obama administration’s political philosophy. Rogers referred to the administration’s decisions to close Guantanamo and to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court as examples of the administration’s approach, before declaring: “There are certain tools and methods that are used by the intelligence community that can be impacted by that kind of political philosophy.”"

As far as I know, the only "tool" Obama has ruled out is torture. Not the other techniques, like the wiretapping, and the detentions and a bunch of other things most folks with consciences and an appreciation of constitutional law or the Separation of Powers would consider moderately troublesome.

So the "tools" must be torture. I confess, I'm as baffled as to how even Jack Baur could have prevented Ft. Hood, even with car batteries attached to testicle crushers, but I've come to realize that "thinking" isn't something that folks like Hoekstra rely on.

They rely on a lot of people that do not think.

And those people really like the idea of torturing other people. They like it a whole bunch. It puts a 450CC of turbocharged Dodge Ram in their pants, if you know what I mean...

Glenn Greenwald brings the Cranky.

Glenn Greenwald is suffering the effects of a very severe moral wedgie. Like many, and I include myself, he suffers from deep, impotent outrage toward the moral failure of the Obama Administration; it's abandonment of it's clear, legal duty to prosecute war crimes committed under the aegis of the Bushistas.

He waxes sarcastic and wroth, no doubt in part due to the fact that he is being studiously ignored by those who have the manifest duty to act.

"Criminals"?  "Prosecutions"?  "Obliged to open a case"?  "Violations of human rights"?  Just because they maintained a few secret prisons in violation of domestic and international law?  What kind of crazy, purist, Far Leftist utopians are running that place?  They need a heavy dose of pragmatism so they can understand all the reasons why so-called "crimes" like this can be overlooked -- just blissfully forgotten like a bad dream.  Even worse, with intemperate and shrill language of the type they're throwing around, it's seems clear that the Lithuanian press is sorely in need of some David Broders, Fred Hiatts, and David Ignatiuses to explain to them that subjecting law-breaking political officials to "investigations" and "prosecutions" is quite disruptive and unpleasant when those crimes involve matters other than consensual sex between adults.
Even more alarming, this "rule of law" and "human rights" fetish seems to be spreading: "In neighboring Poland, prosecutors in the capital of Warsaw have opened a criminal probe into reports that the CIA operated a prison for al-Qaeda suspects near a former military air base."  Last month, an Italian court convicted 22 CIA agents of the so-called "crime" of kidnapping someone off their street and sending him to Egypt to be tortured.  And the British High Court this week released its written Opinion -- over the objections of British and American officials -- ordering the release of details of Binyam Mohamed's torture at the hands of U.S. agents.

Thankfully, the U.S. remains a bastion of pragmatic sanity in this rising sea of accountability extremism.

Glenn, here's the thing. Things are worse than you suspect. You see, Lithuania is not acting idealistically, or in accordance with law through some triumph of principle over pragmatism. The rule of law is the most stunningly pragmatic concept ever developed by mankind. It precludes all sorts of problems. It's civilization's way of saying "RTFM" to the offensively and dangerously stupid. Those who will not read and abide by the manual are invited to explore the diversions provided by The Impartial Bug-Zapper of the Law.

The rule of law is preferable to the law of man because it insulates leaders from the need to make impossible political calculations between right action and personal survival. But certain sorts of men (it's almost always men) much prefer to be in personal charge and to be able to act with impunity.

People like George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and espectially Dark Lord Cheney are exemplars of this sort of man. They are sociopaths and worse, entirely indifferent to the consequences others suffer for their ambitions. And when they are permitted to flourish, they corrupt everything they touch, to the point that even the most honest and pure will be required to use corrupt and incompetent men to serve at his will.

Now Obama comes from Chicago. He may be a good man, but I doubt that "pure" or "idealistic" are words we should apply to him.

But he has a severe problem. If he prosecutes the Bushistas - as international law and Constitution alike agree is is his duty, to kick the matters raised into a Court in order to determine the outcome as matters of fact and law - there is a significant possibility that he will be faced with some sort of military/institutional revolt.

That is to say, Glenn - you are justly outraged. So am I. But since I wish to live in a society in which the Rule of Law has not been suborned, I returned to Canada. As a dual citizen, I had the right to choose - and strongly felt a substantial duty to make such a choice.

If you wish to live in such a society as a natural-born citizen, realize that it currently does not exist and has NOT existed for a substantial period of time. Not in MY lifetime, Sir.  Consider that advancements in civil rights during the last fifty years  have often come at the cost of cracked skulls inflicted by the supposed agents of the theoretical rule of law. Law that only protects some, in accordance to their utility to the State, is not law at all.


Glenn, here's the thing. It's a very depressing insight, but as near as I can tell, you can either choose to move to a country where the rule of law exists, or you can choose to fight for it's re-imposition upon at least some of territories of the former United States.  

I observe the current situation is increasingly intolerable, both for large numbers of US citizens and the world in general. Either the US behaves as befits a member of the community of civilized nations, or it will be chastised in increasingly firm and embarrassing ways until it reforms itself or collapses under the weight of it's cognitive dissonances.

President Obama may well be cast in the role of overseeing the dissolution of the United States as we have known it. But whether he is to be seen in hindsight as the caretaker of the process of dissolution in as peaceful a way as possible - the Gorbechev role - or as the exemplar of a renewed vision and a newly vital nation is still largely up to him and, of course, the strings he can haul upon and the people he can call on. People... well, people such as YOU, Glen. Do not ask what your country can do for you, Glenn. What the fuck are you gonna do for your country?

For myself, I could not continue to live within the boundaries of a nation that would not apply it's own laws to itself, one that will abandon it's fundamental principles when slightly startled. And in fact, is all  9/11 was, on the scale of events that happen within the US every single year. I came to the conclusion that the US didn't lose it's brains that day - it simply and collectively dropped the pretense of being a civilized nation of laws even unto itself.

So Al-Queda won without need to even try firing one more shot. After all, what need? Your own C-Street Taliban was more than happy to continue the fight on their behalf, seeking every single social outcome BinLadin would.

But Glenn, you are starting to become shrill - and it's a sure sign that you risk your health continuing in this vein. Granted, the path that those in power OUGHT to follow, under the terms of concience and law, is clear.

It's equally clear that there are those in power that will oppose that to the last ditch. That will commit acts of violence to prevent it happening. That will sabotage it in every way possible. And yet, you think law will prevail? 

Someone has to enforce the law. That implies the willingness to step up and do it. If those charged with that task refuse, they must not merely be nobly and peacefully protested. They must be replaced by those who will - and they must be made to understand that it is not a negotiable choice. By peaceful means, by political pressure, by force of public outrage if possible - but the continuing abuses of power must end and those who have abused it held to account, that this is not a matter of political will or calculation.

Unless it becomes quite clear that the danger to the administration from the left is just as grave as the danger from the right, and by "danger" I mean a very literal potential danger, there will be no progress. It's not about Left and right, it is about Lawful and Unlawful, a choice between the Rule of Law and the rule of unworthy, corrupt, unaccountable sociopaths. Such people will not simply admit defeat. The only "dirty bomb plot" EVER proven to be greatly advanced past the wishful thinking stage was by a Nazi-identified Maine Millionaire.

And it was apparently aimed at the Obama Inaguaral.

It's not cynical to say that might makes right - for no right has ever been established in the face of superior might. So progressives should start thinking as to whether their convictions carry with them the courage to fight, at need. For that need may well come, and weak Reids will not serve you well.

Look at the numbers. Given courage and determination, Glenn - which side has more Divisions? Assembled into serried and courageous ranks, with rotund tummies sucked in, by the numbers sir, by the logistics, sir, by the accounts of who has the ports, the people and the expertise, who wins, if they have the will?

Obama still seems to think this is a question that has a political resolution - but he is opposed by those who will not abide by the results of an honest political process - should it actually occur despite their best efforts.

Therefore, the left (and by "Left", I mean "not batshit crazy") needs to comprehend that this is not a debate.  It is a choice between competing powers and competing visions - and one side is stupid, crazy, dangerous, and a lot smaller. They are quite aware that if they are to gain power over you, it must be through confusion and terror, by threats and by the use of examples of extreme violence.

That is to say, Dick Cheney and his ilk, these people are terrorists, traitors and worse. They must be dealt with as such. Indeed, they will leave you no choice but to deal with them, now, tomorrow, next year. And that is not at all a matter of debate. The only question is, will they prevail over you before being dealt with by the rest of the world?  

Debates occur between peers. Persons deserving of equal respect. People of sound moral and mental character. People willing to admit fact, reason and a decent consideration of the feelings and ambitions of all parties in the public square. This is not the case, nor has it been the case for at least a decade. Nor has the situation been particularly changed by an apparent change in power. Power, sir, must be used and used well in order to have meaning.

Take compromise off the table. One does not compromise with those who's most fundamental belief is that you deserve death, or worse.

Stop pretending that they don't really mean that, or that they have a higher nature to appeal to. Their choice is as stark as that they would impose. They may submit to a reconstituted, civilized national culture, and live, or they may choose to dash themselves against the reality they reject. The process may be unpleasant - exactly how unpleasant depends in part on how long those who know what must happen resist an unpleasant chore. But the outcome is not even slightly in doubt.

The rest of the world would be perfectly happy to see the United States disintigrate into a collection of smaller, competing states. It would simplify matters enormously, since the US is certainly no longer seen as a stablizing power, much less a force for good or even an economic engine. Nobody is interested particularly in helping the US save face - and certainly not at the expense of their vital trade relations or their own ideals.

Glenn, what are you going to do about it? I think we both know how much reasonable speech has achieved. It's now time to apply pressure. Start thinking of yourself as the leader of a First Amendment Militia - for if the first is not applied hard, true and well, the exercise of the Second may well be required.

First Amendment Militia by webcarve
Canada Above the Fray Rondel by EhCanada

'Hannity: My Money Where Your Mouth Is' by Keith Olbermann: Update 3

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin

Ironically enough, I had just finished creating this particular design and still had the quote on my clipboard, when I saw a link from Josh to this story in my digg shouts.

'Hannity: My Money Where Your Mouth Is' by Keith Olbermann

[Sean Hannity's] offer the other night to Chuck Grodin to 'prove' that waterboarding isn't torture by allowing it to be done to him, is too important to pass up, because of the image it will certainly produce. No matter what he says afterwards or how he tries to laugh it off, Hannity's certitude will be smashed by Hannity's natural, human panic.

And then Keith raises the ante. There are several conditions, to keep Hannity honest - but here's the nub of it.

I will donate $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for every second of water-boarding Hannity endures. We will start the clock the moment the first water is poured on him. The clock will stop when Hannity confesses or begins to shout or scream on a prolonged basis, or the medical supervisor determines he is danger of organ failure.

If Hannity admits afterwards he was afraid for his life and that waterboarding is indeed torture, I will double my total contribution.

And I will repeat this offer each night on Countdown until he agrees or declines.

Waterboarding; one of the favorites of interrogators, since it leaves no evidence. Keith, allow me to offer several refinements.

First, he must be restrained; otherwise the experience is not authentic. Pallet wrap is a superior choice, because it's simple to use and leaves no ligature marks that might indicate abuse to Red Cross inspectors. If the subject is largely encased, it adds thermal stress, as well as creating an intense sensation of helplessness.

Further - as any interrogator trained at the School of the Americas could tell you - water is one of a variety of choices. One can intensify the experience simply by using your choice of fresh or stale urine, for example. But one of the true classics is, oddly enough, Coke. (Preferred over Pepsi due to it's higher concentration of phosphoric acid.)

The technique is simple. Take a nice cold can of Coke. Shake hard, and crack open under the subject's nose, just after having suffocated them for a few moments, so they are inhaling.

Laugh heartily at their distress, repeat ad libidum. Feel free to try it for yourself. Properly done, it's no more dangerous than ordinary nasal irrigation. (Of course, you should irrigate with clean water afterward, there is a risk of yeast infection.)

Meanwhile, in Europe; people of conscience are shocked enough that they are willing to begin procedures to bring to dock those who ordered, excused, and performed such barberic acts.

European officials and lawyers seek to criminalize former US officials over torture charges amid the reluctance of President Barack Obama.

A number of European authorities and human rights groups have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's failure to press charges against ex-CIA authorities who sanctioned or administered the so-called 'enhanced interrogation methods' to terror suspects, saying that they will make an effort to delve into the torture case under a "universal jurisdiction" code.

Civil rights campaigners say the legal code adopted by some EU countries, authorizes lawyers across the globe to file lawsuits against war criminals, perpetrators of genocides and other human rights offenses, regardless of their country of residence.

In Spain and Germany, lawyers and social liberties activists have brought charges in domestic courts against former US authorities including the ex-defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

I encourage Canada to join the chorus. Some things must not stand.

UPDATE: The Dark Wraith has a few ideas to add to the authenticity of the experience:

To Sean Hannity: Contact me, son. I know a waterboarding method that will rock your world. Let me do that one to you.

Yes, you're going to be stripped naked, and then mocked and otherwise humiliated; but that's not the worst of it, junior: you don't get a blindfold. That's what makes this waterboarding technique so cool. You, yourself, get to watch the action. Some people have said they actually see themselves while it's happening.

Ten seconds in; then I pull you, ask you a question you will most definitely not want to answer on national TV, and if you don't tell me what I want to hear, you get 10 more seconds.

I promise, that first 10 seconds will be the longest of your miserable life. The second 10 seconds will make the first 10 seem like a walk in the park. We'll let the viewing audience do a call-in vote on when we stop if you haven't already cracked on one of the first two pulls. Most definitely, you're not the one who decides the parameters of this game. You have to be powerless, just like the detainees to whom we do these things. Maybe even if you tell me what I want, I'll tell you you're a liar and keep at it. That's how it works with state-sponsored violence.

When we're done, I'll share with you something really important. Even though you might be shaking, even though you might be blubbering like a baby, even though you might be soiling yourself, I'll tell you the big news, and I'll say it like this, right in your ear, just the way the drill sergeants used to tell it to all the boot camp trainees to tear them down so they'd die on command like so many pack animals:

"You, Sean Hannity, ain't nuthin' but a pussy."

UPDATE: for those interested in learning about the International Criminal Court and the possibility of prosecutions under international law, After Downing Street has a suggestion, and some observations you should read for yourself.

One of the best books published in Canada last year is one of the best books published in the United States thus far this year: "The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice," by Erna Paris.

UPDATE: Over at dKos, there's a fundraiser and some thoughtful insights to be found amid the sound and fury. I don't usually go there - their infrastructure and my computer do not get along at all well - but for some reason, this has become a partisan issue. I find that truly amazing - to the extent that I may actually dust off my diary account there and post to that effect.

Some helpful soul regisered a domain - waterboardinghannity.com - for the information and enlightenment of Sean Hannity, featuring several informational videos.

Meanwhile, it occurred to me that if one looks to television to excuse and justify torture (Jack Baur, 24), one can easily find television that makes the opposite case with equal or greater power.

I give you a scene from "La Femme Nikita."


The use of rats is a classic, based on the same principles as the actually authorized technique of placing "stinging insects" into contact with the "subject." I assure you, the only fiction herein are the charactors and dialogue - and perhaps the use of an EEG.

Most professionals find that involuntary cues - struggling, screaming and voiding - more than sufficient to their needs.

There is - or should have been - a solid, ethical, moral foundation for saying something like this to the American people:

"War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'." --GW Bush

But, as he said it in 2003, we may be a tad skeptical. The timeline argues that it's only a "war crime" if the prosecution for "war crimes" is simply another way of separating the "winners" from the "lusers." In other words, just like waterboarding and the whole "Gitmo" experience.

Update - Still nothing from Hannity - the amusement continues here..

Aide: Holder Has Made No Decisions On Prosecuting Bush Officials

Another instance of what's becoming a habit of mine - reactions to the reactions; in this case to the Huffpo story about what, precisely Eric Holder means to do regarding various allegations of criminal actions by the Bush Administration, such as torture, political firings, blowing an entire intelligence network, election rigging... oh, it's a target-rich environment.

And the howls of outrage are hitting a fever pitch.

pepperdude says in comments:


"No TO INVESTIGATIONS, NO TO PROSECUTIONS. A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND A CRIMINALIZING OF POLICY ACTIONS."

Hm. So, it would be legitimate for me to establish a policy of, say, tasering all republicans in the genitals whenever they act out in public? Or what if I were simply to require them to register and wear an armband, so I could round them up should there be "civil unrest?" What if I simply read all their mail, tap their phones and use that information to selectively prosecute people that may be potential political threats or effective critics?

Would that be correct for me as an individual? What if I were a mayor? What if I were a State Governor? What if I were Obama?

See where this argument goes? It doesn't MATTER if torture or illegal detention was a "Policy Action." Obviously, it was. But it cannot be allowed to become a standard policy. That is why we consider it a crime - because of what happens when it DOES become a policy and is accepted as a legitimate tool of the state to be employed against enemies of the state.

There can be no better use of taxpayer money than re-establishing and UNDERLINING the rule of law. All who are not criminally culpable have a common interest in making sure this precedence is erased. With all due deliberation and without prejudice.

Tempting, and satisfying though a little sauce for the gander would be.

About Eric Holder
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eh, Claudus? Arrest Bush 2009

The Raw Story | 'Arrest Bush 2009' plans Inauguration Day protest:

"A group calling itself 'Arrest Bush 2009' has announced its intention to hold a 'Yes We Can Arrest Bush' event in front of the FBI Building in Washington, DC during the Inaugural Parade.

However, coordinator Jose Rodriguez insists, 'It's not a protest; it's a celebratory event.'

Arrest Bush 2009, which is sponsored by the Washington Peace Center, After Downing Street, and Shoes For Bush, is demanding that Bush be arrested for war crimes and for lying to the American people."

It's also interesting to observe that the Bush Administration has managed to extend international law - in a morbid and disturbing way - by establishing the idea of "extraordinary rendition," and asserting the right to arrest fugitive individuals regardless of whether the sovereign government would permit it.

I wryly observe that even a small power can contemplate such an operation. And I would imagine that the Secret Service is contemplating that contemplation. One does wonder, however, what position they will take should they become aware of it as an operational possibility.

Eh, Claudius?

Arresting Valentine 2-SideTemplate T-Shirt by webcarve

"Unquestionably Torture" - and therefore, War Crimes.

Jonathan Turley speculates about the necessity - not the possiblity, but the NECESSITY of dragging the United States before an international War Crimes tribunal.



This is starting to make Rove's sudden absence even more interesting. It certainly adds to my speculational resources!

Little needs be said, other than circulate this widely.

In the matter of Shoemaker v. Seidel; Court of public opinion; The Hon. Bugs Bunny Presiding.

Thanks in part to it being April, Autism Awareness Month, the Neurodiversity Weblog has managed to set of a minor firestorm, both within and increasingly outside of the core Autism blogging community. But not all by themselves.

They had help from an unlikely source in bringing wider attention to the post which in the normal course of events, would have remained unnoticed by the great majority and certainly widely ignored within the blogging community of the Law, though the author, Kathleen Seidel is well-known within the Autism community.

The story itself is about a particular settlement in vaccine court, which is being cited by "mercury moms" as being "proof" that mercury really does cause autism, though it was judged as being possible in this quite particular case and Vaccine Court standards do not rise to even the "balance of probability" standards of ordinary civil court.

neurodiversity weblog: The Commerce in Causation:

"News outlets have been brimming with the story of Poling v. HHS — the first Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) claim included in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) that has resulted in an award to petitioners. The case first attracted widespread attention on February 25, when Evidence of Harm author David Kirby issued a triumphant proclamation of the award on the Huffington Post. This was followed the next day by Mr. Kirby’s publication of the partially-redacted text of a theretofore confidential U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report, which recommended compensation to Miss Hannah Poling due to the likelihood that a vaccine reaction aggravated a maternally-inherited metabolic disorder and led to development of a seizure disorder."

The article goes on to examine the economic motives of one particular player in this somewhat sad and misleading tale in the usual dispassionate impersonally merciless way Neurodiversity is known for. The article reveals that there is another peculiartity of Vaccine Court - council is paid regardless of outcome.

And the council in this case is the same as in many, many, MANY other cases.

This storm of publicity surrounding Poling v. HHS has prominently featured career vaccine-injury attorney Mr. Clifford Shoemaker — a founding member of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding Petitioners’ Steering Committee, counsel to the Poling family, and long-time business associate of Dr. Mark Geier.

Now, this would not embarrass any ordinary attorney; a specialty is something that you get rewarded for doing because you are very, very good at it. It's what lets you eat steak instead of rice and beans, and that's something worth having known, even if you are very very good at something that many folks would consider kind of - well, grasping, opportunistic and mercenary, like say, "Ambulance Chasing."

But Seidel 's article reveals that if Mr. Clifford Shoemaker had to rely on making successful personal injury tort claims in a court of law with the usual standards of evidence, and on a contingency fee - he'd probably need a second job.

Over the last 18 months, he's 7 for 15, but either way, he gets paid. Now, you might wonder if that is because he doesn't feel the need to be selective - considering he gets paid either way. That was my initial thought. Cynical, perhaps; opportunistic, of course - but not presumptive of incompetence.

But to "deal with" Seidel he decided a quick and dirty variant of a SLAPP suit was in order.

He had Seidel served with a subpoena that - well aside from it's obvious tactical and punitive character, also serves to inadvertently, but clearly demonstrate the reason he's working in this "sheltered workshop" of the Law. If you don't wish to read the whole, Paragraph 9 is a howler; while paragraph five clearly indicates that he has at least mastered the copy function in a browser - it's contents being neurodiversity's blogroll!

In the inimitable words and tones of Tweety Bird: "He don't KNOW me vewwy well, DO he?"

Siedel's response is a masterpiece of classic aspergean reasoning - and demonstrates a far better grasp of both the relevant law and the relevant political climate than that of the supposed professional

Compare the subpoena to Sidel's pro se "motion to quash." It's the difference between an elegant and spare recorder solo - and a TAPE recorder solo.

Quite aside from your position regarding the causation of autism and who may be responsible for it, which person would you want drafting a brief in support of your cause?

Indeed, which person would you want working at your law firm? I raise a toast to the imaginary firm of "Dawson And Seidel"

It's not an entirely silly idea, is it?

Related Reading Update:
New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Abuse of Process: Blogger, Unrelated to Action, Hit With Subpoena

Great article and links to other blog reactions.

Nobody's Life, Liberty or Property...

"...Is safe while congress is in session."

Forwarded to me with the request that I pass it on. Which I surely will do.

http://blog.absolutearts.com/

From: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Subject: "Promoting" Orphan Works
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:28:51 -0400

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Yesterday ( Thurs. Mar. 13, 08) the House subcommittee on Intellectual
Property held their first hearing on new Orphan Works legislation.
Note the title:

"Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests
of Copyright Owners and Users"

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
Balance, however doesn't seem to be part of the Orphan Works
juggernaut. Indeed, after this hearing, we can no longer assume that
the U.S. Copyright Office is an advocate for the protection of
creators' rights. As they wrote on page 14 of their original Orphan
Works Report:

"If our recommendation resolves users' concerns in a satisfactory way,
it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works
situation." (our emphasis)

But how can any copyright law be "comprehensive" if it makes millions
of copyrights, no matter how valuable, available to users, no matter
how worthy, under a system that would introduce permanent uncertainty
into the business lives of creators?

Private Sector Registries

Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this
legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial
registries. On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright
Office warned us that under their plan any work not registered with a
private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it
was created.

This means you would not only have to register your published work,
but also:

— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family
photos, home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.

This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the
total creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyright
protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from
the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries,
letters and family photos of the average citizen.

But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be
covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain
coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal"
to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.

The Registration Paradox: By conceding that their proposals would make
potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office
proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect"
work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it
on a publicly searchable registry. This would:

— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the
Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.

Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce
copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money"
to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works,
you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than
give you a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor
infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then
embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in
Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or
other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the
infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the
work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense. This will be
the end result of trying to "resolve the users' concerns" at the
expense of time-tested copyright law.

Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international
copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill
would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded
personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more
slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental
rights we currently take for granted.

We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences
of this radical copyright proposal.

— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators'
Partnership

Please post or forward this email in its entirety to any interested party
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the
IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

I suggest that you contact your representatives immediately with your concerns about this matter. This is the worst sort of "privatization," where a real and useful service is replaced by a money-making scheme that will do less, cost far more, and bury every individual and small business that has any intellectual property under a snowstorm of probably quite useless paperwork, while giving all the "passive compliance" advantages to potential data thieves.

Under this law, Pepsi could replicate Coke and every single frame from every single film will have to be individually protected - for a fee.

Frankly, I think the very idea is obviously corrupt. Certainly it is practically impossible for individual creators or small businesses to adequately protect their works - since there's no possible way for them to afford to prosecute offenders. Recovery, you see, is capped.

The obvious remedy would be for the US entertainment industry to relocate north or south of the border, where the Berne Copyright Convention would still apply, and US commercial and constitutional law would require it's enforcement. Same for small creators, who could incorporate in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else with an online application form.

And of course, at that point, well, actual relocation seems probable - given the very portability of the digital arts themselves and the communications capability of the web. For myself, I could live and work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, and I'm starting to become rather indifferent to patriotic appeals, considering the rising cost of patriotism these days.

I would find it much easier to be patriotic about a homeland in which my home and livelihood were actually secured by my taxes, rather than made available to the highest bidder by people my tax dollars pay for.

Rumsfeld Flees France Fearing Arrest

Of course, the French did not catch him. But then, the unresolved situation as it stands is so very much more elegant than the potential unpleasantness and paperwork involved in actually catching and prosecuting him, which would have allowed Bush to do something.

This situation leaves the White House impotent - and leaves Rumsfeld an official fugitive from justice.

Of course, the honorable thing would have been to INSIST that the matter be resolved before a court. But under Napoleonic Law, you have to establish your innocence, rather than our system, where the prosecution has to prove your guilt.

I can understand why Rummy might prefer a venue with different standards.

A FISA court, for instance.

clipped from wor.ldne.ws Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest. US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years. Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

Nukes Preplaced, not misallocated.

Smirking Chimp: "Nobody should fall for a story that those six (yeah, it was first reported as five, but now the original military whistleblowers have told Army Times it was six) nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that were flown in launch position on a B-52 from Minot, ND to Barksdale, LA, were put on there inadvertently."

The author speaks authoritatively why it could not possibly be a mistake. So why WERE six nukes flown to Barksdale AFB LA to join the other B52's already pre-positioned there for possible
middle-east missions? Oh, yeah, and what were the other B-52's loaded with when THEY arrived?

Let's go to the horse's mouth:

Barksdale Air Force Base, La. Home to the 2nd Bomb Wing and the Mighty 8th Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana is situated on over 22,000 acres of land in the NW corner of Louisiana. Barksdale warriors and B-52s have a proud tradition serving both at home and abroad in support of the Global War on Terrorism; they have played vital roles in combat operations supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Air Combat Command Mission

Air Combat Command is the primary force provider of combat airpower to America's warfighting commands. To support global implementation of national security strategy, ACC operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management and electronic-combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications and intelligence systems, and conducts global information operations.As a force provider, ACC organizes, trains, equips and maintains combat-ready forces for rapid deployment and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of peacetime air sovereignty and wartime air defense. ACC numbered air forces provide the air component to U.S. Central and Southern Commands with Headquarters ACC serving as the air component to U.S. Northern and Joint Forces Commands. ACC also augments forces to U.S. European, Pacific and Strategic Commands.

And in a serendipitous discovery, we learn that the 8th Air Force has an odd taste in heroes:

Barksdale AFB welcomes WWII pilot

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- Joachim Hoehne, author of Glory Refused...The memoirs of a Teenage Rocket Pilot of the Third Reich, was the guest speaker for the local Claire Chennault Flight of the Order of Daedalians meeting Aug. 16 at the Barksdale Club.

But then, if and when the 2nd Bomber Wing of the 8th Air Force launches a first strike nuclear attack on - one supposes - Iran, they WILL "just be following orders," so perhaps that provides some insight as to why a former bomber-interceptor pilot would be addressing our Air Force Heroes.

After all, they were so woefully disappointed in their choice of inspirational religious leader, Ted Haggard, who's church was a stone's throw from the Air Force Acadamy. Who now will they turn to for a stiffening of resolve as they face the potential of being sent to rain hell upon the ungodly in their great Crusade (Bush's unfortunate choice of words) against the Terrorist State of Iran? Who might best personify the dutiful air-warrior, than a former ME-163 crotch rocketeer?

read more | digg story

tag: Air Force, Nuclear Weapons, Cruise Missiles, Fallout

Canada's Harper Talks Tough over the Northwest Passage

The Northwest Passage, once a disappointing vision, is now a commercially viable passage for part of the year - and it's a straight shot from Europe to the Pacific Rim.

Aside from that fairly impressive silver lining to the cloud of Global Warming, the retreat of the ice is revealing all kinds of newly available resources, from fishing stocks to energy reserves, and Canada's Steven Harper is staking a claim on it. - post by graphictruth

Canada Tightens Grip on Disputed Arctic - The Huffington Post Annotated

TORONTO — Canada announced plans Monday to increase its Arctic military presence in an effort to assert sovereignty over the Northwest Passage _ a potentially oil-rich region the United States claims is international territory.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said six to eight patrol ships will guard what he says are Canadian waters. A deep water port will also be built in a region the U.S. Geological Survey estimates has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.

"Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it," Harper said. "It is no exaggeration to say that the need to assert our sovereignty and protect our territorial integrity in the North on our terms have never been more urgent."

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has criticized Harper's promise to defend the Arctic, claiming the Northwest Passage as "neutral waters." But Wilkins declined to comment on Monday, said U.S. Embassy spokesman James Foster.

...

Patrol ships with steel-reinforced hulls will be able to go through ice a foot thick and will be armed and equipped with helicopter landing pads to accommodate new helicopters being purchased by the Canadian military.

Harper said the government opted for a more versatile fleet than heavy icebreakers because there is little need to patrol the area during the winter when ice prohibits shipping through the route.

Helicopter equipped patrol craft have a rather pointed antisubmarine and anti-commerce capability. The power to destroy is the power to tax and regulate and Canada clearly is making that statement with this and it's planned new deep-water arctic port.

One immense concern for Canada would be heavy tanker traffic, with the attendant environmental risks and resource impacts, which could be hugely magnified within the strait, and access to new fisheries could make a critical difference to the Canadian fishing industry.

Some claim international law is not on Canada's side in this issue, but I've noticed of late that International law tends to be on the side that has the ability and willingness to enforce their interpretation.

And that's yet another unfortunate precedent set by the Bush White House; essentially other nations the right to interpret or ignore international law when it would be against their interests.

tag: Northwest Passage, Seven Harper, Law of the Sea, global warming, northern development, Canadian Resources