I wish we were 'a nation of laws' ...

Isn't this backwards?

"There was no indication" that Osama bin Laden wanted to surrender to U.S. forces who killed him on Sunday night, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

No indication? What, do we now automatically shoot everyone in the head who doesn't indicate they wish capture over death? I don't personally know what bin Laden's preference might have been but unless he was armed and threatening his captors/killers I would think at that point it would not be his choice but the choice of those with the guns who were apparently in a position to capture him alive.

Why do politicians and the military, apparently always, lie first and then try to contain the fallout as the facts start to emerge?

I wish we were 'a nation of laws' and that we had captured bin Laden alive and had put him on trial (a real trial, not our current Kangaroo Courts for Islamic Peoples).

I certainly understand that a real effort to capture bin Laden alive might have failed and that they would kill him rather than allowing him to endager themselves but so far the information I've read seems to indicate that this was an execution squad.

I do think we, as a nation, have done somewhat better in the past. To have a self described 'Constitutional Law Professor' imitate an imitation Cowboy in lack of principle and outright criminality is devastating. Perhaps Obama isn't imitating Bush. Could he be competing with Bush to see who is the most despicable?

Bush supporters and Obama supporters ...

... just two groups of peas in a pod.

... endorsing civil liberties abuses because one's own Party is in power virtually ensures that those abuses will become permanent, available to future leaders from the other Party as well. That was the argument which fell on deaf ears when made to cheering Bush supporters, and it's barely more effective now.

Barack Obama, The Unjust ...

... following in George Bush's shoes. The short-lived pied-piper of 'hope' emulating the poster boy of hate, stupidity and ugliness:

Obama era justice

Another MUST READ from ...

Glenn Greenwald: Times Square bomber: Cause and effect in the War on Terror

Instead of 'Do to others what you would have them do to you' the US has turned The Golden Rule inside out. The US does onto them then is surprised when they do back at us.

If we had a few more thinkers in policy making positions, instead of the creeping and creepy militarists that we seem to be overrun with, they would have figured out that the US's behavior is not only the reverse of The Golden Rule it is also begging for a violent response.

Not that we are alone in history in taking this path. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor it was warning us to stay out of the their way. It did the opposite.

So the US is proceeding down one road while claiming to be going down another. Who benefits from this? Not most of the worlds' or even the US's population ...

George Bush and Barack Obama ...

So, there's no similarity between Bush and Obama? Then how to explain that Obama appears to emulate many of Bush's worst actions?

What We Stand For

Yesterday was a stark reminder that instead of closing the book on the Bush-era military commissions, President Obama is adding another sad chapter to that history. Although President Obama promised transparency and sharp limits on the use of tortured and coerced statements against the accused, at Guantánamo today one military judge ordered that a sentence be kept secret from the public and another military judge allowed statements obtained by abuse and coercion of a 15-year-old to be used at trial.

...

It boggles the mind that the military judge could find that Khadr was not coerced and gave these statements to interrogators voluntarily. Khadr, then 15 years old, was taken to Bagram near death, after being shot twice in the back, blinded by shrapnel, and buried in rubble from a bomb blast. He was interrogated within hours, while sedated and handcuffed to a stretcher. He was threatened with gang rape and death if he didn't cooperate with interrogators. He was hooded and chained with his arms suspended in a cage-like cell, and his primary interrogator was later court-martialed for detainee abuse leading to the death of a detainee. During his subsequent eight-year (so far) detention at Guantánamo, Khadr was subjected to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program and he says he was used as a human mop after he was forced to urinate on himself.

...

Any decent person can see that what has been done to Omar Khadr is an injustice. But Obama continued and expanded the bizarro world of Bush where these injustices just keep going on and on.

Sign of the times? ...

Equity?

"The articles of Equity are three:

"I. The balance of power among the people being very much deranged, by one having too much and another nothing, we hereby resolve ourselves into a congress or court of equity, to restore as far as in us lies the said natural balance of power, by taking from all who have too much as much of the said too much as we can lay our hands on; and giving to those who have nothing such a portion thereof as it may seem to us expedient to part with.

My, once we have all the equity we can take perhaps we will share it a little, perhaps, maybe.

The above quote is from Maid Marion by Thomas Love Peacock (1785-1866), Gutenberg.org, EBook #966.

I'm about half way through Peacock's version of the legend. There's so much more there than what Hollywood passed on.

Well, that's a surprise isn't it?
--------------------------------

Oh, mustn't leave out the the 2nd article of Legitimacy.

"II. Our government being legitimate, all our proceedings shall be legitimate: wherefore we declare war against the whole world, and every forester is by this legitimate declaration legitimately invested with a roving commission, to make lawful prize of every thing that comes in his way.

Has a sorta Bush-ian ring to it, doesn't it? I think it appeals to Obama also from what I've seen.

Obama and WikiLeaks ...

Why, oh why, did Obama choose to take on Bush-the-Stupid's war and make it his own?

Now as A-Great-War-President, Obama's takes the usual approach that these types of illustrious leaders reflexively glom on to for a war --or other detrimental policy-- gone bad:

• increase the war effort (more troops, more money, more hype), and
• shut those damn truth-tellers up!

So again, I ask, how is Obama different from Bush?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

It's hardly a shock that the war in Afghanistan is going far worse than political officials have been publicly claiming. Aside from the fact that lying about war is what war leaders do almost intrinsically -- that's part of what makes war so degrading to democratic values -- there have been numerous official documents that have recently emerged or leaked out that explicitly state that the war is going worse than ever and is all but unwinnable. ... [emphasis added]

Greenwald also points to this post by Jay Rosen. It's one of Rosen's better posts and a must read:

The Afghanistan War Logs Released by Wikileaks, the World's First Stateless News Organization

George Bush is rolling in the aisles ...

... We knew Harry and Nancy had struck a deal; we just didn’t when or how it would be implemented. Turns out that Nancy picked the most chickenshit cowardly self-serving way it could have possibly been done. Since this rule is only in effect for the 111th Congress, it expires on January 5 and applies only to the lame duck Congress.

Pete Peterson’s smiling now. He’s got my retirement money. Maybe he’ll use it to fill one of his swimming pools.

[from Phoenix Woman at firedoglake.com: Thank You, Nancy Pelosi, For Saving Me Money ]

Thank you, you despicable people: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi! The laughs definitely on us. We put a Dem in the WH and got majorities in both houses of Congress so that you [fill in the blank with the most insultingly descriptive epithets you can think of] #$%@#*# would do what George Bush was incapable of doing.

The US Supreme Court decides in favor of The Torturers ...

..The decision does not bode well for either state secrets cases or for suits trying to hold Bush Administration officials responsible for torture (such as the Yoo appeal being heard in the 9th Circuit today).

Which I guess means we’ve officially become a country that finds protecting those who commit torture more important than justice for those who were tortured.

Fascism is what I'm expecting ...

More ominously perhaps, I'm guessing that leadership with fascist inclinations will find a very willing audience.

We seem to be emulating the Germany that allowed a Hitler to take hold. George Bush, with Cheney as his backbone, set us on course. Barack Obama not only fell right in line with the Bush/Cheney corruption but is formalizing the worst and going even further in some instances. I think Obama is furthering unrest by catering to the Media Scolds and the GOP mafia and ignoring the people of this country, specially the ones who elected him. Though I don't expect Obama to be the US's Hitler I think he is setting the stage for such a person.

_____________________
ADDED: The US's own special brand of Court Jesters (who apparently seriously consider themselves journalists) will also, undoubtedly, take their place in the roll call of those who help turn the US into Hitler's Germany's copy cat government. Of course, the US will be 'bigger and better' in that we really do have the power to destroy the world. That is the power to destroy the earth's ability to support us even faster than we already appear determined to do.

... all of this just [...] reveals what our nation's leading "journalists" really are: desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it -- and who, in fact, are Royal Court Spokespeople regardless of which monarch is ruling. That's why they're invited into the heart of Versailles to frolic with the King's most trusted aides: it's their reward for loyal service as Court courtiers. Just marvel at the self-abasing joy in which Ed Henry wallows by virtue of getting to play water sports with Emanuel and the Bidens. He sounds like a gushing pre-adolescent who just met his favorite boy band idol and got his water gun signed. ...

How is Barack Obama like George Bush? Let me count the ways ...

Here's one: A disgrace of historic proportions

... despite knowing how many people we are innocently imprisoning, the Obama administration continues to demand the power to imprison people with no judicial review: by indefinitely detaining them without charges, by insisting that Bagram detainees captured outside Afghanistan have no habeas rights, by refusing to release any Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, including those whom the administration itself knows are being wrongfully detained. ...

And we call ourselves civilized? ...

... Most Americans like torture. They're entertained by it. But at least someone is making a record. Sometimes that's all you can do.

Bush/Cheney (among others) caused this. Obama (and many Dems) choose to continue it.

Those who torture should be prosecuted. Those who support torture should be treated with derision, demonized, ostracized.

But the United States of America led by that great hope, Barack Obama, does the opposite.

Obama, the smiling Bushie ...

Other than for the first few days in office, has Obama done anything worthwhile?

The Dow is swinging wildly–down as much as 980 points within the last hour–largely due to insecurity about the situation in Greece and shaky retail sales. And according to Brad DeLong, who is generally pretty tight with the White House, Obama will come out in opposition to Audit the Fed this afternoon.

At a time when confidence in the markets desperately needs shoring up, the President should be looking to instill confidence in investors by supporting accountability and transparency within the financial system — not acting to shield the banks. [link]

Obama has catered to thieves and liars. Obama has bowed down to moneyed interests. Is there a single principle that Obama has not betrayed?

Not only has he chosen to follow Bush's murdering steps, Obama now makes jokes about killing people, just like Bush. The similarities are adding up ...

I don't find that a Democrat who acts like a ReThug is any improvement over a ReThug.

Really, at least Bush could not destroy Social Security while he was in office. He must be laughing his guts out now that Obama plans to accomplish what Bush couldn't. As far as Social Security and Medicare we would have been better off with McCain as President and the Congress in Democratic hands. As it is Obama has ruined the chances of many Democrats. If one could conceive of the ReThugs having the smarts and/or Obama having the 'audacity' one could almost imagine Obama being a pre-planned Trojan Horse working for the Republican/Corporate Party.

My last shred of respect for Bill Clinton is now gone ...

... Bill Clinton spoke openly about the secret agreement he reached in 1997 with Newt Gingrich to take money out of Social Security and place it in private accounts — something Wall Street has been demanding in order to keep the bubble from bursting. ... [link]

At one time I thought Bill Clinton was a somewhat decent though shortsighted President. It appears, though, that he was as deceitful and deliberately destructive at Barack Obama but just lacked George Bush's he-man stomping shoes to smilingly walk behind [as Obama has chosen to do].

Risky? ...

Digby writes:

Evidently it is now considered "risky" for Obama to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who is pro-choice:

Risky? Being President is "risky." What is Obama good for if he is so risk adverse that he falls all over himself to do whatever the Thugs and Robber Barons want?

What has Obama done other than place his footsies in Bush's ugly shoes? Certainly he will not take any "risks" that Bush hasn't previously tested.

What a waste.

Today's quote ...

It's really remarkable that we've gotten to a point in American history where the Republican Party has managed to make fair trials for people who commit crimes "controversial." ...

-- It's Come To This by Adam Serwer, The group blog of The American Prospect

It's not just the Republicans. Obama is continuing to ensure that US Law has no meaning.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

... the most significant consequence of his [Barack Obama's] first year in office, in the area of civil liberties, is that -- with a few exceptions (most notably torture) -- he has transformed what were once highly controversial Republican "assaults on the Constitution" into bipartisan consensus which both parties now embrace, thus ensuring -- as Baker put it -- "that much of the Bush security architecture is almost certain to remain part of the national fabric for some time to come, thanks to Obama." Thus, a President who imprisons people with military commissions or even no charges at all -- and constantly invokes secrecy claims to shield the Executive Branch from judicial review over allegations of lawbreaking -- is now hailed -- by progressives -- as a stalwart defender of "the rule of law."

Terrorism: The panic is the point ...

Digby is so right:

The panic is the point. That's why they do terrorist attacks in the first place. And the damned bozo certainly succeeded, at least among the elites who, as far as I can tell, have worked themselves up into some kind of fugue state and are now practically speaking in tongues. It's embarrassing.

If they had the means to invade us outright they would. But they don't so their best bet is to make us react in such a way that benefits their goals using what few resources they have. And boy have they succeeded thanks to Bush the Lesser and now to Obama [the One Who Refuses to Use His Own Reasoning Powers].

Only if you think 'coddling Lieberman' isn't the plan ...

Jane Hamsher: Sane people have long ago realized that coddling Lieberman is what got us here and needs to be stopped.

Though Reid may have not been in on all the turns in the labyrinth, and has been selected by Obama and his administration as the fall guy for Obama's failing to deliver anything on health care other than what Obama's corporate masters desire, Reid still participated, quite willingly, in the deception and scamming of the public on all important matters.

Jane Hamsher writes:

Sorry, Harry Reid, you’re the one that takes the hit for this. If you let Lieberman lead you and the country around by the nose, it doesn’t matter who asked you to do it. Slipping in “annual limits” on coverage, manipulating procedure only when there’s something you really want, and then shrugging your shoulders and calling yourself a prisoner of the Senate parlimentarian when you want to facilitate some massively unpopular clause in the interest of the insurance industry — it’s all going to come to rest on you. Personally. I promise.

I would just like to add that Reid and Lieberman are not the only villains here. The worst one is turning out to be the one in the White House. The more I see, the less I believe there is much material difference between Obama and his predecessor.

WAR: Obama's silly pursuit of Bush's attempt at manliness ...

Greenwald shines a light on the dangers as Obama escalates the causes:

The evidence proving this causation is now so overwhelming as to be undeniable. Waging wars, occupying, and dropping bombs in Muslim countries is the single most counter-productive step that can be taken to combat Islamic extremism (indefinitely imprisoning them without charges is a close second). It's akin to advising a lung cancer patient to triple the quantity of cigarettes he smokes each day. Yet we continue to do it over and over, and then point to the harms we cause as reasons we need to continue doing it. Our "counter-terrorism" campaign basically consists of three steps repeated endlessly:

(1) Interfere in or otherwise act aggressively in the Muslim world.

(2) Provoke increased anti-American sentiment and fuel terrorism as a result of Step 1.

(3) Point to the increased anti-American sentiment and terrorism as a reason we need to escalate our interference and aggression in the Muslim world. Return to Step 1.

The coordinated campaign to hype the alleged "growing domestic Muslim threat" at exactly the time we are escalating our conventional war in Afghanistan and our covert Predator war in Pakistan is a perfect illustration of this process. Basically, what Shane's article reveals is the shocking truth that waging war and otherwise interfering in Muslim countries for more a full decade radicalizes Muslims and drives some of them to want to return the violence. Who would have guessed?

--------------

Classified Benchmarks ...

America's insanity just gets better and better. Once again the US has, will you believe it, BENCHMARKS! Remember those. Those benchmarks that have no consequence when they fail to be met. Those benchmarks that are forgotten when they no longer work as a propaganda tool.

But wait, these BENCHMARKS are better. These bench marks are CLASSIFIED. Just think of the propaganda value of CLASSIFIED BENCHMARKS.

Now that must be what Obama SMARTS brings to Bush STUPIDITY.

Way to go. Change you can believe in.
-------------------

Apparently Obama is working for the Republicans:

While Democratic lawmakers are increasingly opposed to a possible troop increase, Republican lawmakers say the move is necessary and that the president needs to convey that in his speech tomorrow.

Of course, fighting 'insurgents' and citizens in a country far, far away keeps the US from taking care of it's own problems: health care, education, starving children, overcrowded prisons and other little matters like an increasingly insane political environment.

Not to mention all the money certain factions make in and around the military establishment. Afghanistan is not the only center of corruption revolving around this war of the very wealthy and very unChristian 'Christians.'