Stop! Don't shoot! (Batente! Não dispare!)

What's up with that Brazilian guy that got mowed down Friday in London? I mean when the cops say "stop" and you jump the turnstyles and run on anyway, what do you expect to happen? The cops are going to stop chasing you and let you go? Puh-lease!

How sad!

I can't wait to hear the rest of the story! (Not that I'm trying to sound like Paul Harvey, by the way.)

Funny Things

Today, I got a mass-email from Senator Libby Dole asking me to support a speedy confirmation process for John Roberts in the Senate, who she says is already under attack from liberal special interests groups. My first instinct was, "How the hell did I get this email from Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee?" Nextly, the RSCC mustn't know I am my very own, individual liberal special interest group! HA!

I believe ANY nominee for a life-long position (especially as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) must expect, and demand, to be asked tough questions and answer them honestly and forthright. Every American deserves to know the position of the nominee on the issues that impact them today and potential questions arising in the future, especially those relating to important individual civil liberties, such as homosexual rights and the continued rising tide of terrorism.

So, in response to Senator Dole's request, I will encourage my ultra-conservative Republican senators to ask the tough questions and demand appropriate and telling responses from the nominee; it's only fair!

I love it!

Roberts, or the Ayotollah?

According to what I know, Georgie should have just nominated the Ayotollah to the Supreme Court!

What a disgrace! The road WILL get bumpy from here on out now!

Georgie's Big Announcement

Who the hell is Edith Clement? CNN seems to think she's the nominee. I looked up her up and basically the secretive lives of federal judges limited my understanding of her to being a judge on the Fifth Circuit of Appeals (down in Louisiana), and she's probably a hardline conservative (look at who's doing the nominating).

Ugh! Who knows? We've got until 9pm before we're told for sure.

No Hypothetical Questions

On Wednesday, Senator Bill Frist stated that the confirmation process of the president's candidate for the Supreme Court should focus on the nominee's past and not the future. I think that is a bit biased.

Sure, the Senate must consider the nominee's past, current, AND future actions. The future entails a great deal of conjecture and hypothetical situations, I understand. A potential justice must be open and honest regarding their philosophy regarding the Constitution and how it impacts the lives of Americans in all realms of society.

It is naive and arrogant to assert who should be a justice based simply on their education, experience, and Bush political affiliated tendencies. That is a rather Republican ideology.

Senator Frist is a curious man to suggest it!

Okay, even more...

After reviewing the Constitution further, the executive has the power to appoint individuals during a recess of the Senate (Article 2, §2, ¶3), but he must obey the "consent and advice" clause (Article 2, §2, ¶2) of the Constitution regarding appointments, during the time the Senate is in session.

I would venture to say that in this event the retiring member would have to continue his or her duties on the bench.

More Thoughts...

I just refreshed my memory on Article III of the Constitution and it doesn't mention anything about a vacancy that is not filled.

I need to check and see if there are any precedents for a vacancy on the Supreme Court that is not filled by the beginning of the new term.

Interesting...

A Spot of Curiosity

What would happen if the Supreme Court comes back into session in October without a newly appointed justice? I wonder if Justice O'Connor would be obligated to serve another term, considering her resignation is contingent on the confirmation of her replacement to the bench.

Karl Rove

"The best laid plans of mice and men..." (or something like that), but I'm not sure that it was a very well laid plan for Mr. Rove (is he a mouse or a man?).

I have to say I loved the parody of Karl Rove, as hellish soul, in American Dad when he ran the campaign for title character Stan Smith's (who is a CIA agent, no less) election for church deacon.

Stay tuned...I think King George is about to do some flip-flopping on an issue here!

When will it be?

When is George Bush going to give us his nominee for the Supreme Court? We're coming up on two weeks since Justice O'Connor submitted her resignation. We will have to spend time fighting over his nomination, I'm sure!

October is not that far off....

Rules of Warfare

It might be economical to consider the following fact of war: people die.

Interestingly, I have given this simple fact a lot of thought over the course of yesterday and today. A war is inevitably two forces siding agaisnt each other for domination and control of land, sea, air, political considerations, or religious dogma. The British and Americans have sided against a single foe (albeit, two--Iraq and terrorism; hereinafter, I will focus on terrorism).

Yesterday, there were casualties in the war on terrorism. Even though this war is abstract, it is imperative to understand that when you fire at the enemy, the enemy might happen to fire back. Yes, when they fire it is more than likely it will be on your own soil, but sometimes wars come to our own doorsteps. The enemy seeps in during the night following the shadows. Simply, we must be prepared to reap what we sow. In this case, we must expect to be targeted and attacked; to think otherwise is highly arrogant and a bit naive!

Happy day!

Bagdad v. London

I was just wondering how the deaths in London compare to the daily deaths of Iraqis and Americans in Iraq? Basically, there are bombings daily in the country of Iraq that kill its citizens. These attacks are the product of terrorism, but they get no more than 2 minutes of mention on the evening news.

So my question is are the lives of Londoners more important than those of Iraqis? The answer is simple, no they're not, but the deaths that occur in Iraq do not support the success of the American military occupation of that country. Additionally, the deaths of the British continue to support Bush's scare tactics of the need for continued support of his foreign policies.

Ugh!

Bush Toppled in the United Kingdom

I woke up this morning to the news coming out of London. I hadn't even given thought to the possibility of an attack taking place during the G8 summit, but it makes perfect sense.

As we know, Great Britian is George Bush's lap dog in Iraq. There has been strong opposition to Blair's support of Washington. I believe, like in Madrid, this may put the final nails into Bush's metaphorical coffin, regarding his London support.

And we were all led to believe that since the fall of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, we could rest easy knowing we had destroyed international terrorism. Wasn't that they reason for invading Iraq????? Or was it???

Hmmmm......

Jackson Leslie, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Finally! My career change is here. Jackson Leslie for the recently vacated position of Associate Justice!

Why? Why not?

I'm up for the move to the Washington, D.C.-area. I am all about lifetime appointments, too! I get a kick ass leather chair, a fancy smancy black robe, and four law school grads to do my work for me! What's not to love?

Every American should submit his or her resume to the King George for this job! The Constitution sets up no prerequisites for the position other than being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Who says you have to be a lawyer first? BAH!

Independence Day

Two hundred twenty-nine years ago today, a few rebels stood defiant, in word and deed, against their colonial parent. Although, King George III recorded in his personal diary "nothing of significance happened today," he found out shortly that, indeed, something of significance did happen within his vast land empire.

So many, many years later will we, as the grandchildren of the Revolution, stand against another King George, a tyrant, bent on imperialism?

Hmmm...???

SCOTUS Nominee

More on this Supreme Court who-ha that is coming before long...

King George really doesn't have a choice but to nominate a woman to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy. Albeit, this will be a messy confirmation hearing in the Senate, considering all of the federal appellate court confirmations in recent months.

Even so, we must remember that an independent judiciary depends on an independence among all branches of the government! The executive branch will fulfill it's constitutional duty by nominating a candidate, and then the Senate must be left free to confirm that executive nomination. Unfortunately, when I see the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Frist, all I see is King George's puppet dancing on the puppeteer's strings. Since when does the legislative branch have to follow the agenda of the executive branch?

Only time will tell...

O'Connor

And they're off...

Hillary: My Hero

I was flipping through the channels last night and I stopped at Fox News (weird or me), but only because they were talking about a new book that allegedly gives all the "dirt" on the real Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The book, The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, based on what this conservative media outlet said, is nothing more than conjecture and lies based on innuendo and jealousy.

All of these conservative groups make a federal case out of the fact Hillary may run for president in 2008. Is it so bad if she does? I actually wanted to her to run in 2004, but being the politician she is, she knew it's best not to go against an incumbent. I know that if Hillary does run in 2008, I will be there to support her candidacy and election with everything in me. I believe in the Clinton years, and the legacy left by Bill Clinton, but subsequently squandered and grossly mismanaged by a Bush White House.

Hillary 2008

Gotta Love Those British!

More bad news for King George about his terrible rumpus into Iraq, made possible by British government sources! Yay! This British release supports the information found in the infamous Downing Street Memo, which I discuss in my previous post.

The Eyes Only Briefing supports the facts, or lack thereof, the Bush camp used to justify a military incursion into Iraq at the peril of 1,700+ American soldiers' lives and about $200,000,000,000 of MY money! I definitely want a refund!

I have underlined some very interesting points made by the brief! Enjoy!

The text of the The Eyes Only Briefing (as provided by Democracy for America):

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION

(A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that: (a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels