9 posts tagged “politics”
Palin Makes Troopergate Assertions that Are Flatly False
“Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing,” Palin said, “any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.”
uh, whaaaa? Is she talking about an alternate universe??
From the report itself (downloadable directly from the state of Alaska here)
FINDINGS:
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
Finding Number Three
Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten’s workers’ compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled.
Finding Number Four
The Attorney General’s office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for infomration about the case in the form of emails.
Palin Gets Afghanistan Commander's Name, Strategy Wrong
(This is all snipped from the Huffington Post, please go there and read the original article. I've snipped this extended bit just in case the link eventually dies)
Palin thinks our commander in Afghanistan is someone named "McClellan." It is, I believe, McKiernan. And Palin is DEAD WRONG. He absolutely said that tribal involvement in Afghanistan COIN strategy would not work.
McKiernan: "I do think there's a role for traditional tribal authorities and tribal structure in Afghanistan, in the rural areas especially, to play in a community-based sense of security, of connection with the government, and of environmental considerations. But I think that has to be led, that tribal engagement, it has to be led by the Afghan government. I specifically tell my chain of command in ISAF [International Security Assistance Force, the name for NATO's mission in Afghanistan] that I don't want the military to be engaging the tribes to do that. It has to be through the Afghan government to do that. But of course, there's danger in that. There's always, "Is this particular tribe, is it being reached out to for all the right reasons?" That has to be watched very closely."
McKiernan: "First of all, please don't think that I'm saying there's no room for tribal engagement in Afghanistan, because I think it's very necessary. But I think it's much more complex environment of tribal linkages, and intertribal complexity than there is in Iraq. It's not as simple as taking the Sunni Awakening and doing the Pashtun Awakening in Afghanistan. It's much more complex than that."
UPDATE: Ilan Goldenberg sums up the foreign policy portion of the debate:
- Palin mispronounced our commander in Afghanistan, Dave McKiernan's name and also claimed that he supported the idea of using the Iraq surge as a model for Afghanistan even though just yesterday he said he did not.
- In response to a question on Iran and Pakistan Palin answered by starting to talk about Iraq. Similar to McCain's obsession on Iraq with complete neglect for all other national security priorities.
- Palin promised that the Middle East peace process would be a top priority for a McCain administration. But McCain's own advisors last week said that it wouldn't.
- Palin was unable to distinguish any specific difference between Bush and McCain on any foreign policy issues. Joe Biden made that point very clearly.
- Sarah Palin seems to rely quite heavily on her notes and on a very limited set of talking points. She has been dodging questions all night long.
UPDATE: Here's a direct link to Adam Kokesh's Blog. Wow. Absolute suspension of the right to free assembly.
Apparently leaving the service isn't enough for this administration to try to apply the UCMJ to you. You see, there's a dirty little secret -- almost everyone leaving the military is forced into the "Inactive Ready Reserve" -- it's not really optional, and it's usually for around 6 years after discharge. Supposedly this is for **extreme** emergencies, along the lines of China or the Soviet Union invading the US. But this administration is using this loophole as retribution for someone speaking out.
Understand that it is a punishable offense for any military person to speak unfavorably about anyone higher in the chain of command. It's usually covered under Article 88-91 of the UCMJ. Mind you, this isn't little stuff -- in its most extreme form, protesting can be considered treason, which can be punishable by death. This is why you don't see anyone on Active Duty saying anything, and its why several Generals have chosen retirement--so they can get their right to freedom of speech back While no one is talking treason, or even a court martial, the reactivation of a honorably discharged Non-Commissioned-Officer (Iraq vet) for the express purpose of applying the UCMJ is *unprecedented* in modern professional military history -- in "free" nations with professional militaries.
Here's the specific articles that he could be court-martialed for:
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
..
891. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
He is being charged as if he were active duty and not honorably discharged from the military. Once this line begins to blur, anyone that's within the IRR window should be afraid should they choose to exercise their right to free speech. (This is akin to fining a former NBA player for speaking badly about the NBA commissioner -- it really just doesn't make any sense!). This is another method to chip away at that "damn piece of paper" and the rights it provides citizens of the US.
I wouldn't have believed that this would be possible a few years back; this is something straight out of a fascism playbook. (Of course, that was before the AF made the mistake with my own orders..that cascaded into the VA taking my house).
There is a strange disconnect in the way Americans think about George W. Bush. He is extraordinarily unpopular. His approval ratings, which have been abysmal for about 18 months, have now sunk to their lowest ever. Yet the public's dislike of Bush has not translated into any real move to get rid of him. Why? The main reason is obvious...
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace uttered a âœcarefully wordedâ statement revealing that the Pentagon had no plans to fully withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if legislation passes Congress mandating troop redeployment:
Holy Frak! I knew it was bad, with the perma-campaigns, the pork, and the outright fraud...But I never imagined that in a thousand years it could get this bad on the hill...
In my HS days I got the opportunity to attend a Washington Workshops program--I got to attend meetings with my congressman, meet various VIPs, do some minor errand work. It really gave me an inside view into the workings (or lack thereof) into our government. Descriptions of the hill now are almost completely foreign to my own experience. It's simultaneously scary and fascinating that an American institution could change so rapidly.
So, in all of its shame, here's the RollingStone's handy 5-step guide to creating our country's all-time worst legislature.
EDIT 2: IANAL, but after reading this I think we, the American People, are well and truly fscked. Any lawyers have any insights?
This scares the holy pediddle out of me, worse than any nightmare monster than Hollywood can dream up. All my instincts say that its not coincidence that this was snuck into the Defense Authorization Act (the DAA, the normal annual defense budget) and signed on the same day as the Military Commissions Act (MCA).
There's been quite an uproar about the MCA -- how it suspends Habeas Corpus and how it allows anyone, even an American citizen in America, to be declared an "Enemy Combatant" (if said citizen violates their "allegience" to the current administration, much like the 1933 German Enabling Act). But while we were all paying attention (rightfully) to the MCA, it looks like something far more insidious has been signed into law. (The DAA is huge, and no Senator or Representative ever reads the whole thing, especially in detail)
This just sends chills up and down my spine....and makes me want to go hole up somewhere "off the grid". Just in case the 1938 pogroms are repeated. You know, jus' in case.
'Cause the current admin has a list and they definitely haven't checked it twice.
From Slashdot:
Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law:
(The link to the bill is currently down, so here's a quote from the bill I was able to nab from Cryptogon)..."a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17. It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory, using federal troops and/or the state's own, or other states', National Guard troops. From the article: "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."
Here is a link to the bill in question. The relevant part is Sec. 1076 about 3/4 of the way down the page.
Section 1076...is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
EDIT: OK, found a link to the applicable section of the DAA on THOMAS at the Library of Congress. This is straight from the bill that was signed by the president and is now law:
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.
(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies
`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.
`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--
`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and
`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.
`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.
`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'
...And what impact it may have on their politics.
For everyone out there that sees Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah as a single entity, don't forget that Iran is Persian, not Arab. To give a little context, think about France and Germany....or England and Scotland. Just because they're all former colonies in what western countries define as "the middle east" does not make them a homogenous group.
No matter what the governments say or do, the "common man" gets a telling word in the NYT Article: "In Iran’s Streets, Aid to Hezbollah Stirs Resentment". America has blown off the opinion of the common man in previous approaches to Iran -- actually creating a more polarized, unified country on the nuclear issue. If anything is going to help calm down Hizbollah, it will be the Iranian government being opposed by its own people--which means that Israel can't go "all out", make itself look like a bully threatening the entire middle east, and push the Arabs and the Persians in complete agreement. That axis would be hard to oppose...and I just hope that Condi Rice is upto the tightrope challenge.
I know that I'm even oversimplifying the issue, and I'm not explicitly dealing with the religious undertones in the current conflict. But I believe that racial/cultural lines are currently primary, religious "brotherhood" is second.
Anyways, whatever everyone thinks, the NYT article gives several quotes by Iranians that are, surprisingly, willing to give their names with their opinions
