Si si puede!

Today is Cesar Chavez Day. (Don't tell the Teabaggers!)

A bloody good start

Our new President has ordered a halt to the (illegal) tribunals at the Guantánamo Bay Beach and Leisure Resort.

How's that trickle down thing working out for ya?

When I first moved here I used, half ironically, describe America to my British mates as a First World country and a Third World country sharing the same geography. Well I think this story goes a long way towards proving that if you wait long enough reality has a way of killing off all irony. American cities in particular are hotbeds of inequality on a par with such notable "cities on hills" as Abidjan and Nairobi and the life expectancy of black Americans is roughly the same as the life expectancy in China and parts of India.

The most egalitarian city in the world? (Prepare for wingnut heads exploding!)

Beijing. Thank heavens that communism has turned out to be such a failure and the unbridled free market such a success story, eh?

Friends like these

The British High Court has strongly (and quite rightly) criticising the American government for refusing to disclose evidence related to the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed. Mr. Mohamed is a British resident who has been (illegally) held at Guantánamo Bay Beach and Leisure Resort for nearly six years. Prior to his incarceration at Gitmo American "intelligence" services has (illegally) "rendered" him to Morocco where Mr. Mohamed's attorneys argue the torture took place; the treatment included (blokes should take a deep breath before reading further) slicing his penis. The Guardian article goes on to say

In a particularly damning passage, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said claims by Mohamed's lawyers that the US was refusing to release the papers because "torturers do not readily hand over evidence of their conduct" could not be dismissed and required an answer.

The British government is bravely siding with the Yanks because the American government is essentially threatening to take its ball and go home by withholding intelligence data.

Once again I am reminded that it is not only possible, but often necessary, to be ashamed of the actions of one's government.

Not just any old amendment!!

Ramb-ette's consort, the First Dude of Alaska, has said that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution "isn't just another amendment"; you know like the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment or even the Nineteenth Amendment. I should like to thank Todd for clearing that up for me.

Today in word association

Pot is to kettle as Captain Codpiece is to ????

Our great leader tells China to end detentions and ensure freedoms. Perhaps he has got confused and he thinks that "contraction and conversion" is meant to apply to human rights and not to greenhouse gas emissions!

Put your head between your knees...

...and kiss your habeas corpus goodbye. Despite all his fine talk it appears that Captain Codpiece has no intentions to follow the law despite the Supreme Court's unequivocal ruling!

World Refugee Day

Today is World Refugee Day on which we should celebrate the inestimable contribution of the United States to the creation of refugees across the global both directly in Iraq and Afghanistan and indirectly through its efforts to continue the warming of the planet.

Have a nice day.

Saving the nation (and the world from judicial activism)

I am certain that true conservative Americans will be rejoicing the recent US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Boumediene v. Bush in which Justices Kennedy (app. R. Reagan), Stevens (app. G. Ford), Souter (app. Bush the Father), Ginsburg (app. W. Clinton) and Breyer (app. W. Clinton) preserved the ancient right of habeas corpus, a right so sacrosanct and universal that the Founders found no need to include it in the Bill of Rights* or the Constitution proper except to state the circumstances under which it could be suspended. These brave men and woman held fast against the onslaught of the activist judges Roberts (app. Bush the Son), Scalia (app. R. Reagan), Thomas (app. Bush the Father) and Alito (Bush the Son) who wished to invent new law from the ether simply to satisfy circumstance that they see in the world today. The thinking and arguments of these four vile men should be, and I am certain is, anathema to any conservative anywhere.

It is also possible that I could be wrong in this and that this carefully crafted conservative legal philosophy is only followed as long as convenient. Hard to tell.

*Should you not believe Mr. Dean or myself I give you the following from Federalist Paper (84):

"It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"

How to tell we are well and truly well down the slippery slope

I think that when America's elected representatives start suggesting that the US Constitution be amended to start removing rights, even when said elected representative is loony Bush apologist Lindsey "No It's Not a Girl's Name" Graham, it is time we need to begin to seriously worry about the state of the Republic.

In which I praise a Tory

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis is resigning from the Conservative front bench and from Parliament over the passage of the government's 42 detention without charge bill. To quote the honourable (and I mean that) Mr. Davis:

"Up until yesterday I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons, representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries of forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people - well we did up until yesterday."

Are there any (probably not New) Labourites who wish to follow his example?

Has anyone seen the moral high ground?

There used to be a time that the United States could stand proudly on its record as regards freedom and human rights, sometimes justifiably and sometimes not, but now that is frankly impossible. Yesterday a panel of experts from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child severely criticised the US for its continued detention of minors as "threats to security" at the Guantánamo Bay Beach and Leisure Resort and elsewhere as well as the recruiting campaigns run by the US military that specifically target underage and disadvantaged youths. US officials have, as yet, failed to respond to the criticism.

How the mighty have fallen.

The horns of a dilemma

At first glance I would have assumed that I would wish to support the cause of Crystal Dixon who was sacked from her job at the University of Toledo (US) after she wrote a column dismissive of the fight for gay rights. Irrespective of the fact that I disagree totally with Ms. Dixon's thesis I believe that she has a right to express herself as a private citizen. However after further consideration it is clear that her opinions make her totally unsuitable in her position as a Vice President of Human Resources. So the question is what should have been done. Should she have moved to another position where her homophobia would not be an issue? Demoted to a position where she would have no responsibility for decision making (with appropriate reduction in compensation)?

It is a difficult decision to have to make but I think that the status quo could not have reasonably been maintained.

Democracy - a primer

In a modern democracy the political sector has oversight over and control of the military. Therefore when a top military officer has been in charge of a critical command and his judgement and adherence to military regulations and to domestic and international law have been brought into question the politicians and the press must endeavour to ensure that he is not given a choice new assignment as a reward. That is how it worked in this case at least. The only problem with the story is that Major General Jay Hood was to be awarded the top US military post in Pakistan as a reward for his excellent work as the head man at the Guantánamo Bay Beach and Leisure Club but the politicians and the press in Pakistan put up such a fuss that his name will be withdrawn shortly.

Have we no decency left?

No matter where one stands on the invasion of Iraq, the "Eternal Global War on Terra" or the use of military tribunals to bring "justice" to those we define as "illegal combatants" it is hard to imagine that one could support the use of these tribunals to try someone who was a 15 year old boy at the time of the alleged crime. This is, of course, unless one is a member of the American government.

US military judges see no reason why Omar Khadr, a Canadian, should not be found guilty tried at the tribunals in the resplendent Guantánamo Bay Beach and Leisure Club. Mr. Khadr has spent over 25% of his life in (probably illegal) US custody.

Captain Codpiece's moral relativism

It seems that, if one is the President of the United States or his designate, one may make up international law as one goes along. Ergo there are no such things as "human rights.

I think we are best to forget about impeachment and let him, and his evil minions, be snatched up by a court in another, more civilised country.

That freedom thing

After nearly two years being held without charge AP photographer Bilal Hussein has finally been freed by the US military on orders from the Iraqi government. He's probably still on the no fly list though I reckon.

Methinks he doth misspeak!

American National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was on one of the Sunday morning shows in the US whee he repeatedly referred to the situation in NEPAL that is causing so many of the world's leaders, but not Captain Codpiece, to decided not to attend the opening ceremonies for the Beijing Olympics. I counted eight separate and distinct references so this was clearly not a slip of the tongue. So the question is were the continued references to the incorrect country:

A) Evidence of Mr. Hadley's complete and utter incompetence

B) A coded invitation from the US government to China that invading Nepal is OK

C) A message to the people of Nepal that even if fair elections if vote for the wrong people bad shit will happen

D) All of the above

One step forward, two steps back

The government of the sovereign state of Iraq has finally decided to drop all charges against AP photographer Bilal Hussein who has been held in detainment for almost two years after having been "captured" by US forces.

The American response to this has been to remind the Iraqis that being a sovereign state means doing what the US wants. Got that?

Inside the Great Firewall of China...

...the Olympic torch is having a high old time.

Outside the Great Firewall? Not so great.