I Don't Think They Are From Around Here...

25 Indicted In Meth Trafficking Case

KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Prosecutors said 25 people were indicted in connection with an investigation into methamphetamine trafficking in the Kansas City area.

Prosecutors said the drug ring was running a more pure form of meth known as ice, the kind that is imported from Mexico.

Charged in the indictment are:
Baltazar Quiroz, 27, Kansas City, Mo.
Uriel Lopez-Montejano, 41, Whitfield, Neb.
Hector Eduardo Garcia-Gallardo, 38, Las Vegas, Nev.
Araceli Lozano-Miranda, 29, Kansas City, Mo.
Luis Lozano-Miranda, 21, Kansas City, Kan.
Francisco Armando Lopez-Montejano, 28, South Sioux City, Neb.
Jorge Carrillo-Chavez, 33, Wakefield, Neb.
Javier Dozal, 28, Kansas City, Kan.
Secundino Arias-Garcia, 29, Kansas City, Mo.
Hugo Chavez-Cadenas, 39, Grand Prairie, Texas
Jose Jimenez-Alvarez, 44, Kansas City, Kan.
Maricela Naranjo, 34, Independence, Mo.
Guadalupe Ruiz, 42, Kansas City, Kan.
Marisela Ruiz, 21, Kansas City, Kan.
Francisco Javier Ruiz-Najera, 38, Kansas City, Kan.
Steven Luttrell, 49, Kansas City, Kan.
Vincent Ray Marez, 24, Ottawa, Kan.
Betty Sue Marcos, 36, Kansas City, Kan.
Servgio Mosqueda-Hernandez, 34, Kansas City, Mo.
Baynard Jack Sitlington, 45, Ottawa, Kan.
Kurtis Wall, 34, Richmond, Kan.
Robynn Woods, 36, Ottawa, Kan.
Jesus Monoz, 18, Kansas City, Kan.
Fabiola Uribe, 28, Kansas City, Kan.
Carlos Dozal-Alvarez, 29, Kansas City, Kan.

Thirty Years

Made with Morpheus Photo Morpher

Parental Promises vs. Parental Ethics

Back in September of last year I wrote about my daughter's desire to get her lip pierced and the Great Compromise.

In a nutshell, I said NO to any facial piercings or any tattoos until she turned 18 and didn't need my permission. In exchange I reversed my position on her previous request to get her belly button pierced.

I specifically remember asking her what her mother said about this arrangement and her reply was "As long as you are willing to take me and sign the permission slip it's OK with her, but she won't do it."

I remember thinking that seemed a bit strange. Either she agrees or doesn't agree...what difference does it make which one of us takes her and signs the paper?

Well. Got a voice mail from the 2nd ex tonight. GTO desperately wants to get her lip pierced for her birthday on Sunday. Told her mom she promised not to wear it around me.

I called the ex back and explained the Great Compromise. Turns out GTO's version of her mother's position wasn't exactly accurate. The ex was dead set against the belly button piercing or any other piercings. Period!

In fact, GTO used that as an example of something that I was willing to do in spite of her mother's objections, therefore, her mother should be willing to do this over my objections.

Yeah, we ain't playing that shit.

Her mother and I have reached an agreement that neither one of us will agree to or authorize any more piercings for GTO. Not no where, not no how, not no way.

Which means, I will be forced to go back on My Word. Something I've never done before.

But I'm mostly OK with it for a couple of reasons.

As our marriage was crumbling and we were going through a painful divorce, we agreed to always put GTO first, to always present a united front, and to never, ever, let her "play" us.

And that is exactly what GTO tried to do. She tried to play me by misrepresenting her mother's position, and she tried to play her mother by throwing me under the bus!

That doesn't make her a bad person. It makes her a 15 year old girl who wants something.

But I feel like my promise to allow her to get her belly button pierced was obtained under false premises and that voids My Word.

So, because I value the input from my friends and readers, what do you think?

Is a promise a promise? Should I have kept My Word regardless?

Or is it more important for both parents (no matter how much I may despise the crazy bitch) pull together and present a united front when it comes to what's best for the child?

Discuss.

For Some Of My Friends

Some of my female friends are having a rough time. So here are some tunes for them.



Amy Rigby "Cynically Yours"

Harry Nilsson "You're Breaking My Heart"

Das Boot

Jurgen Prochnow is one hell of an actor, but that doesn't change the fact that I have some fucked up feet!

I have my dad's feet.

I remember growing up watching him take a safety razor to the thick calluses on the balls of his feet.

PROBLEM

SOLUTION

Oops! Wrong photo! Sorry!

SOLUTION REDUX

So of course, I treated my calluses the same way. On more than one occasion I have had to seek medical treatment because I trimmed a little to deep. Got me some pink (and not the good kind). Once, I even drew blood. That was stupid.

Of course, I don't inflict that graphic shit on my readers. Unlike SOME people.



DAYum! That's some fucked up shit, emaw!

Anyway, about 25-30 years ago I had a surgical procedure where they go in through the top of the foot, lift up the joint between the metatarsel and the phalange.


This reduces the pressure on the ball of the foot and mostly keeps the calluses from forming.

This was mostly successful for many years.

Then, about a year ago, as I was trying to start some aerobic walking to lose some of the weight gain I experienced after quitting smoking, I started having sharp pains in the arch of my left foot.

I went to my doctor, he couldn't find anything wrong, so he said "Let's start with the foot wear."

He sent me to a specialist shoe place who diagnosed the problem as Plantar Fasciitis. They sold me some obscenely expensive walking shoes, some arch supporting orthotic inserts and a wedge for my left heel.

That mostly solved the problem on those depressingly rare occasions when I actually engaged in aerobic walking.

Mostly I just stuck the orthotic devices in my cheap-ass, WalMart work shoes which helped greatly with my decidedly non-aerobic casual strolls downtown, feasting on the lunch time eye candy.

In recent weeks, I started experiencing a lot of pain in the top of my left foot.

I blamed it on my cheap-ass, WalMart shoes. Fucking WalMart!

It finally got to the point that my foot was swelling up and I could no longer accomodate my swollen foot and my orthotic inserts in the same shoe. So I took the inserts out. Which caused my Plantar Fasciitis to flare up and cause pain in my arches. So like a porn star, my foot was getting it from both directions.

Last Thursday, I finally went to my doctor and got a referall to a podiatrist and made an appointment for this afternoon.

Diagnosis - In addition to my HAWESOME Plantar Fasciitis, I now have a stress fracture in my middle toe. This is the source of the swelling and the pain when the podiatrist drilled his fucking thumb into the Ground Zero of my foot.

TREATMENT: Boot Cast and 500mg Naproxen tabs.

The Naproxen is no big deal. I've taken it before.

But the Boot Cast I have to wear for the next 3-4 weeks is The Bomb.


It's all High Tech! It even has Velcro and other Space Aged Materials.

Back when I had my first foot surgery, I had an oak plank strapped to my foot with some hemp rope. If you stepped on a pebble you had a 3 dimensional see-saw for a shoe.

But this thing is kinda cool! I don't mind wearing it because it actually stops the pain by completely immobilizing the foot and ankle.

But it's not very stylish.

Maybe I can pimp it up!

It looks a little like the Apollo 11 moon boot.


Maybe I can slap a NASA logo on the side.


But it's also kinda like Iron Man's repulsor boot.


Maybe I could slap a Stark Industries logo on the boots.



I'm open to suggestions.

How can I pimp-up this prosthetic device in order to keep me getting laid for the next 4-6 weeks?

Hep Me! Hep Me!

The Provenance of a Delicious Injustice

So, after sleeping in a bit this morning, I'm trying to decide whether I should go downstairs and make some breakfast or just jump in the shower and go to the Outlaw Cigar event where I can get free beer and free BBQ for my first meal of the day.

If you've never started your day off eating FREE BBQ and washed it down with FREE BEER with some bikini clad eye candy for desert, well, you're probably married.

Poor, dumb bastard.

Been there, done that!

TWICE!

Like all of my life's important decisions, I threw it open to the twitterverse to let my close friends, passing acquaintances and perfect cyber-strangers decide what I should do.

It's my favorite way of avoiding accountability these days.

One of my blogger/twitter buddies suggested I make something called "bacon & egg cups".

Given the fact that this particular blogger ain't hooked up right, in his head...


...I was immediately suspicious having been previously burned on his recommendation of 2 Girls, 1 Cup.

But further due diligence on my part revealed "bacon & egg cups" to be the following.

Take a muffin pan, line the sides of the cups with slices of bacon, crack an egg into each cup and stick it in the oven at 350 for 20 minutes.

That's it. Could anything be simpler?


They were fucking awesome! I don't think I will ever eat bacon & eggs any other way.

Can you imagine having a house full of guests (or a special overnight guest...oh, wait, I forgot, you're married...never mind) wanting breakfast? You can crank out bacon and eggs with culinary military precision!

I like to sprinkle the top with some salt, pepper and a little bit of shredded cheese. This morning I had some biscuits and grape jelly, and a tall glass of cold milk to go with. Fucking awesome!

You may be saying to yourself,

"I can clearly see where the 'delicious' part of the post title applies, but what's all this about some 'injustice'? What gives, XO?"

Well, I'll tell ya, It all has to do with the provenance of the whole concept of bacon & egg cups.

As I said, the concept first came to my attention through a tweet from a seriously fucked up human/chimpanzee hybrid of dubious credibility who somehow managed to marry way above his station in life and successfully reproduce.

Science run amok. The only explanation.

But apparently he first found out about them from a tweet by "The D"


I think I know what the "D" stands for (doofus).

The D in turn found the dish on the blog of the person who first introduced it to our somewhat inbred little group of local KC bloggers.

Finally, it appears that Pensive Girl acquired the recipe from Dine & Dish.

So, we have a very simple and delicious breakfast with a complicated and convoluted history.

But wherever it came from, it's fucking awesome and I'm having it again tomorrow.

Who's in?

Finally! A Real One!

This isn't from some bogus Nigerian diplomat.

This is from an honest (if a bit repetitious and ungrammatical) woman who has correctly identified me as a "God fearing person that will use this fund to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons."

Oh yeah, babe! My regular readers will vouch for me. I'm all about fearing the God and succoring the poor. I do that shit all the fucking time! Those long lags between blog posts? It's because I've been out poor succoring.

Can't get enough of indigent folk. Bring 'em on! My house is full of 'em. I can't walk from the kitchen to the patio to grill a rib eye without stepping over 3 or 4 indigents.

*****

God have laid in my heart to donate part of my late
husband wealth to any God fearing person that will use this fund
to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons.

kindly contact me,The spirit of God have laid in my heart to donate part of my late
husband wealth to any God fearing person that will use this fund
to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons.

Send your reply to this
E-mail address:diannewalter01@hotmail.com

sincerely,
Dianne Walter(Mrs)

*****

See, I can tell this isn't some Nigerian scam because it comes from (Mrs) Dianne Walter. That's an American name. Clearly not Nigerian.

I am so emailing this poor widow. Maybe I'll even get laid out of the deal.

Ahhhh. That's Better!

The Official George W. Bush
"Days Left In Office"
Countdown:

0 DAYS
0 Hrs 0 Min 00.0 Sec

Click Here To See BackwardsBush.com

The Lasting Legacy of George W. Bush

Yes, I know those are pictures of Augusto Pinochet and not President Bush. But these are the images that encapsulate what will be President Bush's most lasting legacy.

"PINOCHET CASE BACKGROUND

General Augusto Pinochet led a 1973 military coup that overthrew democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende. According to a national truth and reconciliation commission, at least 3,196 people were killed or forcibly disappeared during Pinochet's subsequent 17-year dictatorship. Thousands more were tortured or exiled.

On October 16, 1998, British authorities detained Augusto Pinochet in London on an arrest warrant issued by Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzón. Garzón had charged Pinochet with genocide, terrorism, and torture committed during the Chilean dictatorship.

Although Garzón's complaint included several Spanish victims, the majority were Chilean citizens who had been killed or tortured in Chile. Garzón's case was therefore largely founded on the principle of universal jurisdiction-that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world.

In November 1998, a panel of British law lords ruled that Pinochet did not enjoy immunity from prosecution as a former head of state and could be extradited to Spain. This decision, based largely on customary international law, was set aside, however, when one of the judges who heard the appeal was found to have ties to Amnesty International. A larger panel of law lords heard the appeal again in March 1999, and in a 6-1 decision, reaffirmed that Pinochet could be extradited. This time, however, the majority based their decision primarily on British domestic law and limited Pinochet's extraditable crimes to acts of torture committed after the UK ratified and incorporated the UN Convention Against Torture into domestic legislation in 1988."

The last sentence in that article refers to the United Nations "Convention Against Terrorism and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"

The United States is a signatory to this international treaty.

ARTICLE 1.1
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Incoming Attorney General Eric Holder has testified before Congress that water boarding, an interrogation technique that the United States has admitted to employing, is in fact, torture.

In 2002, members of the Bush Administration, public officials and other persons acting in an official capacity, authorized the use of torture.

"On January 18, 2002, President George Bush (the decision is referenced1 in the Gonzales Memo of 25 January, 2002) made a presidential decision that captured members of Al Quaeda and the Taliban were unprotected by the Geneva POW Convention. That decision was preceded by a Memorandum dated January 9, 2002, submitted to William J Haynes II, General Counsel to the Department of Defense, by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (which provides legal counsel to the White House and other executive branch agencies) and written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert J. Delahunty.

The Yoo Delahunty Memorandum of January 9, 2002

The Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum provided the analytical basis for all which followed regarding blanket rejection of applicability of the Third Geneva Convention to captured members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Its validity is, accordingly, analyzed in some detail at the end of this discussion.


The Rumsfeld Order January 19, 2002

In a Memorandum dated 19 January, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to inform combat commanders that "Al Quaeda and Taliban individuals...are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." He ordered that "commanders should "...treat them humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, consistent with the Geneva Conventions of 1949." That order thus gives commanders permission to depart, where they deem it appropriate and a military necessity, from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.


The Bybee Memorandum of 22 January, 2002

The Bybee Memo, Memorandum of 22 January, 2002 from Jay Bybee, Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President and William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees , follows the same structural pattern as the Yoo/Delahunty Memo, but with additional analysis of certain international law/ law of war issues. Parts of it are also discussed below in some detail.

The Alberto Gonzales Memo January 25, 2002

On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a Memorandum to President Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White House has issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below) that captured members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW Convention ("GPW"), to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He advised that "there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does not apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that grounds for the determination might include:

1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or

2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."

Mr. Gonzales then identified what he believed were the ramifications of Mr. Bush's determination. On a positive note he felt they preserved flexibility stating that:

"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." He also believed the determination "...eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status." The determination, Mr. Gonzales said, also reduced the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). His expressed concern was that certain GPW language such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" are "undefined' and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be "...difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." He believed that a determination of inapplicability of the GPW would insulate against prosecution by future "prosecutors and independent counsels."


Mr. Gonzales then identified the counter arguments from the Secretary of State (See, Colin Powell Memo of January 26, 2002 pages 1,2,3,4,5) which included:

Past adherence by the United States to the GPW;

Possible limitations on invocation by the U.S. of the GPW in Afghanistan;

Likely widespread condemnation by allied nations;

Encouragement of potential enemies to find "loopholes" to not apply the GPW;

Discouraging turn-over of terrorists by other nations;

Undermining of U.S. military culture "which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat..."

In response, Mr. Gonzales says, inter alia, "...even if the GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges against anyone who mistreats U.S. personnel." He adds that, "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you have directed them to do." (Emphasis added). In light of subsequent events, that last sentence is of particular interest.


The Bush Order February 7, 2002

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an Order, (pdf copy) accepting the reasoning of the Yoo and Gonzales memos, and validating the order issued by Secretary Rumsfeld on January, 19, 2002.

From the sequence of events, and discussion by White House Counsel, it appears fairly clear that the decision by Mr. Bush, and the subsequent orders from Mssr.s Bush and Rumsfeld, were based on the Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum of 9 January, 2002. A close analysis of that document is accordingly appropriate.

The Yoo/Delahunty Memo January 9, 2002

This Memorandum is written in four parts. The first examines the 18 U.S.C. Section 2441, the War Crimes Act, and some of the treaties it implicates. The second part examines whether members al Qaeda can claim protection of the Geneva Conventions and concludes they can not. The third portion examines application of those treaties to members of the Taliban. It concludes nonapplicability because 1) it says "the Taliban was not a government and Afghanistan was not...a functioning State", 2) "the President has the constitutional authority to suspend our treaties with Afghanistan pending restoration of a legitimate government", and 3) "it appears...that the Taliban militia may have been ...intertwined with Al Qaeda" and thus on the same legal footing. Finally, the fourth part concludes that customary international law does not bind the President or restrict the actions of the United States military [under a constitutional analysis].

Although the Memorandum is questionable on many grounds, both factual and legal, a close analysis is for this casebook, both too extensive and unnecessary. An article more closely analyzing the international law/law of war aspects of the Memorandum is forthcoming. For the present the reader should note the following:

1) As long as there is a genuine issue of fact or law regarding the status of captured individual combatants who are members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 must apply, until properly otherwise determined. Article 5 of that Convention provides, in part, that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." (Emphasis added).

2) The key to whether there exists any genuine issue of fact or law resides in the Yoo/Delahunty Memo which is the authoritative basis for all the actions which follows. Leaving aside the American constitutional arguments which present no bar to a delict in international law (see,e.g. the Dostler Case) 2, the argument for nonapplicability of Geneva III rests on the argument that as a matter of fact and law the Taliban did not constitute a de facto government. The short answer is that while the position is certainly arguable, it is also very reasonably arguable that the Taliban were the de facto government. They controlled a substantial geographic territory and population, enacted and enforced laws and mandates, carried on relatively complex military operations, appointed persons to governmental posts and received diplomatic recognition from several nations. The core validity of that point is admitted, albeit inadvertently, in the following quote from the 22 January, 2002, Memorandum from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes:

Whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the detention and trial of members of the Taliban presents a more difficult legal question. Afghanistan has been a party to all four Geneva Conventions since September, 1956. Some might argue that this requires application of the Geneva Conventions to the present conflict with respect to the Taliban militia...Nevertheless, we conclude that the President has more than ample grounds to find that our treaty obligations under Geneva III toward Afghanistan were suspended during the period of the conflict... the weight of informed opinion indicates that, for the period in question, Afghanistan was a "failed state" whose territory had been held by a violent militia or faction rather than by a government....Second, there appears to be developing evidence that the Taliban leadership had become closely intertwined with, if not utterly dependent upon, al Qaeda. This would have rendered the Taliban more akin to a terrorist organization.

Memorandum of 22 January, 2002 from Jay Bybee, Office of legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President and William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees at pp 10-11. (Emphasis added).

We want to make clear that this Office does not have access to all of the facts related to the activities of the Taliban militia and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the available facts in the public record would support the conclusion that Afghanistan was a failed state...Indeed, there are good reasons to doubt whether any of the conditions were met.

Ib at 16.

What is of particular interest in this analysis is the emphasized language. It is that of argument, not fact, and what it seems to effectively admit is that there is indeed some doubt as to the status of the Taliban detainees. That, of course, triggers the requirements of Geneva Convention Article 5 for a competent tribunal to determine status, and mandates treatment as a POW until the tribunal is held. Indeed, Judge Bybee later discusses Article 5. See also, the references by Justice O'Connor in the plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004), to "the Taliban regime" and "the Taliban government," 124 S.Ct at 2635-2636, and her statement that "active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan," id. at 2642, as well as Justice Souter's concurrence in which he points to the Government's Brief saying "the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees." Id at 2658.


"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act, and having fallen into the hands of the enemy," article 5 of Geneva III requires that these individuals "enjoy the protections" of the Convention until a tribunal has determined their status. As we understand it, as a matter of practice prisoners are presumed to have article 4 POW status until a tribunal determines otherwise. Although these provisions seem to contemplate a case-by-case determination of an individual detainee's status the President could determine categorically that all Taliban prisoners fall outside article 4. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President posesses the power to interpret treaties on behalf of the Nation.He could interpret Geneva III, in light of the known facts concerning the operation of the Taliban...to find that all of the Taliban forces do not fall within the legal definition of prisoners of war as defined by article 4. A presidential determination of this nature would eliminate any legal "doubt" as to the prisoners' status, as a matter of domestic law, and would therefore obviate the need for article 5 tribunals.

Ib at 30-31.

This argument presents an interesting question of domestic law as to whether a Commander in Chief can order a violation of international law by making a factual finding unsupported by independent evidence. Could one charged under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) assert as a defense that as a matter of domestic law there was no grave breach, even though it was clearly a violation of international law? The answer to that proposition is beyond the scope of this discussion, although it appears questionable. What the argument does not do, however, for the same Dostler Case) reasons above discussed, is present any defense to charges by any other Geneva III signatory charged to prosecute perpetrators of grave breaches wherever they may be found.


3) No Article 5 tribunal (see, Army Regulation 190-8, Section 1-6) has been convened or held regarding any captured member of Al Qaeda3 or the Taliban.

4) Accordingly, any such persons are protected by the Third Geneva Convention until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. It appears quite certain that such a determination if it did occur, would not operate retroactively to validate actions by captors which were otherwise violations of the rights of protected persons.

5) That protection is not merely procedural. As long as the Convention protects an individual, grave breaches of its provisions constitute a breach of both U.S. and international law.

6) Article 130 of the Convention provides that grave breaches include "... any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention."

Thus, the Bush Orders of January and February, 2002, denying Geneva Convention protection to captured members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda appears inherently flawed. Acts carried out in furtherance of those orders, if themselves violations, might, accordingly, constitute war crimes.

_____________________________________

1: "On January 18, I advised you that the department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPWIII) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised that the DOJ’s opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and accordingly that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW." Gonzaelz Memo, 25 January, 2002.

2: Those arguments present a startling analogy to the arguments raised by defendants at the post World War II Nuremburg trials, and elsewhere, that, because they were required by national law to obey superior orders, they had an absolute defense against war crimes committed in carrying out those orders. That so called Nuremburg defense was, and has been since, roundly rejected. The point is, of course, that whatever their validity under U.S. national law, they present no defense to an otherwise valid charge of a war crime under international law.

3: The status of an al Qaeda detainee is, of course, problematical and fact driven. Often, it appears most closely analogous to pirates or common criminals. The problem arises if captured persons functioned, as alleged in the Yoo/Delahunty Memo, as an intertwined part of al Qaeda. Given the amorphous nature of al Qaeda, on any given day the individual's status might be as a Taliban fighter, an irregular militia supporter, a Taliban agent, a terrorist or a common criminal."

In a nutshell, the position of the Bush administration has been "The United States does not engage in torture. Therefore nothing that the United States does, no matter how cruel or extreme can be defined as torture. None of this legal shucking and jiving protects members of the administration from being subject to the terms of the treaty.

"ARTICLE 2

...

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

So none of legal manueverings of the Bush adminstration's Justice Department can exempt it from the prohibition on torture.

Furthermore,

"ARTICLE 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by ant person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature"

This means that the United States, as a signatory to this treaty, is obligated to prosecute and punish anyone that we find to have engaged in torture as defined by this treaty.

"ARTICLE 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offense referred to in Article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. ..."

2. Such State shall immediately make a inquiry into the facts.

...

ARTICLE 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in Article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in Article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to it's competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in Article 5, Paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in Artice 5, Paragraph 1."

The longest legacy of the Bush administration will be the impact of their willingness to violate international law and torture prisoners and the legal repercussions this will gave on the cabinet level officials of the Bush Justice Department, State Department and Defense Department.

A lot of former high ranking officials (Rumsfeld, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, Delahunty) are going to have to lawyer-up and prepare for years of court battles around the world.

They will be forever confined to the borders of the United States and dependant upon the grace and protection of future administrations. Knowing that they could be thrown under the bus at any time in exchange for some short term political capital.

If they so much as go on a ski trip to Switzerland, they could be detained, tried and prosecuted under international law for complicity in torture.

Remember that even in 2009, there are still investigations and prosecutions ongoing against members of Hitler's Third Reich. No amount of time, no international borders can provide refuge against international outrage and justice.

The Bush legacy will reverberate in international courts of law for decades.

Don't let the door of the White House hit you in the ass on your way out, Dubya.

Left Behind

Right Wing Republicans, you've been Left Behind by history.

Evangelical Christians, you've been Left Behind by history.

African-American Victimization Proponents, you've been Left Behind by history.

White Survivalists hoping for a Race War, you've been Left Behind by history.


Racists Organizations on either side, you've been Left Behind by history.

Idiots.

The world is changing. For the better.

We have turned the corner and you have all been Left Behind.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Sully

Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger, III is a captain for a major U.S. airline with over 40 years of flying experience. A former U.S. Air Force (USAF) fighter pilot, he has served as an instructor and Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) safety chairman, accident investigator and national technical committee member.

He has participated in several USAF and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident investigations. His ALPA safety work led to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular.

Working with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists, he coauthored a paper on error inducing contexts in aviation.

He was instrumental in the development and implementation of the Crew Resource Management (CRM) course used at his airline and has taught the course to hundreds of his colleagues.

Sully is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy (B.S.), Purdue University (M.S.) and the University of Northern Colorado (M.A.).

He was a speaker on two panels at the High Reliability Organizations (HRO) 2007 International Conference in Deauville, France May 29-31, 2007.

He has just been named a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.


He also just ditched a commercial airliner in the Hudson fucking River, GLIDING to a soft landing after losing BOTH fucking engines to bird impacts, kept the plane intact, every single fucking passenger, all 155 of them, got out alive. When everyone was out and as the plane was sinking, he walked the cabin not once, but TWICE to make sure no one was still aboard before he finally left the plane.


He also has huge, giant fucking brass balls.

Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it)

Actually, I think I like her version better.


Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

Fitting Meal for a Freezing Night

Beanless chili and sweet cornbread!

It's all cozy and warm in my home.

The House of Green Gators

This is a house on the south side of Independencve Avenue between Fuller and Freemont.

It is made to look like some little rustic cottage you would find out in the forest with natural stones, mossy logs and sloping roof.

But the logs ain't mossy and they ain't logs. It's all concrete.



I know it's hard to make out detail in these pics, but I had to take them from the parking lot of the UMB across the street. You have to be kinda discreet when you take pictures of populated houses on Independence Ave. if you don't want to get a cap popped in yo ass.

But the weirdest fucking thing about the house it what is flanking the steps coming up to the house from the sidewalk.



Yeah, those are green, concrete alligators laying on brown, concrete logs.



Now I ask you, in all seriousness, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!

This is not a new house. It's been there a long time. I drive by it everyday on my way to work and it always freaks me the fuck out.

It's like some little cajun Tom Bombadil's swamp house sitting at the intersection of Hooker and Crackhead. It ain't right!

I'll be expecting some local historian (I'm looking at YOU Leigh Ann!) to research this and come up with a rational explanation for this anomoly.

Geometry FAIL

Packham Called It

When it comes to summing up 2008, Chris Packham (the most talented and unique writer The Pitch ever had the stupidity to let slip through their grasp) pretty much nailed it with this simple tweet.

I agree with him completely. 2008 can, indeed, kiss my black ass.

At the end of 2007, I was still in a committed relationship that began in mid 2004. It was great! I was happy. I thought I had found the woman I would spend the rest of my life with.

True, we faced a year of challenges that I thought we could weather together. I won't go into any more detail out of respect for her privacy. But I always thought we would make it. I never had any doubt.

In fact, I had reason to believe that we would even be co-habitating in less than a year. So when I moved in October of 2007, I always viewed it as temporary and never even bothered hanging pictures or curtains. I still have unpacked boxes in my garage.

So imagine my surprise when I finally realize that I had been unceremoniously dumped last spring. As far as I can figure, it was over somewhere in the April/May time frame. But I was too fucking stupid to see it until early to mid November.

It took the insight and feedback from my many female friends and confidants for me to finally get a clue that I was the only person still in the relationship.

After months of anguish, grief, confusion and heartache, I finally had to let it go and moved on.

So 2009 finds me once again unattached, back on the dating sites, trying to figure out what I really want.

There is a part of me that wants to take this opportunity to once again unleash my inner ManWhore and just go nuts. I'm very good at monogamy when I am in a committed relationship. But if I'm not, well, that's a different story. I'm Lon Chaney and every night is a full moon at Balanca's Pyro Room.

But the Larry Talbot part of me would be perfectly content to be snugly ensconced in a secure relationship with one woman, contentedly eating Chinese and watching movies on the couch, and rubbing her feet.

And there is yet another part of me that wonders if I have the emotional energy for either of those paths. I may just be emotionally exhausted and content to spend the rest of my life as a curmudgeonly hermit, yelling at kids to stay off my lawn. Not that I actually have one, I'm just sayin'.

In the meantime, I've taken the time off during the holiday season to make myself at home. I've hung pictures. I've draped swags. I've put up curtains.

I have also made a lot of new friends. Incredible friends! Amazingly awesome and diverse friends! In many ways, I begin 2009 with much more hope and optimism than I began 2008.

This isn't where I thought I would be, but it has potential that I never anticipated.

Shit. I think that may be my epitaph. I like it.

Hey! There's a New Kid in Town!

NEW BLOG!


I noticed I had a new follower named "Gabriel". I had to investigate because earlier this year, the Archangel Micheal was hanging around my blog, leaving snarky fucking comments about God loving me and shit so I had to kick him in the balls, and BAN his feathered fucking ass.

So the last thing I wanted was another goddamned Archangel trolling around here.

Fucking Archangels! Bunch of arrogant pricks, I say.

So I clicked on his profile and much to my relief, he is not yet another annoying member of the Heavenly Hosts, but a brand new blogger!

His blog as the promising name of "White Boy East of Troost" He should have some interesting stories and perspectives on things.

It looks like he has only been doing this for the past 3 days and he already has 5 posts up.

I'm adding him to my google reader and I'll be interested to see what he does with his blog.

I Link To Three Right Wing Nut Jobs For Entertainment

Right Wing Nut Job #1 - "Conservatism With Heart". Or, as she used to be (more accurately) known "The Chatterbox Chronicles".

About Me
My name is Dee. I am a Conservative Christian who has a passion for politics. I am a political news junkie who also enjoys knowing what is going on in pop culture. I am married and have four children whom I homeschool. I am the host of Conservatism with Heart which airs every Monday on Togi Net Radio. If you wish to contact me my email address is: chatterboxchronicles at hotmail.com

She has her own internet "radio" show where she conducts a feedback loop with other brain dead zombies who are incapable of critical thought

She likes to listen to books on CDs. Anyone who can't be bothered to actually read...well, that "speaks" volumes, doesn't it?

I used to read her blog, leave comments and try to engage in dialogue, but she banned me.

Right Wing Nut Job #2 - Jo-Joe Politico.


About Me
I was born in Miami, Florida, the son of an Air Force officer, traveled the world, was saved at age 17, and have served the Lord since. That's me on the right and my lovely wife, Bonnie...the pretty one...on the left.

Yeah. That's really what he calls his blog. He's very biblical and judgemental. One of "those".

I used to read his blog, leave comments and try to engage in dialogue, but he banned me.

And finally, there is "this one"!

Right Wing Nut Job #3 - Mike's America

About Me
Currently living in the South Carolina Lowcountry, Mike has taken a keen interest in politics and government since his days as a young whippersnapper in Ohio. There, he organized College Republicans clubs, worked as a professional staffer on two statewide campaigns and was elected to the Delaware County Republican Central Committee among other achievements. In 1986 he began graduate studies in government at Columbia University where he specialized in National Security matters under the tutelage of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Leaving New York in 1988 he moved to Washington, D.C. to become a White House Intern in the Political Office of President Ronald Reagan. With backing from the first Bush Administration he spent four years at the Environmental Protection Agency. He has lived on Hilton Head since 1996 where he writes, photographs and gardens.

I've never seen so much latent homo-eroticism stuffed into this small a space since accidently clicking on a gay porn site. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I used to read his blog, leave comments and try to engage in dialogue, but he banned me.

This is what these people do. They ban people. They don't want to hear any voices that disagree with them. Because they know that they can't support their viewponts with facts. All they have are rigid dogma, ancient fairy tales and blind faith.

I don't mind. I don't care what they think and I'm not going to waste my mind trying to change their minds.

I'm content to spend the next 8 years listening to them spew their increasingly impotent vitriol at a dramatically decreasing audience as the United States, and the world, steer a path towards sanity, rationality, mutual understanding, decreasing violence and international interdependence.

Which will begin in just over 2 weeks.

I can't fucking wait!

"We do these things not because they're hard, but because they are EASY!"

Bea did it.

Jane did it.

So what the hell. I'll do it too.

I give you the year in review by listing the first sentence from the first post each month from 2008.

January - "I know you are all just DYING to see the newly trimmed look."

February - "This is local blogger Faith from Frighteningly Uncommon Sense and her dad on her wedding day."

March - "She's making her mind up about all things Kansas City pretty quickly!"

April - "The highlight of last weekend was the serendipitous discovery that the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile was in town."

May - "I love the way that the television networks are advertising the fact that they are now broadcasting (a rather antiquated term) in High Definition."

June - "I don't fish all that much."

July - "Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork"

Gonna have to re-post that one!



August - "This is awesome!"

September - ""I think, if anything, it shows the Republican Party is a real American party," said Rex Teter, another Texas delegate."

October - "Although she no longer attends school there, my daughter, young Galadriel Tanqueray Onassis, returned to Richmond yesterday for Homecoming festivities with her old friends."

November - "We are the wealthiest and most scientifically advanced nation on the planet."

NOTE: This doesn't have anything at all to do with this meme, but I'm reposting it from the November collection because, as Iwanski said in the comments, "I kept waiting for this to get boring, and it did not." Hell, even Cara admitted "it's...hypnotic."



December - "Because holding a CD cover or your iPod in front of your face doesn't yield good pictures for your blog."

Wow. What a lame ass, sorry excuse for blogging. Only 9 posts in December.

I suck ass.

There Ain't No Afterlife

I totally poached this from Joe's Big Blog. One of my favorite atheist buddies.