What the Gubmint is NOT!

It is not your daddy, your mommy, your bank, your HMO, your 401K, your IRA, your baby sitter, your sugar daddy. It’s time to relearn some self sacrifice and taken care of your OWN business.

A note to the House Minority leader

Sent this to Rep Bohner via his website(http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact)

Could you please call the members of your party in the house to account?  I have said the same to speaker pelosi, and honor demands I say the same to you.  Your party is behaving badly.
I am not a Democrat, but rather a Republican who left the party after 20+ years to become a Libertarian.
Sincerely
William R Hunteman
USN (RET)

A note to the Speaker nancy Pelosi

Sent this to her via her website (http://speaker.house.gov/contact/).  Not really expecting an answer

will you please call the members of your party in the house to account? Specifically a) refusal to answer a question honestly and in a straight forward manner
Specifically Rep Wasserman, when on Fox was asked Where the savings were going to come from, where did SHE think they were going to come from to pay for the Health care plan.  Instead of giving an actual answer to the question, even an I don’t know, she instead went off on a tangent that never even remotely answered the question.  This seems to be a hallmark of your party.
Now, I am not ‘Astroturf’ I am a Libertarian who LEFT the Republican party because of their stand or lack of one on Civil Rights.
Not expecting an answers
I remain
William R Hunteman
USN (RET)

The Religious Right: A MINORITY!

So I’m sitting here wondering what in God’s name has happened to the Republican party. I know that that is a target rich statement, but I refer particularly to the Far Right, i.e. the Evangelicals and the overwhelming control they exert over the platform and actions of the RP.

The Eve’s HAVE to be a small minority of the party. Only 15% of Americans identify as ‘Evangelical’ and only 20% say they believe that God ‘favors’ the United States. They don’t appear to be the biggest donors giving to the party – that is I don’t think that they contribute more money than all others combined. So how do they manage to drive the RP in a direction that is increasingly counter-productive from a political standpoint? Do they have something on Chairman Steele?

Am I the only one who thinks that this cannot be a good thing for the RP?

I really would like to hear cogent and coherent thoughts on this.

Explain this to me, conservatives

George Bush, whom many call conservative, has managed to do something interesting.  He has drawn, publically, the ire and criticism of the President of the John Birch Society, arguably one of the most conservative of organization.

 

What appears to have pushed Mr McManus over the edge, was bush’s use of a signing statement regarding the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

“Congress passed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and sent it to the President for his approval. Citing his designation as “commander in chief,” Mr. Bush added a signing statement that voided four sections of the law. “

“The National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress prohibits the use of federal funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s signing statement cancels that sensible directive. With the stroke of his pen, his action also voids protections for whistle-blowers who complain about corruption in government contract work, impedes turning over to Congress intelligence reports, and cancels the creation of a bipartisan commission designed to investigate allegations of waste and mismanagement in federal contract work.”

This is the act of a conservative?  Aren’t conservatives committed to the rule of law?  Isn’t there something that sets out who writes the laws and who executes the laws? Oh yeah, the Constitution.  Funny, I’ve read the Constitution many times now, and I have yet to see ANYTHING that could even remotely be construed as granting the President the authority to ignore the parts of a law he doesn’t like.  He can veto a bill sent to him, but CONSTITUTIONALLY, it is an all or nothing proposition.  He doesn’t get to pick and choose.  Didn’t he (and all of us on this BBS) take an oath or something? Oh Yeah, to UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

 

It seems to me when you disregard something, something you have sworn to defend, you fall out of the support and defend catagory and slide into the enemy catagory.

 

http://www.jbs.org/node/6982

REAL ID – OVERT FACISM IN THE GOOD OL USA

REAL ID is essentially Facism cloaked in 9/11 hysteria. It would not have prevented 9/11.  Fellow ops types and intel weenies back me up on this – REAL ID mirrors almost exactly the internal controls the Soviet Union employed.  Do we REALLY want that HERE?  We seem to have spent so much effort studying the Russians we appear to be trying to become them.  The type of controls imposed by REAL ID are dictatorial, un american, and completely against the stated principles of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals.  In other words, REAL ID is based on fear-mongering.  

Find and contact your state and federal representitives

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Urge the federales to repeal REAL ID

Urge your State government reps to FIGHT implementation of REAL ID

Following from (Sources: EPIC: http://epic.org/press/011108.html

ACLU: http://www.realnightmare.org/

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/media/article_557.shtml

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-healey22jan22,0,5551102.story ) Homeland Security on REAL ID: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1172767635686.shtm

On January 11, the Department of Homeland Security released its final rules on  what states must do to implement REAL ID, the national identification law Congress passed in 2005.  Homeland Security has taken the gloves off. States have until May to accept the  plan. Beginning May 11, 2008, says Homeland Security, residents of states that have not agreed to implement REAL ID will not be allowed to use their state drivers licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings. They can use a U.S. passport or possibly other documents in some circumstances, but they must  expect to “suffer delays due to the requirement for enhanced security screening.” In other words, take your shoes off, pal, and get in that LONG LONG line over there.

States that agree to comply may be granted extensions of several years to fully implement REAL ID. But when REAL ID is in place, notes CNET NEWS, in addition to flying and entering federal buildings, “REAL ID could in theory be required for traveling on Amtrak, collecting federal welfare benefits, signing up for Social Security, applying for student loans, interacting with the U.S. Postal Service, entering national parks” as well as purchasing firearms.

In practice, it may be impossible even to get a job or open a bank account without REAL ID. REAL ID is widely expected to become the standard ID for the private sector. And that’s just the start. Homeland Security is already floating additional uses for the cards, including “reducing unlawful employment, voter fraud, and underage rinking,” and monitoring the purchase of over-the-counter medicines. The REAL ID Act explicitly says that REAL IDs shall be required for “any other purposes that the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall determine.” A more open-ended grant of power could not be written.

REAL ID requires all states to make major changes to their driver’s licenses, turning them into police-state national ID cards that will be loaded with sensitive personal information, all of which will be tied together in huge databases. These databases will make it easy to routinely track, monitor, and regulate the movements and activities of all citizens. The cards would also be computer-readable, allowing government and private-sector scanners to collect the personal information on the cards.

The stakes are incredibly high, says former U.S. Congressman and current Libertarian Party National Committee board member Bob Barr.“The massive database that would be created by the REAL ID Act, containing all manner of private information on citizens, is potentially one of the most privacy-invasive laws in the history of our country,” Barr says. “Anything less than scrapping this offensive national identification card law is unacceptable.”

The ACLU points out that the REAL ID “will become tantamount to a license to leave your house,” since it will be required virtually everywhere you go. “The end result could be a situation where citizens’ movements inside their own country are monitored and recorded through these ‘internal passports.’”And so the stage is now set for a massive battle right out of the movie “V For Vendetta”: Big Brother at its most evil and intrusive versus outraged citizens who cherish civil liberties and privacy rights. A true grassroots rebellion against REAL ID is forming. So far, 17 states have passed laws or resolutions rejecting REAL ID: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, llinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.

Twenty-one other states have either introduced legislation or had legislation pass in one chamber opposing REAL ID. But all those states are facing tremendous pressure from the federal government. Like so much recent statist legislation, REAL ID was sneaked into law. It was slipped into a May 2005 emergency-spending bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and provide tsunami relief. Such bills are almost impossible to defeat. It passed the House 368-58 and the Senate unanimously. There was not a single debate on the Act in the Senate, and insufficient discussion in the House. President Bush, who, his spokespersons once said, “does not support a national ID card,” strongly backed it and quickly signed it into law.

There have been attempts to kill the REAL ID beast in Congress. Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to repeal the act, but thus far they have not progressed.

As this battle begins in earnest, state by state, no one should be fooled into thinking REAL ID has anything to do with fighting terrorism. The federal government has pushed for a national ID card for years, well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Previous justifications have included health care, the War on Drugs, protecting children, and controlling immigration. Any excuse, it seems, will do. This is all about massive, Orwellian control of Americans by a federal government run amok.

As Ron Paul said when the bill was introduced in 2005: “National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.”REAL ID is a Real Bad Idea: a giant move towards a 1984-ish police state where the government monitors and controls everything you say and do.

 

Find and contact your state and federal representitives

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Urge the federales to repeal REAL ID

Urge your State government reps to FIGHT implementation of REAL ID 

More on the waterboarding issue

As noted in a previous post, a debate has been ongoing in a forum I am a member of. One of the other members attempted to minimize the severity of waterboarding, noting that it’s actually performed on US Service members who attend  Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion (SERE) training. Here is my reply

Don
It is one thing to go through SERE. I will GUARANTEE you that what was done viz waterboarding at SERE was NOT the same as what is being practiced on the people that the CIA and others are picking up. I understand and acknolwedge that in a situation where you KNOW that they (the inflictors of waterboarding) are NOT going to kill you, that in fact there is only but so far that they can and will go (i.e. SERE) that you can overcome such treatment with self discipline, through training.

THAT is not what is going on right now. As I said previously – and I’ll allow that maybe not as explicitly stated (Although I thought so) , my objections to waterboarding have much less with the fact that suspected terrorists/terrorists are being waterboarded, as they are WE are conducting waterboarding on ANYBODY. So what that air crew etc et al are exposed to a lite version of waterboarding at SERE? (And it IS a lite version. As I alluded to above, a SERE attendee KNOWS that no one is going to kill him/her. A SERE student KNOWS that they (the staff) will and can ONLY GO SO FAR.  Can a SERE instructor rape a female trainee? Not on your life.)  That has nothing at all to do with my point.

The point I am making, and I guess not very well, is that when you blur the lines we (Americans, especially Military) operate under and allow, and in the case of this administration implicitly/explicitly encourage bluring the lines, it becomes easier and easier to justify ever increasingly brutal and increasingly inhumane actions until we are no better than our opponants, and even, one could argue, worse because we should and do know better.  Other than the fact that they are human beings, I could give a rat’s @$$ about pretty much the entire population of the middle east, no matter WHAT their faith. They refuse to act like rational humans. My concern is not really what is done to them, but what WE are doing.

Saying that waterboarding is nothing more than unpleasant MAY BE TRUE IN THE ABSTRACT.  But let us consider Chief’s Initiations from say 10-15 years ago. I think no one would say that Chiefs are brutal inhumane bastards. BUT. We still had, not a lot but just a few instances where a few e-7s, 8s and 9s went over the lines. I won’t psychobabble about the psychology involved other than to say this: When you have a dominance situation, and you begin to remove or negate constraining factors, and/or loosen inhibitions, you ALWAYS get a negative spiral of increasingly bad behavior. The more stress or violent/intense emotion you inject or are subjected to, the faster and deeper said spiral goes. Simply put: Chief’s initiation, plus alchohol resulted in slugs getting treated badly, to the point of injury and criminal behavior. This cannot be argued. Was documented.  A SMALL number of initiations got out of hand.

So considering this, what constraints are there on the interrogators? Ain’t the law. Someone noted above that laws on CIA ops are vague to give tacitcal flexibility. Professionalism of CIA interrogators? Aren’t Chiefs considered the Acme, the ne plus ultra of professionalism? And yet WE had episodes. Is it the belief that these terrorists are deserving of protection under the law? Oh, yeah, we’ve said that they don’t fall under our laws, don’t fall under the Geneva conventions, that their status is ‘vague’. I was always taught that EVERYONE was subject to some law somewhere. We go overseas, not only are we subject to US Federal Law as well as the UCMJ, but we are also subject to the host nations laws.

So we have muddied the waters. As far as I can tell there are NO restraints on the behavior of the CIA interrogators. And there is even LESS when we outsource ‘interrogations’ to third world dictatorships whose secret police don’t even attempt to behave along civilized norms.

An aside on the outsourcing of interrogation. If we have to send these guys to said third world nations, because they’ll do ‘what has to be done’, aren’t we really saying that This is just too close to or over the line legally at least if not morally? Seems so to me.

So in such an environment what is to keep the interrogators from going over the line from an action from just being uncomfortable to where it becomes potentially or actually deadly? Or torture? Better not to go there in the first place. The first sin is the hardest. After that they all get progressively easier.

When we start equivocating about whether or not something is or isn’t torture, what we are really doing is rationalizing a descent into brutality. Because what isn’t ok today, can become ok tomorrow, if we just ignore that twinge of conscience.

I cannot remember who said it, but I’m minded of the saying “All it takes for evil to trimuph is for good men to do nothing” Ultimately I’m not concerned about the health and welfare etc of the suspects. I’m worried about the souls of our people. The soul of our Nation.

More on torture

I wonder.  How many people who justify Waterboarding have actually been waterboarded? Only guy I know who may have been waterboarded comes out strongly against it – CAPT John S McCain.

I think that, perhaps, saying that waterboarding is being included as a courtesy is just more chaff and misdirection by people who want to take a path that has the illusion of working, which it doesn’t, and who want to, instead of taking the right path would rather go down a morally bankrupt path because a) A talking head (Bush) says it’s ok and b) they secretly relish the idea that those ‘b@stards are having this done to them’

Ultimately my objection to waterboarding is moral and I think pragmatic. The pragmatic is simple. One, Torture doesn’t work. Not cosistently. And you do not have any real way to sort out how much is just what you want to hear, and how much is actually useful truthful information.  Two, the practitioners of torture ALWAYS end up creating more converts and recruits AGAINST themselves. In other words they do more harm to themselves by practicing torture than they do good to/for themselves.

Now my moral objections are to me more important.  It’s the slippery slope concept.  One you cross a moral abyss, one you take that first step into behavior that is morally questionable, you become like Luke Skywalker.
Inviting the ‘dark side’ to step in and giving it more power. The next expedient step into morally questionable behavior is easier to take and easier to justify. And the next easier still. And eventually you become as bad as, if not worse, than the very people you are fighting against.  I just don’t want Americans to go down that slippery slope.

There was a statement I read somewhere in the Navy long ago, I think it was an instruction on ethical behavior. Anyway it struck me as a very good yardstick for ethical behavior. “Avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.”  If you think it looks stinky, it IS stinky. And so, if it LOOKS like Torture, IT IS TORTURE.

Torture is torture. I say again that if you think waterboarding is merely uncomfortable, then go have someone do it to you.  Again, the only guy I know of that may have had it done to him, is against it.

Now, feebly trying to turn my argument around by saying “So, how many US warriors has the broadcast of your ignorance “inadvertantly” killed today? ” is evidence of the frailty of your position.  No matter how many people might have been killed by standing against torture, that number is still less than how many have been killed by the number of people who stand against us now, because we have engaged in torture. So how many American soldiers sailors marines and airmen are dead because YOU support torture?

You know, it is interesting how many people justify and excuse the use of torture.

How can we, as military people, consider waterboarding anything other than torture?

I am a member of a BBS/Forum for professional Navy Senior NCOs.  There is a wide variety of points of view, from far left to far right.  One of our discussions that keeps popping up, as it is with many people and groups, regards waterboarding in particular, and the use of torture by the US in general.  Recently the topic came up again in response to a Navy Judge Advocate General (Military Lawyer ) resigning over a Senior JAG comments regarding waterboarding. ( see http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158983,00.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl)

Below is my response. 

I cannot believe what I am reading here. It astounds me. That men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic, the genesis for a country that constantly and consistantly SAYS that it is committed to the Rule of law, and indeed castigates many other countries that fail to meet that standard, would say that torture, and make no mistake about it, waterboarding IS torture, is ok as long as it’s enemy combatants, or terrorists or those other guys, baffles me.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now I could dissertate about my thoughts of just who the Constitution applies to, but bottom line it applies to all US Citizens – i.e. Americans. Now do NOT mistake me for a left leaning peace at all costs, don’t hurt them liberal. I am most assuradly NOT. I believe if you go to war, win it. But I cannot see where if we do what they do, we are any better than they are.

To put it another way. The Japanese in WWII conducted live vivisections on Chinese and North Koreans to examine the effectiveness of their biological warfare programs. The Nazis conducted all sorts of medical experiments on Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Christians et all. Japanese POW camps were a study in man’s capacity for inhumanity. Josef Stalin wasn’t a saint either, witness the treatment of the Kulaks. The point of this, what ties all of those groups together is that the victims of their cruel and inhuman treatment was this – the victims were not human or were semi-human, barbarians, etc.

And let us not forget the Slaves of the United States during the era of slavery (and even after 1865). What was the justification of permitting this horrid institution? Simply this – blacks were not human, or were semi-human.

And also let us not forget how we treated the real or at least first, Americans – The Indians. Trail of tears. Need I say more? And what was the justification for this? They (the indians) were not human or were semi-human.

And so I come to this place were I see that we don’t call the Victims of waterboarding sub-human or semi-human, but merely barbarians or terrorists and that THAT label is the one that justifies treating these people as less than human. If someone treated an animal (dog, cat, etc) in the same manner, i.e. waterboarding, then everyone would be up in arms about it, screeching to the high heavens that such treatment is inhuman and inhumane.

Can you not see my confusion? Can you not see the dichotomy, the utter implausibility of such a stance? Before anyone takes off down the yellow brick road of defending waterboarding and other forms of torture on the grounds that IT IS JUSTIFIED IN THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL SECURITY, I must ask you to indulge me in this: Read what I am saying, all of it, the black things called words, and do not insert words or ideas that are not there. Do not ‘read in’ or interpret beliefs that I have not specifically articulated. If I haven’t said it, then I HAVE NOT SAID IT.

Anyway, as to National Security ‘NEEDING’ us to pursue torture as a viable option. PLEASE, give me a break. We are supposedly the more technologically advanced, richest, brightest nation on earth. And the ONLY way we can get someone to talk is to break all of our ideals and torture people? If that’s our only alternative, we got bigger problems. We need to hang it up. Oh, yes and BTW, there is far too much research and actual experience that, at least to rational people, proves that all you really get from torture, the information at any rate, is what you want to hear. That is NOT the same thing as truth. Torture is ineffieciant and ineffective.

Now someone will most likely trot out the argument that “Well, they’ve been doing this since 9/11 and we haven’t had a Terrorist Attack on American Soil since”. Well, here is my take on that. There are a couple of reasons why AQ et al haven’t attacked us on home soil since.

1. They haven’t had to. We have obliged them by sending tens of thousands of victims over there to them. Made it easier. Now I am not saying we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanstan. We made the mess in Iraq, and as many have said “You make the mess, you clean it up” I am also not belittling our brave men and women over there. My brothers and sisters in Arms are precious to me. They are the best people I know. What I am saying is this: Afghanistan was the right move.

But we moved most of our troops out of Afghanistan (Which was going well up until we a) reduced our presence and b) pimped the job out to NATO), we sidelined the real war on terror. Iraq was NOT THEN part of the war on terror. I was on active duty then, and on a battle staff. That war HAD nothing to do with the war on terror. I won’t go in to what it WAS and/or why we went it. What I AM saying is that Iraq a) was the WRONG move and b) because we went in there, WE MADE it part of the war on terror.

2. It is an implausible argument that torture has been the instrament that has prevented AQ from attacking the US on home soil. The overwhelming majority of who we’ve nabbed and tortured have been small fry. And this is amazingly similar to our efforts on the war on drugs. And again, amazingly, we seem to be having the same level of success….

There just isn’t any real evidence that torture commited by us or at our behest has really stopped ANYTHING. If anything, it (torture) has given a great many of former supporters and those who were neutral towards us, a causus belli against us. In other words, our use of torture has been, to the Militant and disenfranchised Muslism community what 9/11 was to us – a major stimulus to recruiting.

3. To me this is the most compelling argument against the plausibility of torture being the instrament that has prevented another attack on US soil. AQ is simply not effectively organized or structured to act in a cohesive and operationally effective organization. A) they are more like a terrorism idea franchise rather than an effective terrorist organization. Want to know about effective terrorist organizations? PLO, IRA, Red Brigades, to name a few. AQ, by comparison, are a bunch of keystone cops that got lucky on 9/11.

The reason that 9/11 was successful? AL QUIDA GOT LUCKY BECAUSE WE WERE LAZY, OVERCONFIDENT AND STUPID. PERIOD. Read up on what happened and HOW it was able to happen. The 19 terrorists on those airplanes were not the brightest bulbs in the box. Neither are any of the rest of the group. They just got lucky. Reason that they haven’t done anything here (In USA) since, is a) We disrupted their freedom to maneuver and operate, via Afghanistan operations and b) we actually follow some of our security rules now.

It ain’t that we’ve garnered enough useful intelligence that we’ve been able to interdict AQ. It’s that the type of person attracted to ANY form of militant fundamentalist terrorist group is unstable, and unable to consistantly operate in an effective and structured manner long enough and with enough intelligence to actually plan, organize and execute anything other than what we are seeing in Iraq, and now increasingly in the one area (Afghanistan) where we were actually winning the war.

Final comment on waterboarding and torture.  If it wasn’t torture, would we outsource it, so we can appear (to ourselves) that we aren’t the ones doing it?  Why do we have to send victims (I won’t say innocent victims, because not all, in fact I believe most that we’ve nabbed are dirty to some extent) to third world dictatorships of one stripe or another, to have them do the dirty work? If WB is ‘ok’ why do none trumpet to the world “Sure, I’m doing it! I’m proud to be doing it!”

Would you want to tell your 10 year old daughter or son that you were sending people off, fathers, sons, some of whom are innocent of all alleged changes, to be tortured? Would you want to tell said 10 year old the specifics of what you do to people when you waterboard them? What would your mother say about your doing that?

Now, just to REALLY confuse you, there are actually some instances where I’d condone torture. On the battlefield when you have gotten ahold of someone, and you honestly have a) reason to believe that there is an Imminent threat to your troops and b) reason to believe that this person may or does have knowledge that will allow you to defend your troops and c) absolutely no time for any other approach, then do what you gotta do.

But make no mistake about it, the situation where we are doing waterboarding and other forms of torture fit none of those three situations.

If it is so vital to get the information, why not simply use Sodium Pentathol, Sodium Amatyl etc? They work better than torture.

I know that many who will read this post will feel compelled to call me a liberal, a do gooder, naive, unamerican etc.  I do not worry about that.  When someone who condones behavior that is so fundamentally Unamerican, and indeed Inhuman, well, I consider the source.    

For those who think that they know what waterboarding is, I’ve suggest that you review the definition/explanation from http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Waterboarding-Definition-Wikipedia24dec05.htm. There are several different varieties of interrogation techniques referred to as waterboarding. In the medieval form of waterboarding, a victim was strapped to a board and tipped back or lowered into a body of water until he or she believed that drowning was imminent. The subject was then removed from the water and revived. If necessary the process was repeated. There are other forms, but all of them have in common that the victim almost drowns but is rescued or re-animated just before death occurs. The technique is designed to be both psychological and physical. The psychological effect is that the victim is led to believe that he or she is being executed. This reinforces the interrogator’s control and makes the victim experience mortal fear. The physical effects are extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints on the struggling victim. A similar technique was applied to punish scolds and detect supposed witches. In a trial by ordeal called “dunking” or “ducking,” supposed witches were immersed into a vat of water or pond, and taken out after some time, when the victim was given the opportunity to confess. If she confessed, she was killed; if she did not confess, she was submerged again. This process was usually repeated until the victim either drowned or submitted herself to execution in another way (hanging or, rarely, burning). Current uses of waterboarding The current practice of waterboarding was known previously as “the water cure.” It involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely [but quite possible] actually to die if this is done by skilled practitioners. [No definition of skilled practitioners provided by Wikipedia, but it should probably be found in close proximity to executioner or bully. Required qualities for such a practitioner would be a rather low self esteem and a desire to see others suffer. These qualities are regularly found in armed services or guards]. Waterboarding may be used by captors who wish to impose anguish without leaving marks on their victims as evidence. This is a technique demonstrated on U.S. military personnel by other U.S. military personnel when they are being taught to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture (see SERE below). On Nov. 18, 2005, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA’s “waterboarding” technique as follows in an article posted on the ABC News web site: “The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess. ‘The person believes they [sic] are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,’ said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.” [1] Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated “a number of people” who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including “water-boarding,” in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. An interview for the New Yorker states: He argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn’t take showers, and panicked when it rained. “The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,” he said. [2]

Once an Honorable Marine, and the SECNAV, now nothing more than just another politician…yet another disappointment to vets.

These are the letters I just sent to Webb and Warner

Some backstory here first.  If the Senate goes into Recess (i.e. adjourn for a bit) they are not in session. When that is so, the law gives the President, Whom I do not like, a reasonable option to fill vacancies, especially those that are vitally needed, and/or which might find resistance from the legislature branch, had the person been submitted formally for the post.  Now, recess appointments are nothing new. Neither side likes to admit it, but they have both taken advantage of it. 

Now we have the democraps engaging in parlimentary legalist proceduralistic ‘tricks’ to say they are NOT in recess, they are THERE. Well lets’ see how and who was actually there, shall well?

With Webb wielding gavel, Senate meets for 9 seconds

By LAURIE KELLMAN

Washington, DC – The House was quiet as a mouse the day after Christmas. But across the Capitol, the Senate was operating in an unusually efficient manner in its ongoing power struggle with President Bush.A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va he , prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats. Without the pro forma session, the Senate would be technically adjourned, allowing the president to install officials without Senate confirmation.The business of blocking Bush’s recess appointments was serious. It represents an institutional standoff between Congress and the president that could repeat itself during Congress’ vacations for the remainder of Bush’s presidency.

In such situations, pro forma sessions also could give Bush some political cover on popular legislation he doesn’t want to sign. When Congress is holding pro forma sessions and is not formally adjourned, a bill sent to a president automatically becomes law in 10 days unless he vetoes it.

That could be the fate of two bills Congress passed last week. One growing out of the Virginia Tech massacre makes it harder for people with mental illness records to buy guns. The other makes it easier for journalists and others to obtain government documents through the Freedom of Information Act.

In practice, Wednesday’s pro forma process was almost comical.

“Good morning!” Webb, sporting a respectful tie and jacket, called to the floor staff assembled just for the occasion in an otherwise sleepy and chilly Capitol. One clerk congratulated Webb on being 30 seconds early, thrice the amount of time it would take to complete the Senate’s work for the day.

Climbing to the president’s chair, Webb took the gavel and banged it.

“The Senate will come to order,” he intoned, reading from a two-line script to a floor empty of other senators but witnessed from the gallery by one reporter and about a half dozen staffers. “Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Friday, December 28th, 2007 at 10 a.m.”

His work done, Webb left. The floor staff reported to those in the gallery overhead that the session had lasted nine seconds.

“I didn’t appoint myself ambassador to a tropical nation,” Webb, a former Navy secretary, novelist and TV journalist, quipped to a reporter afterwards.

Before Congress left last week, Democrats scheduled 11 pro forma sessions to fill the void until the Senate returns to regular session on Jan. 22. The purpose was to stop Bush from using the constitutional power presidents hold under the Constitution to bypass Senate confirmation and unilaterally install his nominees in office when Congress is adjourned.

Democrats wanted to block one such recess appointment in particular: Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Counsel. Bush nominated Bradbury for the job and asked the Senate to remove the “acting” in his title.

Democrats would have none of it, complaining Bradbury had signed two secret memos in 2005 saying it was OK for the CIA to use harsh interrogation techniques _ some call it torture _ on terrorism detainees.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Bush refused to rule out appointing Bradbury to the job if the Senate formally adjourned. So, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session with pro forma meetings every two or three days.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/vaapwire.apx.-content-articles-AP-2007-12-26-0039.html

Mr Warner
Below is a letter I just posted to Mr Webb. As his fellow Senator from Virginia, I wished to present my views on him, WRT the (To me at least) dishonorable event this 26th day of December. To wit, his gaveling in and out of a session in a mere nine seconds, to an empty chamber. Simply to prevent Bush from appointing a recess appointment.
Now my gripes about what he did are below.  My gripes with YOU and your fellow Republican Senators are as follows.  You did nothing.  No Republican Senator was there to protest, to attempt to force something, begin some attempt to force the whole senate to come to order. SOMETHING. You did NOTHING! What does that say about the Republican Party, that they just sit it out on vacation.  They allow the absurdity of the Majority party calling to order for NINE SECONDS! Were you, the Republican party, outwitted?  Couldn’t round up enough members to do SOMETHING rather than just acquiese to the event. Could the ‘vaunted republican party’ come up with NOTHING to do?  Have you all just GIVEN UP? If so, please do resign/retire immediately.  There needs to be room for us Libertarians to move in. We have much work to do, seeing as how NO ONE SEEMS TO BE DOING ANY OF THE WORK THAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO!
Mr Webb
I was once proud to serve under you, when you were SECNAV.  I was also proud to be a “Veteran for Webb” and even drove people to the polls because your campaign asked me to.  I was proud to stand up for you and to campaign for you and to give my support to you.  You said you represented something different.  You made us think that you weren’t like the rest of the politicians out there.  You were a vet and you had honor.  You were a Marine, and had principles.

Well, your recent performance on the senate floor gives the lie to all of the above.  I am ashamed to have ever supported you.  The parlimentary trick of calling the senate into ’session’ for nine seconds, just to get over on the President, was and is a dishonorable means to a questionable end.  It is just the sort of thing that a politician would do. 

Now, before you sideline/roundfile this as another neocon/republican/bushie democrat bashing, let me point out that a) I am a Libertarian, and mostly so due to the past 7 years
b) I do not support bush, nor most of his policies, and damn few of his appointments
c) I was and am against the war in Iraq, and was so when I was on active duty. I don’t think we can just pull out in one fell swoop. We made a mess over there, and it’s on us to clean it up.
d) I am a retired Navy Chief (1982-2005). I was in on the opening days of OIF (Red Sea Strike Force). I did my duty, and I think did it honorably. I respect those who serve and who have served, and grieve over the needless deaths in Iraq.  I knew the war was preordained in March of 2002.  We were told there would be 6 carriers in the Gulf in the Spring of 2003 by an admiral who would know.  As a former secnav, you would know the immense logistic challenges and the associated timelines to make that happen. So it was a con job to get the Iraq war going. So be it. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.

I put the above out there so that you can see I am NOT a Bush fan/supporter. I WAS a Webb supporter, up until the point at which you voluntarily participated in a political trick, which may have been ‘legal’ but was no way a Marine Officer might be expected to operate.  That was nothing more than we the people have learned to expect from those people in government.  End runs, parlimentary tricks, breaking faith with doing the right thing.  If you (the democratic party) were going to stay in session, couldn’t you all have at least done some actual WORK? Isn’t that what we the people PAY YOU FOR? To accomplish things? And not to engage in ‘mine is bigger’ with the president.

No longer a Webb Supporter
I remain
William Hunteman
Libertarian
The Party of PRINCIPLE

Run over to your window, open it, and yell as loud as you can “I am mad as hell and Im NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!”