Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

"When I lead my army against Baghdad in anger, whether you hide in heaven or in earth

I will bring you down from the spinning spheres;

I will toss you in the air like a lion.

I will leave no one alive in your realm;

I will burn your city, your land, your self.

If you wish to spare yourself and your venerable family, give heed to my advice with the ear of intelligence.

If you do not, you will see what God has willed."

- Alleged Script of Speech Prepared By Karl Rove For George W. Bush To Deliver To Saddam Hussein Just Before George Invaded IRAQINAMISTAN To Steal Its Oil .....

"Bush's Next Job"

By Bill Ferguson, Knight Ridder Newspapers

Salt Lake Tribune

6/16/2006

Every great career eventually comes to an end, and when you're the president of these United States, you only get eight years (at most) to accomplish everything you set out to do.

Then you're an ex-president for the rest of your life.

I'll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world.

So they find things to do.

They work on their memoirs.

They build libraries.

They give speeches.

They support their favorite charitable causes.

But what about our current president?

His term will be up before he knows it, and then it's back to private life.

I'm afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya.

He is a man of action, and I worry about how he'll adjust to a life out of the spotlight.

I think that we, as a nation, owe Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office.

I think we can do better for him.

I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go.

Iraq.

There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush's tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office.

I believe we should allow Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires.

The next president should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort.

The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the "hard work" of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished.

Or until he leaves this mortal coil.

Whichever comes first.

But I do not believe Bush should go to Iraq alone.

He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7 right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world.

I know this assignment would be dangerous.

The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq, and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment.

But as Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high but our cause is just.

Freedom is not free.

I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone despite the extreme danger they would face.

This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, and not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right.

So let's start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2008.

They deserve the opportunity to "finish the job" in Iraq, and I think that the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.

Bill Ferguson is a columnist for the Macon (GA) Telegraph.

[Livyjr]

"Bush's Next Job"

By Bill Ferguson, Knight Ridder Newspapers

Salt Lake Tribune

6/16/2006

I think that we, as a nation, owe Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. 

I think we can do better for him. 

I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go.

Iraq.

I believe we should allow Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires.

The next president should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort.

The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the "hard work" of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. 

Or until he leaves this mortal coil. 

Whichever comes first.

But I do not believe Bush should go to Iraq alone. 

He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. 

I know this assignment would be dangerous. 

The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq, and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. 

But as Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high but our cause is just. 

Freedom is not free.

I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone despite the extreme danger they would face.

This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, and not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right.

So let's start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2008.

They deserve the opportunity to "finish the job" in Iraq, and I think that the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.

Bill Ferguson is a columnist for the Macon (GA) Telegraph.

"Bombs kill 60 Iraqis, fueling anger over faltering security"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, July 12, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- More than a dozen bombings killed about 60 people in Iraq on Tuesday, part of a recent surge in violence that prompted lawmakers to ask the government to explain why its security plan for the capital is failing.

Suicide bombers struck across the street from Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone, killing up to 16 people -- the deadliest attack.

In all, about 60 people died in more than a dozen bombings, shootings and ambushes -- mostly in the Baghdad area, according to police reports.

The dead included 10 Shiites slain by gunmen who fired on their bus as it left the capital for a funeral in southern Iraq, police said.

Lawmakers summoned the defense and interior ministers to explain the failure of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security plan for the capital -- where most of the recent violence has occurred.

A statement posted on an Islamist Web site in the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Gaza and the alleged rape-slaying by U.S. soldiers of a young Iraqi woman south of Baghdad.

The Islamic Army is a major insurgent group but authenticity of the statement could not be determined.

Much of the violence Tuesday appeared to be sectarian, part of a surge in tit-for-tat killings that began Sunday when Shiite gunmen rampaged through a mostly Sunni area of west Baghdad, killing 41 people, according to police.

Al-Maliki's government unveiled a sweeping plan last month to restore security in Baghdad, putting tens of thousands Iraqi and U.S. troops on the streets, increasing the number of checkpoints and stepping up patrols.

Many Iraqi lawmakers and media commentators have complained that the plan has done little except tie up traffic at checkpoints.

America's top envoy in Baghdad on Tuesday denied that Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war but acknowledged growing concern that sectarian clashes could derail the new government if violence is not brought under control.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also said the new security crackdown in Baghdad has been a disappointment and is being reviewed to make "adjustments."

Khalilzad, in Washington to give briefings, also said the United States and Iraq have set up a new commission to outline terms and conditions for the U.S. withdrawal of troops, bringing Iraq into the decision making process for the first time.

Halliburton out

According to The Washington Post, the Army is discontinuing a controversial multibillion-dollar deal with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that could cut deeply into the firm's dominance of government contracting in Iraq.

Under the deal, Halliburton had exclusive rights to provide the military with a wide range of work that included keeping soldiers around the globe fed, sheltered, and in communication with friends and family back home.

Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs.

Halliburton officials have denied the allegations.

Army officials Tuesday defended the company's performance but also acknowledged that reliance on a single contractor left the government vulnerable.

The Pentagon's new plan will split the work among three companies, to be chosen this fall, with a fourth firm hired to help monitor the performance of the other three.

Halliburton will be eligible to bid on the work.

Saddam trial delayed

The judge called a two-week recess in the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein on Tuesday, hoping to end a boycott by the former Iraqi leader and his lawyers.

But he warned that if they won't come back, court-appointed lawyers will make Saddam's closing arguments.

The lawyers for Saddam and three top co-defendants said they would not appear unless the court met a list of demands, including greater security.

[Livyjr]

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

To state my reasons for this reservation, and to show my agreement with the remainder of the Court's analysis by identifying particular deficiencies in the military commissions at issue, this separate opinion seems appropriate.

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order.

Located within a single branch, these courts carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted, and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review.

Cf. Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 756-758, 760 (1996).

Concentration of power puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to avoid.

It is imperative, then, that when military tribunals are established, full and proper authority exists for the Presidential directive.

The proper framework for assessing whether Executive actions are authorized is the three-part scheme used by Justice Jackson in his opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952).

"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Id., at 635.

"When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain." Id., at 637.

And "[w]hen the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb." Ibid.

In this case, as the Court observes, the President has acted in a field with a history of congressional participation and regulation.

Ante, at 28-30, 55-57.

In the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., which Congress enacted, building on earlier statutes, in 1950, see Act of May 5, 1950, ch. 169, 64 Stat. 107, and later amended, see, e.g., Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, Congress has set forth governing principles for military courts.

The UCMJ as a whole establishes an intricate system of military justice.

It authorizes courts-martial in various forms, 10 U. S. C. §§816-820 (2000 ed. and Supp. III); it regulates the organization and procedure of those courts, e.g., §§822-835, 851-854; it defines offenses, §§877-934, and rights for the accused, e.g., §§827(b)-©, 831, 844, 846, 855 (2000 ed.); and it provides mechanisms for appellate review, §§859-876b (2000 ed. and Supp. III).

As explained below, the statute further recognizes that special military commissions may be convened to try war crimes. See infra, at 5-6; §821 (2000 ed.).

While these laws provide authority for certain forms of military courts, they also impose limitations, at least two of which control this case.

If the President has exceeded these limits, this becomes a case of conflict between Presidential and congressional action--a case within Justice Jackson's third category, not the second or first.

One limit on the President's authority is contained in §836 of the UCMJ.

That section provides:

"(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts-martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter."

"(b) All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable." 10 U. S. C. §836 (2000 ed.).

In this provision the statute allows the President to implement and build on the UCMJ's framework by adopting procedural regulations, subject to three requirements:

(1) Procedures for military courts must conform to district-court rules insofar as the President "considers practicable";

(2) the procedures may not be contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the UCMJ; and

(3) "insofar as practicable" all rules and regulations under §836 must be uniform, a requirement, as the Court points out, that indicates the rules must be the same for military commissions as for courts-martial unless such uniformity is impracticable, ante, at 57, 59, and n. 50.

As the Court further instructs, even assuming the first and second requirements of §836 are satisfied here--a matter of some dispute, see ante, at 57-59--the third requires us to compare the military-commission procedures with those for courts-martial and determine, to the extent there are deviations, whether greater uniformity would be practicable. Ante, at 59-62.

Although we can assume the President's practicability judgments are entitled to some deference, the Court observes that Congress' choice of language in the uniformity provision of 10 U. S. C. §836(b) contrasts with the language of §836(a).

This difference suggests, at the least, a lower degree of deference for §836(b) determinations. Ante, at 59-60.

The rules for military courts may depart from federal-court rules whenever the President "considers" conformity impracticable, §836(a); but the statute requires procedural uniformity across different military courts "insofar as [uniformity is] practicable," §836(b), not insofar as the President considers it to be so.

The Court is right to conclude this is of relevance to our decision.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

[Livyjr]

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

The rules for military courts may depart from federal-court rules whenever the President "considers" conformity impracticable, §836(a); but the statute requires procedural uniformity across different military courts "insofar as [uniformity is] practicable," §836(b), not insofar as the President considers it to be so.

The Court is right to conclude this is of relevance to our decision.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Further, as the Court is also correct to conclude, ante, at 60, the term "practicable" cannot be construed to permit deviations based on mere convenience or expedience.

"Practicable" means "feasible," that is, "possible to practice or perform" or "capable of being put into practice, done, or accomplished."

Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1780 (1961).

Congress' chosen language, then, is best understood to allow the selection of procedures based on logistical constraints, the accommodation of witnesses, the security of the proceedings, and the like.

Insofar as the "[p]retrial, trial, and post-trial procedures" for the military commissions at issue deviate from court-martial practice, the deviations must be explained by some such practical need.

In addition to §836, a second UCMJ provision, 10 U. S. C. §821, requires us to compare the commissions at issue to courts-martial.

This provision states:

"The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals."

In §821 Congress has addressed the possibility that special military commissions--criminal courts other than courts-martial--may at times be convened.

At the same time, however, the President's authority to convene military commissions is limited: It extends only to "offenders or offenses" that "by statute or by the law of war may be tried by" such military commissions.

Ibid.; see also ante, at 28-29.

The Government does not claim to base the charges against Hamdan on a statute; instead it invokes the law of war.

That law, as the Court explained in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), derives from "rules and precepts of the law of nations"; it is the body of international law governing armed conflict.

Id., at 28.

If the military commission at issue is illegal under the law of war, then an offender cannot be tried "by the law of war" before that commission.

The Court is correct to concentrate on one provision of the law of war that is applicable to our Nation's armed conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, as a result, to the use of a military commission to try Hamdan.

Ante, at 65-70; see also 415 F. 3d 33, 44 (CADC 2005) (Williams, J., concurring).

That provision is Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

It prohibits, as relevant here, "[t]he passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

See, e.g., Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, 3318, T. I. A. S. No. 3364.

The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.

See id., at 3316.

By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered "war crimes," punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel.

See 18 U. S. C. §2441.

There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.

The dissent by Justice Thomas argues that Common Article 3 nonetheless is irrelevant to this case because in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950), it was said to be the "obvious scheme" of the 1929 Geneva Convention that "[r]ights of alien enemies are vindicated under it only through protests and intervention of protecting powers," i.e., signatory states, id., at 789, n. 14.

As the Court explains, ante, at 63-65, this language from Eisentrager is not controlling here.

Even assuming the Eisentrager analysis has some bearing upon the analysis of the broader 1949 Conventions and that, in consequence, rights are vindicated "under [those Conventions]" only through protests and intervention, 339 U. S., at 789, n. 14, Common Article 3 is nonetheless relevant to the question of authorization under §821.

Common Article 3 is part of the law of war that Congress has directed the President to follow in establishing military commissions.

Ante, at 66-67.

Consistent with that view, the Eisentrager Court itself considered on the merits claims that "procedural irregularities" under the 1929 Convention "deprive[d] the Military Commission of jurisdiction." 339 U. S., at 789, 790.

In another military commission case, In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1 (1946), the Court likewise considered on the merits--without any caveat about remedies under the Convention--a claim that an alleged violation of the 1929 Convention "establish[ed] want of authority in the commission to proceed with the trial." Id., at 23, 24.

That is the precise inquiry we are asked to perform here.

Assuming the President has authority to establish a special military commission to try Hamdan, the commission must satisfy Common Article 3's requirement of a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," 6 U. S. T., at 3318.

The terms of this general standard are yet to be elaborated and further defined, but Congress has required compliance with it by referring to the "law of war" in §821.

The Court correctly concludes that the military commission here does not comply with this provision.

TO BE CONTINUED ......

[Livyjr]

Dear Livyjr,

Over the last 19 months, when you could have walked away, you dusted yourself off, got back on your feet, dug deeper, and you have fought even harder.

On the biggest issues of our time, and on the critical campaigns that will determine the outcome of this fall's national elections, no group of people has shown more resolve and provided more support than you.

There's no fancy way of saying it: thank you.

Just step back and think for a moment about the impact you have had, the fights that define your convictions, and the impact you will have in November.

Someone who wants to know what our johnkerry.com online community fights for will take a look at what you've done and they'll see something powerful.

They'll see that the hundreds of thousands of johnkerry.com activists who called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination were right.

Right about what kind of Justice he will turn out to be -- and right that we need Justices who will protect the constitutional rights of Americans.

They'll see that the nearly 300,000 people who acted in support of a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and the Kerry-Feingold Amendment were right.

Right to insist on a change of course in the Bush administration's failed policies and right to keep the pressure on until the future of Iraq is where it belongs -- in the hands of the Iraqi people.

They'll see that the more than a quarter of a million people who have joined Maria Cantwell and me in defending the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge acted because we had to draw a line of protection around this precious natural heritage, and we had to promote an energy policy worthy of America so we never go to war for oil.

But, in 2006, our biggest impact -- our ability to help turn the country around -- will be felt most clearly on November 7th.

We're acting together to elect Democrats who will take power out of the hands of Republicans who have tolerated and excused one unfathomable Bush disaster after another -- and put it in the hands of patriots who will put our country back on track.

Our most crucial work is still ahead of us.

We'll have to pour everything we've got into the last four months of these critical 2006 elections.

But, today, all I'm asking you to do is stop and reflect on what we've done together already.

With your extraordinary support -- a kind of collective activity on behalf of Democratic candidates that is unprecedented in American politics -- together we have contributed or helped raise nearly $10 million for over 160 Democratic candidates, committees, and organizations.

The Democratic Party and its candidates in key races have needed your help, and you have delivered.

In fact, the johnkerry.com community has already poured more than $100,000 into each of eight critical races.

We've acted to help Bill Nelson wage his contest against Katherine Harris in Florida.

When Republican Senator Ted Stevens went to Washington to threaten Maria Cantwell for refusing to let Big Oil destroy the Arctic Refuge, we made it clear that we'll never let those who stand up for what we believe in stand alone.

At a crucial point in her Illinois House race, we raised $150,000 in two days to help Iraq war hero Tammy Duckworth advance her campaign.

And we've stood by Iraq veterans running in Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Colorado as well.

We've drawn attention and support to 12 Democratic challengers running in some of the closest House races in the nation.

And we've weighed in to help Democratic challengers in critical Senate races, from Harold Ford in Tennessee to Sherrod Brown in Ohio to Bob Casey in Pennsylvania.

And, in addition to raising funds, we've helped candidates all across the country recruit volunteers to help their campaigns with voter contact and get-out-the-vote efforts.

When we look up on Election Day, we'll be able to say, with pride and enthusiasm, that no group has worked harder or more effectively than we have to produce the Democratic victories we need to move America forward.

You have played -- and I hope will continue to play -- the most crucial role in this endeavor.

We have four months of hard work and sacrifice ahead of us and we won't stop working until we win.

Thanks so much for all of your help, energy and commitment.

I'm proud of what you do, and I hope I live up to your values and convictions in the way I fight by your side.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

[Livyjr]

"White House invokes privilege in spy cases" 
 
By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press
Last updated: 3:45 p.m., Saturday, May 27, 2006

NEW YORK -- The Bush administration has asked federal judges in New York and Michigan to dismiss a pair of lawsuits filed over the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying litigating them would jeopardize state secrets.
 
In papers filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers said it would be impossible to defend the legality of the spying program without disclosing classified information that could be of value to suspected terrorists.

"Bush condemns leak of terror finance info" 
 
By TERENCE HUNT, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:57 p.m., Monday, June 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Monday it was "disgraceful" that the news media had disclosed a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects.

The White House accused The New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets.
 
"The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror," Bush said, leaning forward and jabbing his finger during a brief question-and-answer session with reporters in the Roosevelt Room.

"Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech at a political fundraising luncheon in Grand Island, Neb.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the story represented "a highly unusual departure" from the practice of newspapers honoring the secrecy of sensitive matters during wartime.

Bush said Congress had been briefed on the program and "what we did was fully authorized under the law."

"And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful."

"Suspect Padilla gets access to secrets"

By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 3 minutes ago

MIAMI - Amid tight security, alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla is being permitted to personally view U.S. government secrets in advance of his trial on charges of conspiring to wage and support international terrorism.

Under a federal judge's order, Padilla is being allowed to examine classified documents and videotapes detailing his statements during 3 1/2 years in Defense Department custody as an unlawful "enemy combatant."

That designation was dropped last fall when he was charged in a Miami terrorism case.

Defense lawyers in terrorism cases are regularly permitted to examine such classified material if they obtain government security clearances.

But it is unusual for an actual terror suspect to be given direct access to secrets.

Padilla is a U.S. citizen once accused by the Bush administration of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."

"There is not a long history of this."

"There have not been a lot of terrorist prosecutions in civilian courts," said Aitan Goelman, a former Justice Department terrorism prosecutor now in private practice in Washington.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke's order issued July 5 allows Padilla to view 32 Defense Department documents that summarize statements Padilla made during his years in military custody.

He also can examine 57 videotapes of interrogations he underwent during that same period.

Padilla's attorneys said in court papers that they must examine the materials with their client to discover whether he was mistreated by interrogators, to refresh his memory and find possible leads for their defense and to ensure that prosecutors have turned over all the necessary material and accurately.

The attorneys and a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Miami declined comment Thursday on the arrangement.

Security will be extraordinarily tight for these sessions.

Padilla will be brought to a secure, inner area in the court complex but the door must remain open so a U.S. marshal can keep constant watch.

Cooke's order said the marshal must maintain "an appropriate distance" to prevent overhearing defense trial strategy.

But if the marshal does overhear, "those communications shall not be communicated to any member of the government prosecution team," the judge said.

The challenge in national security cases is in striking a balance between a defendant's right to prepare an adequate defense and the government's interest in protecting its secrets, particularly sources and methods used to obtain intelligence.

"I think the government, in an abundance of caution these days, is protecting as much as it can," said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond.

"There is a tension between his constitutional rights to defend himself and see the evidence against him on the one hand and national security on the other hand."

Padilla and two co-defendants are scheduled to go to trial in September on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to Islamic extremist groups around the country.

All three have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and south Florida resident, was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare Airport.

Authorities claimed then he had plotted to set off the "dirty bomb" as an al-Qaida soldier, but the Miami indictment does not mention that.

end quotes

IF .....

All this alleged "SECRET STUFF" .....

IS REALLY ......

NOTHING MORE ....

THAN A BUNCH OF STUFF .....

THAT PADILLA .....

HAS TOLD THE GOVERNMENT .....

THEN WHAT IN THE HELL IS SECRET ABOUT IT?

How much more ridiculous is this CRAP going to get?

For that matter .....

HOW MUCH MORE RIDICULOUS CAN IT GET .....

BEYOND WHERE IT ALREADY HAS GOTTEN TO .....

Where what Padilla told the federal government ....

IS THE TOPPEST OF TOP SECRET ....

Even though it is nothing more than Padilla's own words ...

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"Former CIA officer sues Cheney over leak"

By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

Several news organizations wrote about Plame after syndicated columnist Robert Novak named her in a column on July 14, 2003.

Novak's column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Saddam Hussein's government had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon.

Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation nevertheless wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children's lives at risk by exposing Plame.

"This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of ... (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country," the Wilsons' lawyers said in the lawsuit.

Libby is the only administration official charged in connection with the leak investigation.

He faces trial in January on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about when he learned Plame's identity and what he subsequently told reporters.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyer last month that he had decided not to seek criminal charges against Rove.

[Livyjr]

"Oil prices settle near $77 a barrel"

By BRAD FOSS, Associated Press
Last updated: 3:47 p.m., Thursday, July 13, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Oil prices settled at a record above $76 a barrel Thursday in a market agitated by escalating violence in the Middle East and the threat of supply disruptions there and beyond.

The latest surge in oil shook stock-market investors' confidence, though economists said most U.S. consumers and businesses appear to be absorbing higher energy costs surprisingly well.

U.S. gasoline demand continues to rise in spite of near $3-a-gallon pump prices, core inflation remains relatively low and the U.S. economy is forecast to grow by roughly 3 percent in the second half of the year.

"Two years ago I might have said that $70 or $75 a barrel would be some kind of a tipping point."

"Now I'm not so sure anymore," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight, a private forecasting firm.

Still, Behravesh said lower-income Americans are suffering disproportionately from higher energy costs and "I could certainly make a policy case for helping them out on a temporary basis."

Light sweet crude for August delivery shot up as high as $76.85 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange before settling at $76.70.

The rally came as fighting between Israel and Lebanon intensified, explosions hit Nigerian oil installations and a diplomatic standoff dragged on between the West and Iran over its nuclear program.

The previous Nymex settlement record of $75.19 was set July 5.

The previous intraday record of $75.78 was posted two days later.

Adjusted for inflation, oil prices would need to rise to about $90 a barrel to exceed the highs set a quarter century ago when supplies tightened in the aftermath of a revolution in Iran and a war between Iraq and Iran.

Today oil prices are being pushed higher by rising global demand and worries that the world's limited supply cushion would not be adequate to offset a lengthy disruption to output in major producing countries, such as Iran or Nigeria.

There are also concerns about the risks hurricanes pose to U.S. production.

The latest fear being priced into the market is that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon could spill over into other corners of the Middle East, the region that produces nearly a third the world's oil and contains almost two-thirds of its untapped reserves.

Israel intensified its attacks against Lebanon on Thursday, imposing a naval blockade, twice hitting Beirut's airport and blasting two Lebanese army air bases near Syria.

Hezbollah fired more than 100 rockets into Israel, which said one also struck the port city of Haifa.

More than 51 people have died in two days of violence following the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants, who have financial links to Syria and Iran.

Iran has threatened on more than one occasion to use oil as a weapon if the United Nations uses economic sanctions or some other punishment in its dispute with Tehran over its nuclear program.

While OPEC's No. 2 supplier has not raised the issue of withholding oil from the market in a sign of solidarity with Hezbollah, the possibility is no doubt influencing oil traders' actions.

"It plays psychologically in people's minds," said Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a New York-based industry-financed think tank.

"You don't have to hear them say it."

In Nigeria, government officials said twin explosions hit oil installations belonging to an Italian oil company in the volatile southeastern delta region.

Elsewhere, militants attacked a group of 11 boats carrying supplies to Chevron's offshore oil fields Wednesday, killing four navy sailors who were escorting the convoy, Brig. Gen. Alfred Ilogho said Thursday.

"The oil price has become a register of geopolitical tensions and fears," said Daniel Yergin, who heads Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

Yergin said petroleum supply-demand fundamentals are improving, with global oil inventories and spare oil-production capacity rising, but clearly not enough to offset the geopolitical unrest.

The surge in oil prices rattled stock market investors, sending the Dow Jones industrials sharply lower for the second straight day.

Shares of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, slumped 2 percent on the New York Stock Exchange on concerns that high energy prices are cutting into consumers' discretionary income.

"The economy took $50 oil in stride," Yergin said.

"It's clearly not taking $70 or $75 a barrel in stride."

"This is a rougher adjustment."

With U.S. oil companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. earning record amounts, some members of Congress have proposed taxing "windfall" profits in order to finance energy assistance programs for the poor, but the idea does not have wide support.

The energy-policy debate in Washington right now centers around efforts to repeal the ban on offshore drilling and to fix a law that allows oil and natural-gas companies to avoid billions of dollars of royalty payments on offshore drilling leases.

Critics say Congress has failed in its approach to deal with soaring energy costs because it has not given as much attention to curbing demand as it has to adding supplies, such as a hotly debated proposal to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling.

"We too often forget that the United States is far and away the biggest consumer of oil," said Tyson Slocum, an energy expert at Public Citzen, a Washington-based consumer watchdog.

Slocum said the country needs to invest more in public transportation and to sharply increase automobile fuel-economy standards.

----

Associated Press Writers Sam Ghattas in Beirut and William Nsoyoh in Yenagoa, Nigeria, contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

Dear Livyjr,

We're acting together to elect Democrats who will take power out of the hands of Republicans who have tolerated and excused one unfathomable Bush disaster after another -- and put it in the hands of patriots who will put our country back on track.

Our most crucial work is still ahead of us.

Thanks so much for all of your help, energy and commitment.

I'm proud of what you do, and I hope I live up to your values and convictions in the way I fight by your side.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

And while we are on the subject of UNFATHOMABLE BUSH DISASTERS .....

One after another ....

"More slayings plague Iraq - Prime minister pleads for end to sectarian violence"

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, July 13, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Gunmen seized two dozen Shiites from a bus station after separating them from the crowd in a predominantly Sunni area Wednesday, killing them and dumping their bodies in a nearby village -- the latest in a series of brazen attacks.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appealed for unity and warned the nation's future was at stake.

"We all have the last chance to reconcile and agree among each other on avoiding conflict and blood."

"If we fail, God forbid, I don't know what the fate of Iraq will be," he told parliament.

The gunmen arrived in several cars at the bus station in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, at about 6 a.m., forcing the captives into four vehicles they commandeered at the scene, officials said.

The victims, who were handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head, were found behind a pile of small rocks near the main street of Azham village, police said.

The massacre was part of a surge in sectarian violence that has killed more than 160 people since Sunday, when Shiite gunmen rampaged through a Baghdad neighborhood killing Sunnis.

Wednesday's attack coincided with an unannounced visit to Iraq by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

He said the new Iraqi government is not yet ready to decide on security issues that will determine the pace of U.S. troop reductions this year.

More than 1,607 Iraqis have been killed and nearly 2,500 wounded since al-Maliki's government took office May 20, according to an Associated Press count.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said "terrorists and death squads" are mainly responsible for the heightened sectarian violence in the capital, and he pledged to provide whatever U.S. forces are needed to avert civil war.

In a positive sign, the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, lifted its legislative boycott and attended Wednesday's session.

It thanked the parliament for its help in seeking the release of kidnapped legislator Tayseer al-Mashhadani and called for a new spirit of cooperation.

Prosecution sought

Al-Maliki repeated his call for a review of legislation that gives foreign troops immunity from prosecution, in response to the alleged March 12 rape and killing of an 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers.

Rumsfeld indicated that he did not expect any imminent change in the legal arrangement under which U.S. troops in Iraq are immune from the country's laws.

Saddam on hunger strike

The U.S. military said Saddam Hussein and three of his co-defendants have been on a hunger strike for nearly a week to protest what the defense says is a lack of security for their attorneys.

Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, spokesman for U.S. military detainee operations, said the defendants were in "good health and receiving appropriate medical care."

[Livyjr]

And here is something .....

That We are all waiting .....

To see .....

Will this really happen?

Will the LAWLESS UNTRUTHFUL ARROGANT SELF-SERVING REPUBLICANS .....

Get tossed by the American people?

Or will the American people .....

Crawl back to the voting booths ....

One more time .....

TO CONTINUE ....

THE DEBACLE .....

THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE HANDED US ......

THROUGH THE AGENCY ....

OF THIS PATHETIC BUFFOON BUSH ....

WHO IS THEIR HERO ....

And MAN-OF-THE-HOUR .....

For setting the world on fire ...

WHICH PUTS A LOT OF MONEY ...

RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THE REPUBLICANS .....

WHO DISRUPT OUR LIVES .....

FOR THE MONEY ...

THAT THEY MAKE ....

OFF THAT DISRUPTION .....

And so ....

"Most Americans plan to vote for Democrats"

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November.

With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic.

The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.

The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand.

But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted Monday through Wednesday found that President Bush has stopped his political freefall, with his approval rating of 36 percent basically unchanged from last month.

Bush received slightly higher marks for his handling of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism, weeks after his surprise trip to Baghdad and the killing of Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike last month.

But a Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate would be disastrous for the president, leaving both his agenda for the last two years in office and the chairmanship of investigative committees in the hands of the opposition party.

To seize control of Congress, the Democrats must displace 15 Republicans from House seats and six Republicans from the Senate.

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district.

Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat.

Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives — 24 percent — said they will vote Democratic.

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters — those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer.

A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

"We still have wind in our face."

"It's a midterm election in the president's second term," said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

"Today is a little bit better in the atmospherics of Washington than it was maybe a month ago."

The president's party historically has lost seats in the sixth year of his service.

Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 72 House seats in 1938; Dwight D. Eisenhower 48 in 1958.

The exception was Bill Clinton in 1998.

By another comparison, polls in 1994 — when a Republican tidal wave swept Democrats from power — the two parties were in a dead heat in July on the question of whom voters preferred in their district.

"It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections?"

"If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot."

"If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Overall, only 27 percent approved of the way Congress is doing its job.

Lawmakers get favorable marks from 36 percent of conservatives, 28 percent of moderates and 17 percent of liberals.

Some criticism of Congress has focused on lawmakers' inability to control spending, with lawmakers tucking in special projects for their home districts.

"They used to say there's nothing worse than a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat," said Gary Wilson, 51, a self-described liberal from Gaithersburg, Md.

"There is something worse: It's a borrow-and-spend Republican."

"This is going to come back to haunt us."

One bright spot for the GOP is that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on issues such as foreign policy and fighting terrorism — 43 percent to 33 percent — and a smaller edge on handling Iraq — 36 percent to 32 percent.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted after the divisive Democratic debate in the Senate over setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

Potential voters were paying attention to the GOP complaint that Democrats want to "cut and run."

"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas.

"I'd much rather see a Congress that would support our president."

"I think George Bush is doing the best he can."

"I think Republicans will support him."

John Dendahl, the Republican candidate for governor in New Mexico, said Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, have been successful at obstructing legislation in Congress while heaping the blame on the GOP.

Tom Courtney, a Democratic state senator in Iowa, said U.S. voters are ready to trust his party to lead.

"I honestly think it's ours to lose," Courtney said.

"My experience, we're not above that."

"Americans are ready for change."

The poll of adults had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and the survey of registered voters had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
___

Associated Press Writers Philip Elliott and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

end quotes

George W. Bush is "doing the best that he can"?

Well ......

George's best .....

IS DAMN INADEQUATE .....

And it is unacceptable .....

To me, anyway .....

Who is an older American .....

Quite a bit older than 24, anyway .....

ACCUSTOMED ....

TO ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY .....

IN THOSE WHO WOULD BE LEADERS ....

AS OPPOSED TO ....

ALL THE WHINING .....

AND CRYING ....

AND EXCUSES .....

THAT WE KEEP GETTING ......

FROM THIS LOSER BUSH .....

ALONG WITH A PLETHORA ......

OF FALSEHOODS .....

AS TO THE ABSOLUTE MESS .....

HE HAS CREATED IN IRAQ ....

WITH THE BACKING ....

OF HIS REPUBLICANS .....

And so .....

THE DUTY .....

OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ....

IS NOT TO SUPPORT GEORGE W. BUSH .....

AS IF THIS WERE SOME TOTALITARIAN NAZI STATE .....

THE DUTY ....

OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS .....

IS TO WRITE THE LAWS ......

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH MUST FOLLOW .....

And so ......

Perhaps this 24-year old college minister in Fort Worth, Texas ......

Ought to go back to school .....

TO LEARN ABOUT OUR AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT .....

As opposed to whatever form of fascism .......

They embrace .....

Down there ....

In the REPUBLIC OF TEXICO .....

Where George W. Bush came from .....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"Most Americans plan to vote for Democrats"

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas.

"I'd much rather see a Congress that would support our president."

"I think George Bush is doing the best he can."

"I think Republicans will support him."

end quotes

George W. Bush is "doing the best that he can"?

Well ......

George's best .....

IS DAMN INADEQUATE .....

And it is unacceptable .....

To me, anyway .....

Who is an older American .....

Quite a bit older than 24, anyway .....

ACCUSTOMED ....

TO ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY .....

IN THOSE WHO WOULD BE LEADERS ....

AS OPPOSED TO ....

ALL THE WHINING .....

AND CRYING ....

AND EXCUSES .....

THAT WE KEEP GETTING ......

FROM THIS LOSER BUSH .....

ALONG WITH A PLETHORA ......

OF FALSEHOODS .....

AS TO THE ABSOLUTE MESS .....

HE HAS CREATED IN IRAQ ....

WITH THE BACKING ....

OF HIS REPUBLICANS .....

And so .....

THE DUTY .....

OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ....

IS NOT TO SUPPORT GEORGE W. BUSH .....

AS IF THIS WERE SOME TOTALITARIAN NAZI STATE .....

THE DUTY ....

OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS .....

IS TO WRITE THE LAWS ......

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH MUST FOLLOW .....

And so ......

Perhaps this 24-year old college minister in Fort Worth, Texas ......

Ought to go back to school .....

TO LEARN ABOUT OUR AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT .....

As opposed to whatever form of fascism .......

They embrace .....

Down there ....

In the REPUBLIC OF TEXICO .....

Where George W. Bush came from .....

And so ...

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Assuming the President has authority to establish a special military commission to try Hamdan, the commission must satisfy Common Article 3's requirement of a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," 6 U. S. T., at 3318.

The terms of this general standard are yet to be elaborated and further defined, but Congress has required compliance with it by referring to the "law of war" in §821.

The Court correctly concludes that the military commission here does not comply with this provision.

TO BE CONTINUED ......

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Common Article 3's standard of a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," ibid., supports, at the least, a uniformity principle similar to that codified in §836(b).

The concept of a "regularly constituted court" providing "indispensable" judicial guarantees requires consideration of the system of justice under which the commission is established, though no doubt certain minimum standards are applicable.

See ante, at 69-70; 1 Int'l Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005) (explaining that courts are "regularly constituted" under Common Article 3 if they are "established and organised in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country").

The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes.

Acts of Congress confer on those courts the jurisdiction to try "any person" subject to war crimes prosecution. 10 U. S. C. §818.

As the Court explains, moreover, while special military commissions have been convened in previous armed conflicts--a practice recognized in §821--those military commissions generally have adopted the structure and procedure of courts-martial.

See, e.g., 1 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 248 (2d series 1894) (Civil War general order requiring that military commissions "be constituted in a similar manner and their proceedings be conducted according to the same general rules as courts-martial in order to prevent abuses which might otherwise arise"); W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 835, n. 81 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) ("[M]ilitary commissions are constituted and composed, and their proceedings are conducted, similarly to general courts-martial"); 1 United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 116-117 (1947) (reprint 1997) (hereinafter Law Reports) (discussing post-World War II regulations requiring that military commissions "hav[e] regard for" rules of procedure and evidence applicable in general courts-martial); see also ante, at 53-57; post, at 31, n. 15 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Today, moreover, §836(b)--which took effect after the military trials in the World War II cases invoked by the dissent, see Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U. S. 341, 344-345, and n. 6 (1952); Yamashita, supra, at 5; Quirin, 317 U. S., at 23--codifies this presumption of uniformity at least as to "[p]retrial, trial, and post-trial procedures."

Absent more concrete statutory guidance, this historical and statutory background--which suggests that some practical need must justify deviations from the court-martial model--informs the understanding of which military courts are "regularly constituted" under United States law.

In addition, whether or not the possibility, contemplated by the regulations here, of midtrial procedural changes could by itself render a military commission impermissibly irregular, ante, at 70, n. 65; see also Military Commission Order No. 1, §11 (Aug. 31, 2005), App. to Brief for Petitioner 46a-72a (hereinafter MCO), an acceptable degree of independence from the Executive is necessary to render a commission "regularly constituted" by the standards of our Nation's system of justice.

And any suggestion of Executive power to interfere with an ongoing judicial process raises concerns about the proceedings' fairness.

Again, however, courts-martial provide the relevant benchmark.

Subject to constitutional limitations, see Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866), Congress has the power and responsibility to determine the necessity for military courts, and to provide the jurisdiction and procedures applicable to them.

The guidance Congress has provided with respect to courts-martial indicates the level of independence and procedural rigor that Congress has deemed necessary, at least as a general matter, in the military context.

At a minimum a military commission like the one at issue--a commission specially convened by the President to try specific persons without express congressional authorization--can be "regularly constituted" by the standards of our military justice system only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice.

In this regard the standard of Common Article 3, applied here in conformity with §821, parallels the practicability standard of §836(b).

Section 836, however, is limited by its terms to matters properly characterized as procedural--that is, "[p]retrial, trial, and post-trial procedures"--while Common Article 3 permits broader consideration of matters of structure, organization, and mechanisms to promote the tribunal's insulation from command influence.

Thus the combined effect of the two statutes discussed here--§§836 and 821--is that considerations of practicability must support departures from court-martial practice.

Relevant concerns, as noted earlier, relate to logistical constraints, accommodation of witnesses, security of the proceedings, and the like, not mere expedience or convenience.

This determination, of course, must be made with due regard for the constitutional principle that congressional statutes can be controlling, including the congressional direction that the law of war has a bearing on the determination.

These principles provide the framework for an analysis of the specific military commission at issue here.

TO BE CONTINUED ......

[Livyjr]

"Most Americans plan to vote for Democrats"

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Potential voters were paying attention to the GOP complaint that Democrats want to "cut and run."

"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas.

"I think George Bush is doing the best he can."

And of course .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

Is absolutely right ......

When he says ....

That George W. Bush

Is doing the best he can .....

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE .....

GEORGE W. BUSH ...

IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE .....

TO THE TASK ....

OF BEING ...

A REAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...

AND WORLD LEADER ....

And so .....

This what we have gotten from George ......

This bloody and costly mess over in Iraq .....

THAT IS .....

THE "BEST" .....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

IS CAPABLE OF ......

And so .....

ON THAT POINT .....

WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT .....

And where we do have an argument .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

And myself ....

Has to do .....

With the OATH .....

That EACH president recites ....

In accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As the United States Supreme Court .....

Has just made clear .....

In this Guantanamo decision ....

George W. Bush .......

DID NOT ....

FAITHFULLY EXECUTE .....

THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT ......

BECAUSE HE ACTED .....

IN VIOLATION ...

OF OUR LAWS ....

AND OUR TREATIES ....

WHICH ARE LAW .....

And so ....

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS .....

NO "OH, WELL, HE'S TRYING ..."

OR "HE'S FIXING TO GET WITH IT, ANYWAY ...."

NO ....

NONE OF THAT ....

The PRESIDENTIAL OATH .....

Says in clear and unambiguous language .....

"WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ....."

NOT "WILL TRY HARD TO ..."

Or "FIXING TO GET WITH FAITHFULLY EXECUTING" .....

And so .......

IT IS NO SERVICE ....

TO ANYONE ...

EITHER HERE, IN OUR AMERICA .....

OR IN THE WORLD .....

FOR US .....

TO BE SETTING LOWER STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE .....

FOR GEORGE W. BUSH ......

THAN THAT WHICH THOSE WHO CRAFTED THAT OATH INTENDED ......

And so .....

My thoughts on the matter, anyway .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And of course .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

Is absolutely right ......

When he says ....

That George W. Bush

Is doing the best he can .....

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE .....

GEORGE W. BUSH ...

IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE .....

TO THE TASK ....

OF BEING ...

A REAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...

AND WORLD LEADER ....

And so .....

This what we have gotten from George ......

This bloody and costly mess over in Iraq .....

THAT IS .....

THE "BEST" .....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

IS CAPABLE OF ......

And so .....

"Dow ends down 107, Nasdaq ends down 17"

By CHRISTOPHER WANG, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Friday, July 14, 2006

NEW YORK -- Surging oil prices pulled stocks sharply lower for a third straight session Friday, with bland earnings at General Electric Co. and weak consumer data further dampening the economic outlook.

The Dow Jones industrial average shed 396 points in the past three days.

"I don't think you're going to bring out a lot of buyers in the market after a week like this," Jay Suskind, head trader at Ryan Beck & Co., said of escalating political turmoil in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea.

"Uncertainty over the world situation is just too much for the market to have a solid up day."

Crude futures reached an intraday record of $78.40 a barrel as Israel intensified its attacks on Lebanon, raising concerns about potential supply disruptions throughout the Middle East.

Crude eventually settled at $77.03 a barrel, up 33 cents, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Retail sales fell unexpectedly in June, as did consumer confidence for July.

Industrial and financial conglomerate GE's second-quarter earnings matched analyst estimates, but the in-line results troubled investors already concerned that the recent spate of profit warnings was a sign the economy could be headed for a downturn.

The Dow tumbled 106.94, or 0.99 percent, to 10,739.35.

The blue-chip index fell more than 121 points Wednesday and lost almost 167 points Thursday, and is just 21 points from turning negative for 2006.

Broader stock indicators also declined.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 6.09, or 0.49 percent, to 1,236.20; the Nasdaq composite index declined 16.76, or 0.82 percent, to 2,037.35, a 14-month low.

Declining issues outnumbered advancers by about 2 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Wall Street has slogged through a gauntlet of mounting uncertainties in recent weeks, with concerns about a potential slowdown in the global economy now exacerbated by increasing political turmoil throughout the world.

The commotion sent investors running for cover, giving stocks their worst week this year.

For the week, the Dow slid 3.17 percent, the Nasdaq plunged 4.35 percent and the S&P 500 sank 2.31 percent.

Much of the market's worries stemmed from the trend of rising interest rates worldwide, which is expected to curtail spending and foreign investment and drag on economic growth.

Although the recent jump in oil prices have reinforced beliefs that the Federal Reserve will boost rates again at its Aug. 8 meeting, the early wave of downbeat earnings data has spurred fears that the economy is weakening and could buckle beneath higher lending costs.

"I think (second-quarter earnings) will come in slightly above expectations, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether the economy is slowing and what companies are at risk," said Steven Goldman, chief market strategist at Weeden & Co.

"The nervousness will not change over the next couple of months."

Bonds steadied after this week's runup, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury note unchanged at 5.07 percent from late Thursday.

The 2-year yield, however, stood at 5.1 percent; the inversion of bond yields signaled expectations for slowing economic growth.

The U.S. dollar gained on the Japanese yen and was flat versus European currencies.

Gold prices advanced, climbing to $650 an ounce.

In economic news, the Commerce Department said June retail sales slipped 0.1 percent after growing by the same amount the previous month.

Analysts had been predicting a 0.4 percent increase.

The University of Michigan said its consumer-sentiment index for July fell 1.9 points to 83.

That compares with expectations for a slight rise to 85.5.

GE said five of its six core businesses saw double-digit earnings growth last quarter; the sole loser was its NBC Universal broadcast unit.

GE, which met Wall Street's profit and revenue forecasts, nonetheless sank 56 cents $32.11.

EMC Corp. added to Wall Street's stress over corporate profits after the software maker said earnings slid 5 percent last quarter.

EMC, which earlier this week warned of a possible miss, fell 15 cents to $9.83.

Petco Animal Supplies Inc. jumped $8.44 to $27.89 after the company said it has agreed to be taken private for $29 per share, or $1.68 billion.

Moody's Investors Service pushed Ford Motor Co.'s debt rating further into junk status, saying the shift from sport-utility vehicles to cars was hurting the company's prospect of recovery.

Ford lost 18 cents to $6.38.

Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average plunged 1.67 percent.

Britain's FTSE 100 dropped 1 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 1.9 percent and France's CAC-40 was lower by 1.48 percent.

NYSE final consolidated volume of 2.63 billion shares trailed the 2.31 billion shares that changed hands Thursday.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 6.05, or 0.88 percent, to 681.24.

------

The Dow Jones industrials ended the week down 351.52, or 3.17 percent, finishing at 10,739.35.

The S&P 500 index lost 29.28, or 2.31 percent, to close at 1,236.20.

The Nasdaq dropped 92.71, or 4.35 percent, to end at 2,037.35.

The Russell 2000 index closed the week down 28.06, or 3.96 percent, at 681.24.

The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index -- a free-float weighted index that measures 5,000 U.S. based companies -- ended the week at 12,424.71, off 335.63 points from last week.

A year ago the index was 12,254.70.

------

On the Net:

New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com

Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com

[Livyjr]

"Guantanamo ruling heralds US political showdown"

By Patricia Wilson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats see the Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling as repudiation of a power-hungry White House.

In Thursday's ruling, the nation's highest court found the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.

Vice President Dick Cheney has spoken publicly about restoring the powers of the presidency after what he saw as "an erosion"' in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Watergate sandal.

And of course .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

Is absolutely right ......

When he says ....

That George W. Bush

Is doing the best he can .....

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE .....

GEORGE W. BUSH ...

IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE .....

TO THE TASK ....

OF BEING ...

A REAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...

AND WORLD LEADER ....

And so .....

This what we have gotten from George ......

This bloody and costly mess over in Iraq .....

THAT IS .....

THE "BEST" .....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

IS CAPABLE OF ......

And so .....

ON THAT POINT .....

WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT .....

And where we do have an argument .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

And myself ....

Has to do .....

With the OATH .....

That EACH president recites ....

In accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As the United States Supreme Court .....

Has just made clear .....

In this Guantanamo decision ....

George W. Bush .......

DID NOT ....

FAITHFULLY EXECUTE .....

THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT ......

BECAUSE HE ACTED .....

IN VIOLATION ...

OF OUR LAWS ....

AND OUR TREATIES ....

WHICH ARE LAW .....

And so ....

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Common Article 3's standard of a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," ibid., supports, at the least, a uniformity principle similar to that codified in §836(b).

The concept of a "regularly constituted court" providing "indispensable" judicial guarantees requires consideration of the system of justice under which the commission is established, though no doubt certain minimum standards are applicable.

See ante, at 69-70; 1 Int'l Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005) (explaining that courts are "regularly constituted" under Common Article 3 if they are "established and organised in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country").

And any suggestion of Executive power to interfere with an ongoing judicial process raises concerns about the proceedings' fairness.

These principles provide the framework for an analysis of the specific military commission at issue here.

TO BE CONTINUED ......

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

In assessing the validity of Hamdan's military commission the precise circumstances of this case bear emphasis.

The allegations against Hamdan are undoubtedly serious.

Captured in Afghanistan during our Nation's armed conflict with the Taliban and al Qaeda--a conflict that continues as we speak--Hamdan stands accused of overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit terrorism: delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, acquiring trucks for use by Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, providing security services to bin Laden, and receiving weapons training at a terrorist camp.

App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a-67a.

Nevertheless, the circumstances of Hamdan's trial present no exigency requiring special speed or precluding careful consideration of evidence.

For roughly four years, Hamdan has been detained at a permanent United States military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue, the Government claims authority to continue to detain him based on his status as an enemy combatant.

Against this background, the Court is correct to conclude that the military commission the President has convened to try Hamdan is unauthorized. Ante, at 62, 69-70, 72.

The following analysis, which expands on the Court's discussion, explains my reasons for reaching this conclusion.

To begin with, the structure and composition of the military commission deviate from conventional court-martial standards.

Although these deviations raise questions about the fairness of the trial, no evident practical need explains them.

Under the UCMJ, courts-martial are organized by a "convening authority"--either a commanding officer, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned, or the President. 10 U. S. C. §§822-824 (2000 ed. and Supp. III).

The convening authority refers charges for trial, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Rule for Courts-Martial 401 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter R. C. M.), and selects the court-martial members who vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused and determine the sentence, 10 U. S. C. §§825(d)(2), 851-852 (2000 ed.); R. C. M. 503(a).

Paralleling this structure, under Military Commission Order No. 1 an " 'Appointing Authority' "--either the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary's "designee"--establishes commissions subject to the order, MCO No. 1, §2, approves and refers charges to be tried by those commissions, §4(B)(2)(a), and appoints commission members who vote on the conviction and sentence, §§4(A)(1-3).

In addition the Appointing Authority determines the number of commission members (at least three), oversees the chief prosecutor, provides "investigative or other resources" to the defense insofar as he or she "deems necessary for a full and fair trial," approves or rejects plea agreements, approves or disapproves communications with news media by prosecution or defense counsel (a function shared by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense), and issues supplementary commission regulations (subject to approval by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, unless the Appointing Authority is the Secretary of Defense).

See MCO No. 1, §§4(A)(2), 5(H), 6(A)(4), 7(A); Military Commission Instruction No. 3, §5© (July 15, 2005) (hereinafter MCI), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/d20050811MC13.pdf ; MCI No. 4, §5© (Sept. 16, 2005), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/d20051003MCI4.pdf MCI No. 6, §3(B)(3) (April 15, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/d20040420ins6.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 27, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).

Against the background of these significant powers for the Appointing Authority, which in certain respects at least conform to ordinary court-martial standards, the regulations governing the commissions at issue make several noteworthy departures.

At a general court-martial--the only type authorized to impose penalties of more than one year's incarceration or to adjudicate offenses against the law of war, R. C. M. 201(f); 10 U. S. C. §§818-820 (2000 ed. and Supp. III)--the presiding officer who rules on legal issues must be a military judge. R. C. M. 501(a)(1), 801(a)(4)-(5); 10 U. S. C. §816(1) (2000 ed., Supp. III); see also R. C. M. 201(f)(2)(B)(ii) (likewise requiring a military judge for certain other courts-martial); 10 U. S. C. §819 (2000 ed. and Supp. III) (same).

A military judge is an officer who is a member of a state or federal bar and has been specially certified for judicial duties by the Judge Advocate General for the officer's Armed Service. R. C. M. 502©; 10 U. S. C. §826(b).

To protect their independence, military judges at general courts-martial are "assigned and directly responsible to the Judge Advocate General or the Judge Advocate General's designee." R. C. M. 502©.

They must be detailed to the court, in accordance with applicable regulations, "by a person assigned as a military judge and directly responsible to the Judge Advocate General or the Judge Advocate General's designee." R. C. M. 503(b); see also 10 U. S. C. §826©; see generally Weiss v. United States, 510 U. S. 163, 179-181 (1994) (discussing provisions that "insulat[e] military judges from the effects of command influence" and thus "preserve judicial impartiality").

Here, by contrast, the Appointing Authority selects the presiding officer, MCO No. 1, §§4(A)(1), (A)(4); and that officer need only be a judge advocate, that is, a military lawyer, §4(A)(4).

The Appointing Authority, moreover, exercises supervisory powers that continue during trial.

Any interlocutory question "the disposition of which would effect a termination of proceedings with respect to a charge" is subject to decision not by the presiding officer, but by the Appointing Authority. §4(A)(5)(e) (stating that the presiding officer "shall certify" such questions to the Appointing Authority).

Other interlocutory questions may be certified to the Appointing Authority as the presiding officer "deems appropriate." Ibid.

While in some circumstances the Government may appeal certain rulings at a court-martial--including "an order or ruling that terminates the proceedings with respect to a charge or specification," R. C. M. 908(a); see also 10 U. S. C. §862(a)--the appeals go to a body called the Court of Criminal Appeals, not to the convening authority. R. C. M. 908; 10 U. S. C. §862(b); see also R. C. M. 1107 (requiring the convening authority to approve or disapprove the findings and sentence of a court-martial but providing for such action only after entry of sentence and restricting actions that increase penalties); 10 U. S. C. §860 (same); cf. §837(a) (barring command influence on court-martial actions).

The Court of Criminal Appeals functions as the military's intermediate appeals court; it is established by the Judge Advocate General for each Armed Service and composed of appellate military judges. R. C. M. 1203; 10 U. S. C. §866.

This is another means in which, by structure and tradition, the court-martial process is insulated from those who have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

Finally, in addition to these powers with respect to the presiding officer, the Appointing Authority has greater flexibility in appointing commission members.

While a general court-martial requires, absent a contrary election by the accused, at least five members, R. C. M. 501(a)(1); 10 U. S. C. §816(1) (2000 ed. and Supp. III), the Appointing Authority here is free, as noted earlier, to select as few as three. MCO No. 1, §4(A)(2).

This difference may affect the deliberative process and the prosecution's burden of persuasion.

As compared to the role of the convening authority in a court-martial, the greater powers of the Appointing Authority here--including even the resolution of dispositive issues in the middle of the trial--raise concerns that the commission's decisionmaking may not be neutral.

If the differences are supported by some practical need beyond the goal of constant and ongoing supervision, that need is neither apparent from the record nor established by the Government's submissions.

It is no answer that, at the end of the day, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, affords military-commission defendants the opportunity for judicial review in federal court.

As the Court is correct to observe, the scope of that review is limited, DTA §1005(e)(3)(D), id., at 2743; see also ante, at 8-9, and the review is not automatic if the defendant's sentence is under 10 years, §1005(e)(3)(B), ibid.

Also, provisions for review of legal issues after trial cannot correct for structural defects, such as the role of the Appointing Authority, that can cast doubt on the factfinding process and the presiding judge's exercise of discretion during trial.

Before military-commission defendants may obtain judicial review, furthermore, they must navigate a military review process that again raises fairness concerns.

At the outset, the Appointing Authority (unless the Appointing Authority is the Secretary of Defense) performs an "administrative review" of undefined scope, ordering any "supplementary proceedings" deemed necessary. MCO No. 1 §6(H)(3).

After that the case is referred to a three-member Review Panel composed of officers selected by the Secretary of Defense. §6(H)(4); MCI No. 9, §4(B) (Oct. 11, 2005), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/d20051014MCI9.pdf .

Though the Review Panel may return the case for further proceedings only if a majority "form[s] a definite and firm conviction that a material error of law occurred," MCO No. 1, §6(H)(4); MCI No. 9, §4©(1)(a), only one member must have "experience as a judge," MCO No. 1, §6(H)(4); nothing in the regulations requires that other panel members have legal training.

By comparison to the review of court-martial judgments performed by such independent bodies as the Judge Advocate General, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 10 U. S. C. §§862, 864, 866, 867, 869, the review process here lacks structural protections designed to help ensure impartiality.

These structural differences between the military commissions and courts-martial--the concentration of functions, including legal decisionmaking, in a single executive official; the less rigorous standards for composition of the tribunal; and the creation of special review procedures in place of institutions created and regulated by Congress--remove safeguards that are important to the fairness of the proceedings and the independence of the court.

Congress has prescribed these guarantees for courts-martial; and no evident practical need explains the departures here.

For these reasons the commission cannot be considered regularly constituted under United States law and thus does not satisfy Congress' requirement that military commissions conform to the law of war.

[Livyjr]

And of course .....

This 24-year old college minister .....

From Ft. Worth, Texas .....

Is absolutely right ......

When he says ....

That George W. Bush

Is doing the best he can .....

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE .....

GEORGE W. BUSH ...

IS SIMPLY INADEQUATE .....

TO THE TASK ....

OF BEING ...

A REAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT ...

AND WORLD LEADER ....

And so .....

This what we have gotten from George ......

This bloody and costly mess over in Iraq .....

THAT IS .....

THE "BEST" .....

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH ....

IS CAPABLE OF ......

And so .....

ON THAT POINT .....

WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT .....

As G-8 opens, a rift widens - Tensions rise after U.S. decides not to let Russia join WTO; Putin mocks Bush efforts to bring democracy to Iraq"

By JIM RUTENBERG and ANDREW E. KRAMER, New York Times
First published: Sunday, July 16, 2006

STRELNA, Russia -- In a rocky beginning to a summit conference Saturday, President Bush announced the U.S. had blocked Russia's much anticipated entry into the World Trade Organization.

In turn, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin mocked the state of democracy the Bush administration had delivered to Iraq and said his nation wouldn't be joining any crusades.

At a news conference that offered a slightly rough prelude to the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8 economic powers, Putin and Bush also differed over Iraq, the state of Russia's democracy and Israel's military campaign in Lebanon.

Though they had a few positive announcements as well -- agreeing on initiatives to combat nuclear terrorism and share civilian nuclear material and technology -- overall the appearance highlighted growing tensions between former Cold War rivals now jockeying for global position.

In the sharpest exchange, Bush said that he had told Putin during a private dinner here Friday night about "my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq -- where there is a free press and free religion -- and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope Russia would do the same thing."

Putin, standing bolt upright in a dark blue suit, responded dryly, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly" -- a clear dig at the challenges still facing the American-supported government there.

Bush, in a light blue suit and standing more casually than his counterpart, turned to face Putin, smiled and said, almost to himself, "Just wait."

Both men played down any friction, saying it was indicative of a frank relationship that remains friendly in spite of the areas where their national interests diverge.

Russia, the host of the G-8 summit meeting for the first time, has set an agenda seeking common cause on protecting energy supplies and developing new ones, improving national education systems and combating infectious disease.

But exchanges of military fire between Israel and Hezbollah intruded, and an agreement was reached even before the meeting opened that the attending nations would draft some sort of joint position aimed at heading off a broader regional conflict.

All sides expected some tension between the United States, which has expressed support for Israel's need to defend itself, and many of the other attending countries, whose leaders have deemed Israel's force excessive and have called for a cease-fire.

The leaders also are to discuss the dual nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea.

Putin had hoped to kick off the summit meeting, to officially begin today at the palace erected by Peter the Great nearly 300 years ago in this St. Petersburg suburb, with an announcement that the United States would lift its objection to Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization.

Putin wants membership as a symbol of the new position of Russia, flush with oil money, in the global economy.

Negotiations between Russian and American trade representatives went into the early morning hours of Saturday, but could not break through impasses over financial services, food imports and, to a lesser extent, intellectual property rights.

"We're tough negotiators," Bush said, adding that the United States wanted to ensure a deal is reached that Congress will approve.

He added the two sides were close and that news reports had wrongly inflated expectations.

In a press briefing that followed the joint presidential appearance, the U.S. trade representative, Susan Schwab, said it would likely be months before an agreement can be reached.

Asked if Russia had been correct to believe that a breakthrough was possible by this weekend, Schwab, who had been involved in the late-night negotiations, said "I think both sides would have preferred if we had an agreement."

Her Russian counterparts blamed the United States, complaining in interviews that the sticking points revolved largely around what they considered the small issue of food imports and the American side's objection to having Russian inspectors visit farms in the United States.

But Bush and Putin did agree to start talks to pave the way for a deal allowing nuclear waste generated from American-produced plutonium from around the world to be stored in Russia -- a potential shift in American policy that would be lucrative for Russia.

They also agreed to work together to combat the potential spread of nuclear materials to terrorists, a sign that the one-time nuclear rivals now see a common foe in extremists who have targeted both nations.

Putin and Bush offered no breakthroughs on a common approach to reining in the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran; the United States has been calling for a tougher line as Russia has advocated a more delicate approach.

Putin, whose government's cooperation with Iran has rankled the White House, repeatedly referred to Iran as "our partners."

When a reporter asked a two-part question about whether there were any breakthroughs in countering nuclear proliferation and how he rated the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin began, "We will not participate in any crusades, in any holy alliances," which analysts here took as a signal to Iran that Russia is not fully aligned with Bush, or as a dig at Bush's campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East, or both.

But Putin continued, "Our common goal is to make the world a more secure place, and certainly we'll be working with all our partners, including the United States, in order to address this problem."

Asked what he took Putin to have meant by "holy alliance" and "crusade," Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said during a press briefing here, "You know, I asked myself the same question."

end quotes

This Stephen J. Hadley BUSHCO ....

Sounds like he is .....

As DUMB .....

As a box of rocks .....

And he must be .....

About the only person ....

On the face of the earth right now ....

Who doesn't know ....

What Putin is talking about .....

When Putin says ....

"We will not participate in any crusades, in any holy alliances ....."

And so .....

Being DUMB ...

AS A BOX OF ROCKS .....

Means ...

That he is NO THREAT ....

To George W. Bush ....

Who also teeters ....

On the brink .....

OF ACTUALLY BEING DUMBER .....

THAN A BOX OF ROCKS ...

EVER THOUGHT OF BEING ....

And so ...

For that reason ...

THIS HADLEY DUDE .....

WAS MADE ...

THE BUSHCO ....

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

As G-8 opens, a rift widens - Tensions rise after U.S. decides not to let Russia join WTO; Putin mocks Bush efforts to bring democracy to Iraq" 
 
By JIM RUTENBERG and ANDREW E. KRAMER, New York Times
First published: Sunday, July 16, 2006

STRELNA, Russia -- In turn, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin mocked the state of democracy the Bush administration had delivered to Iraq and said his nation wouldn't be joining any crusades.

Asked what he took Putin to have meant by "holy alliance" and "crusade," Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said during a press briefing here, "You know, I asked myself the same question."

Well, Steve .....

AS TO HOLY ALLIANCES ......

"Megachurches build a Republican base"

By Andrea Hopkins

2 hours, 21 minutes ago

LANCASTER, Ohio (Reuters) - It's not Sunday but Fairfield Christian Church is packed.

Hundreds of kids are making their way to vacation Bible school, parents are dropping in at the day-care center and yellow-shirted volunteers are everywhere, directing traffic.

In one wing of the sprawling church, a coffee barista whips up a mango smoothie while workers bustle around the cafeteria.

"There are people here from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day -- sometimes later," senior pastor Russell Johnson says as he surveys the activity.

The 4,000 members of Fairfield Christian are part of the growing evangelical Christian movement in middle America.

In a March survey, a quarter of Ohio residents said they were evangelicals -- believing that a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation.

The fastest-growing faith group in America, evangelical Christians have had a growing impact on the nation's political landscape, in part because adherents believe conservative Christian values should have a place in politics -- and they support politicians who agree with them.

In that March survey, more than 82 percent of the Ohio evangelicals who attend church at least once a week said they approve of bringing more religion into politics.

"Christians stepped back too far."

"I prayed in school but my kids can't pray in school," said volunteer Lisa Sexton, 42, a Bible school volunteer.

"I should have spoken up earlier."

Political analyst John Green said evangelical growth has had a major political impact in Ohio, a key swing state that narrowly decided President George W. Bush's election victory in 2004.

"Evangelical Protestants have become much more Republican in recent times, although 40 or 50 years ago more of them were Democrats," said Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

"There was a particular intensification of evangelical links to the Republican Party during the Bush administration in 2000 and 2004."

GOD AND POLITICS

Sexton believes every word in the Bible, rejects evolution theory, and supports the Iraq war, the Republican Party and Bush -- in part because he is a born-again Christian.

"I trust his opinion because of his beliefs," she said.

Signs of growth are everywhere at Fairfield Christian.

The facilities will soon encompass 325,000 square feet -- about twice the size of an average Wal-Mart superstore.

Outside one window a jackhammer pounds away, part of an endless construction cycle at the suburban church about 30 miles southeast of Columbus.

At the North Campus, 16 miles (26 km) away the main facility, there is another church, 41 acres for baseball, soccer and recreation, and plans for a retirement center.

Johnson seems involved in it all as he tours around the main church, greeting everyone by name.

The pastor also is chairman of the Ohio Restoration Project, a faith-based group that wants to increase the role of religion in public life.

In that role, Johnson is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for possible violations of a law that prohibits churches and charities from participating in political campaigns.

He denies breaking any law.

Church members are supportive.

"I appreciate the fact that the church is politically involved," said Kyle Hatfield, a 30-year-old father of two who believes the separation of church and state has gone too far.

"It was not our forefathers' intention to prevent churches from being involved," he said.

"Our forefathers did not want to force people to belong to a church, but that has been tweaked to mean churches cannot be involved."

end quotes

OUR FOREFATHERS .....

DID NOT WANT ...

CHURCHES .....

INVOLVED IN POLITICS ....

PRECISELY .....

BECAUSE .....

OUR FOREFATHERS ....

DID NOT WANT ....

ORGANIZED GROUPS ....

LIKE THESE EVANGELICALS ....

FORCING THEIR RELIGION ...

THEIR BELIEFS ....

DOWN OUR THROATS ....

THROUGH THE AGENCY ....

OF A GOVERNMENT ....

WHICH THEY CONTROLLED .....

AS THEY CONTROL ....

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ....

AND WHO IT PUTS IN OFFICE ....

LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH ...

HERE IN OUR AMERICA .....

And so ...

[Livyjr]

And why is it ...

That every time we hear from Dick Cheney ......

He is always out .....

Hitting people up for money .....

For the REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

"Cheney raises funds for candidate - Vice president attends event for Republican running for congressional seat"

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press
First published: Saturday, July 15, 2006

UTICA -- Vice President Dick Cheney urged Republicans on Friday night to make the war on terror their top issue in the 2006 election, speaking at a fundraiser in a contested upstate congressional district.

"As we make our case to the voters in an election year, it is vital to keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda," Cheney told more than 300 donors to GOP candidate Ray Meier.

Outside the Utica hotel, about 100 anti-war protesters gathered waving signs critical of the "Grand Oil Party."

Meier, a state senator running against Democrat Michael Arcuri to replace a seat now held by retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, said national security is not the first issue in the minds of voters he talks to.

"I think the voters in this district are really more interested in issues closer to home," Meier said, citing jobs, gas prices and the economy.

Republicans expect to raise more than $100,000 in campaign cash from the event for Meier.

Democrats are hoping the event will make Meier pay a price in voters' minds for joining forces with an unpopular administration.

Ahead of the fundraiser, national Democrats sought to portray the visit as proof that Meier is in lockstep with the Bush administration.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera branded Meier "Rubberstamp Ray."

Arcuri, Meier's opponent, is a local prosecutor who recently got a fundraising boost from the Democrats' best fundraiser, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Boehlert, R-New Hartford, is retiring after 24 years in Congress, where he earned a reputation as a moderate willing to buck the party line on the environment and social spending.

The race for the 24th District in central New York is attracting national attention because Democrats hope low voter approval numbers for the Congress will give them a chance to win control of the House this year.

end quotes

Vice President Dick Cheney urged Republicans on Friday night to make the war on terror their top issue in the 2006 election, speaking at a fundraiser in a contested upstate congressional district.

"As we make our case to the voters in an election year, it is vital to keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda," Cheney told more than 300 donors to GOP candidate Ray Meier.

"I think the voters in this district are really more interested in issues closer to home," Meier said, citing jobs, gas prices and the economy.

Dick Cheney ....

IS SO OUT OF TOUCH .....

WITH MOST OF AMERICA .....

AND MOST OF ITS PEOPLE ...

That it is not funny .....

AND HE IS .....

OUT OF TOUCH ....

WITH REALITY, as well ......

Which is not surprising .....

When the man is either shooting someone ...

Or hiding in an underground bunker ....

In some undisclosed location ....

Or cadging and wheedling money .....

FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....

BUT ....

IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF MONEY OF COURSE ...

THEN YOU CAN BUY ...

DICK'S ATTENTION ....

And then ...

You'll have it .....

For a minute .....

For an hour .....

Maybe for a whole day ....

Depending on the size of your bank account .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

"Megachurches build a Republican base"

By Andrea Hopkins

LANCASTER, Ohio (Reuters) - Sexton believes every word in the Bible, rejects evolution theory, and supports the Iraq war, the Republican Party and Bush -- in part because he is a born-again Christian.

"I trust his opinion because of his beliefs," she said.

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

By comparison to the review of court-martial judgments performed by such independent bodies as the Judge Advocate General, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 10 U. S. C. §§862, 864, 866, 867, 869, the review process here lacks structural protections designed to help ensure impartiality.

These structural differences between the military commissions and courts-martial--the concentration of functions, including legal decisionmaking, in a single executive official; the less rigorous standards for composition of the tribunal; and the creation of special review procedures in place of institutions created and regulated by Congress--remove safeguards that are important to the fairness of the proceedings and the independence of the court.

Congress has prescribed these guarantees for courts-martial; and no evident practical need explains the departures here.

For these reasons the commission cannot be considered regularly constituted under United States law and thus does not satisfy Congress' requirement that military commissions conform to the law of war.

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., continued .....

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

Apart from these structural issues, moreover, the basic procedures for the commissions deviate from procedures for courts-martial, in violation of §836(b).

As the Court explains, ante, at 51, 61, the Military Commission Order abandons the detailed Military Rules of Evidence, which are modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence in conformity with §836(a)'s requirement of presumptive compliance with district-court rules.

Instead, the order imposes just one evidentiary rule:

"Evidence shall be admitted if ... the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person," MCO No. 1, §6(D)(1).

Although it is true some military commissions applied an amorphous evidence standard in the past, see, e.g., 1 Law Reports 117-118 (discussing World War II military commission orders); Exec. Order No. 9185, 7 Fed. Reg. 5103 (1942) (order convening military commission to try Nazi saboteurs), the evidentiary rules for those commissions were adopted before Congress enacted the uniformity requirement of 10 U. S. C. §836(b) as part of the UCMJ, see Act of May 5, 1950, ch. 169, 64 Stat. 107, 120, 149.

And while some flexibility may be necessary to permit trial of battlefield captives like Hamdan, military statutes and rules already provide for introduction of deposition testimony for absent witnesses, 10 U. S. C. §849(d); R. C. M. 702, and use of classified information, Military Rule Evid. 505.

Indeed, the deposition-testimony provision specifically mentions military commissions and thus is one of the provisions the Government concedes must be followed by the commission at issue.

See ante, at 58.

That provision authorizes admission of deposition testimony only if the witness is absent for specified reasons, §849(d)--a requirement that makes no sense if military commissions may consider all probative evidence.

Whether or not this conflict renders the rules at issue "contrary to or inconsistent with" the UCMJ under §836(a), it creates a uniformity problem under §836(b).

The rule here could permit admission of multiple hearsay and other forms of evidence generally prohibited on grounds of unreliability.

Indeed, the commission regulations specifically contemplate admission of unsworn written statements, MCO No. 1, §6(D)(3); and they make no provision for exclusion of coerced declarations save those "established to have been made as a result of torture," MCI No. 10, §3(A) (Mar. 24, 2006), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/d20060327MCI10.pdf ; cf. Military Rule Evid. 304©(3) (generally barring use of statements obtained "through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement"); 10 U. S. C. §831(d) (same).

Besides, even if evidence is deemed nonprobative by the presiding officer at Hamdan's trial, the military-commission members still may view it.

In another departure from court-martial practice the military commission members may object to the presiding officer's evidence rulings and determine themselves, by majority vote, whether to admit the evidence.

MCO No. 1, §6(D)(1); cf. R. C. M. 801(a)(4), (e)(1) (providing that the military judge at a court-martial determines all questions of law).

As the Court explains, the Government has made no demonstration of practical need for these special rules and procedures, either in this particular case or as to the military commissions in general, ante, at 59-61; nor is any such need self-evident.

For all the Government's regulations and submissions reveal, it would be feasible for most, if not all, of the conventional military evidence rules and procedures to be followed.

In sum, as presently structured, Hamdan's military commission exceeds the bounds Congress has placed on the President's authority in §§836 and 821 of the UCMJ.

Because Congress has prescribed these limits, Congress can change them, requiring a new analysis consistent with the Constitution and other governing laws.

At this time, however, we must apply the standards Congress has provided.

By those standards the military commission is deficient.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

[Livyjr]

"GOP candidates in N.Y. turn on each other"

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

Sat Jul 1, 9:31 AM ET

NEW YORK - The Clintons are no strangers to political soap opera, yet all the drama in New York revolves around the Republicans.

Accusations of bigamy and child abuse, illegitimate children and a tabloid description of one candidate curled in the fetal position after downing half a pint of ice cream sound like top-rated, daytime fiction.

Instead, it's the GOP Senate primary between a former Yonkers mayor, John Spencer, and a Reagan-era Pentagon official, Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland.

I don't know, me ....

But I think ...

That these REPUBLICANS .....

Up here .....

In George Pataki's .....

CORRUPT State of New York ......

Have some ISSUES .....

That were better left private .....

And so ....

But that is not the REPUBLICAN WAY, apparently .....

And so ....

"Family strife hits Senate hopeful - Kathleen McFarland's letter accusing father of sexual abuse surfaces"

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press

First published: Saturday, July 15, 2006

NEW YORK -- Aides to Republican Senate hopeful Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland insisted Friday that she intends to stay in the race, despite the publication of a lengthy letter in which she accused her father of sexually abusing her and her siblings as children.

"I have always remembered your physical abuse, the beatings you gave me, Tom, Mike and Nancy," McFarland wrote in the seven-page letter dated July 18, 1992.

"I now realize clearly that this brutality also had a sexual component -- sexual child abuse -- specifically, incest."

The existence of the letter, and excerpts from it, were disclosed last month in an article in New York magazine.

But the allegations of sexual abuse were not made public until Friday, when the Daily News published the entire letter on its Web site.

McFarland's father, Augie Troia, and brother, Tom Troia, have both publicly denied the allegations.

In a newspaper interview Thursday, the younger Troia denounced McFarland as "evil" and suggested she'd written the letter to make their father die of a heart attack.

The publication of the letter -- handwritten in cursive, on McFarland's personalized stationery -- is part of the flood of family recriminations that have dominated her longshot campaign.

Still, her advisers said she intends to carry on.

"KT McFarland has been a fighter all her life -- there's not an ounce of quit in her," spokesman Bill O'Reilly said.

"It's why she has accomplished so much in her life and she is not about to change her ways now."

"Her campaign moves forward."

In the letter, the candidate angrily accuses her father of physical and sexual brutality which she said stemmed from insecurities over his being "socially inferior and financially unsuccessful."

She claimed the sexual abuse prevented the rest of her siblings from forming lasting relationships and had driven Michael, who was gay, into promiscuity, leading to his death from AIDS in 1995.

[Livyjr]

And speaking of .....

CORPORATE WELFARE .....

At taxpayer expense, of course ....

And George Pataki's .....

CORRUPT ....

REPUBLICAN EMPIRE ....

Of New York ....

"Risky business - State's $1.2B deal with AMD is fraught with uncertainties"

By MICHAEL D. MARVIN
First published: Sunday, July 16, 2006

So we are going to build a chip fab plant.

Some say it will put us on the map.

Others say it will create 10,000 jobs.

People seem to be jumping in front of each other to try to take credit for this accomplishment.

This even though Advanced Micro Devices signed a nonbinding agreement with the state, which means they could still pull out.

This even though taxpayers have to cough up $1.2 billion to help build a facility that could house up to 1,200 people.

Amazing.

We are trying to buy 1,200 AMD jobs for about $1 million a job.

That's about 1 percent of the state budget.

If we use the most optimistic projection for job creation of 10,000 jobs, and those jobs paid an average salary of $50,000, New York would recoup $25 million a year through taxes.

However, if the cost of providing that money is 5 percent per year, it will cost $60 million in interest on the $1.2 billion.

Not only wouldn't New Yorkers get their investment back, but the cost would continue to grow each year.

We are not getting a corporate headquarters that would provide leadership and growth.

We are getting a factory.

We are not getting revolutionary technology.

We are getting the latest in incremental changes to a process that has been going on for decades.

Why, then, are we spending $1.2 billion?

Another issue that must be considered is how long this plant will be in use.

Some chip fab plants are used for only three years, though 10 to 20 years is more typical.

I doubt AMD is making any commitments on the length of use of the facilities or the number of employees that would remain at the plant for 20 years.

AMD would certainly not make commitments that would result in the repayment of our tax dollars.

When the plant is no longer in use because of obsolesce or changing business climate, there will be one very large concrete tombstone in our region with no other possible use.

It is a special purpose building, and it will have contained many chemicals.

All of the decision-makers, of course, no longer will be in office when this occurs.

All of AMD's senior officers live outside New York.

They may express regret for the unfortunate result of the plant's closing.

Somehow this will not make me feel better.

What I would really like to know is what other uses were considered by our leaders for our $1.2 billion.

Did they consider reducing our taxes so that we would not be the highest taxed state in the country?

Did they consider building a light rail system for the region that would attract many businesses, reduce reliance on the nonrenewable energy sources (i.e., oil), and improve the quality of life of all of its residents?

Was the possibility of a high-speed rail service to New York City that would better unite our state's work force ruled out?

How about an investment fund for renewable energy companies headquartered here?

How about turning the Harriman Campus in uptown Albany into such an energy efficient workplace that visitors flocked from all over to see it?

Is the contribution of $1.2 billion to help AMD build a chip fab the best use of our tax dollars?

I will say that we have gotten a tremendous amount of press and recognition.

But I still wonder if it is worth $1.2 billion.

Michael D. Marvin is co-founder and chairman emirtus of MapInfo, the Troy-based software developer.

end quotes

Well. Mr. Marvin .....

From the perspective ....

Of New York State's .....

Corrupt politicians .....

WHO ARE "IN IT FOR THEIR POCKETS" .....

The GRAFT ....

And the SKIM ......

Off that 1.2 BILLION ....

Is going to do ....

VERY WELL ...

For them .....

And so ...

They thought ....

That another opportunity ....

TO LINE THEIR POCKETS ....

WITH OUR TAX MONEY ....

WAS THE VERY BEST ...

USE ....

OF THAT TAX MONEY ....

THAT THERE COULD BE .....

And so ...