The day I heard Libby was going to jail I was driving my car and admittedly let out a whoop. I, like many people, agreed that finally someone was going to receive some justice for the whole "yellow cake" Valerie Plame affair. And recall... the judge stated his deliberation time, though long, had nothing to do with his doubt that Libby was guilty. No, the evidence was incontrovertible.
So the long pause was to determine what would be an appropriate sentence. So a ruminating court, finding someone guilty, lying about their role, perjuring themselves in court, and all about the heart of a cover up of national security debacle, felt a 2 year plus sentence was in order. Enter "The Decider":
"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."
In one fell swoop Bush basically bitchslapped (not my favorite expression but seems appropriately offensive here and abrasive) the entire justice system, the American Public, Plame and anyone else who dares turn the light of truth onto their fucked up, insular "realities".
To call Bush's move "stunning", as the Press has done, is actually doing more of what the press said it was going to stop doing - uncritically looking at his Presidency and not holding his feet to the fire when necessary. Why are people "stunned". We all knew he would do this - why didn't "you all". Why doesn't the press say what really just happened:
BUSH FUCKS AMERICAN PUBLIC AND JUSTICE SYSTEM ONE MORE TIME - SMILES WHILE DOING IT
and perhaps this byline?
PRESS REPORTS ITSELF AS 'STUNNED' LATER RETRACTS AND SAYS "WE'RE JUST STUNNED" AS IN STUPID, UNABLE TO REPORT TRUTH.
Well maybe the press will be less stunned (I personally doubt it) when they start reporting that the White House is blocking access to Cheney for his subpoenas. We're already there.
The faith in this White House doing anything remotely stinking of telling the truth or serving justice when they've been caught with their pants down: "Oh, look! We do seem to have those emails you asked for on the back up server" (NB - DUH!) "But we're not going to give them to Congress or the Senate - we're not really part of the "Executive Office". Seems Libby was executive enough that Bush sat waiting for the appeals verdict so he could commute Libby's sentence. Hell, the White House didn't give that much attention (and still doesn't) to Katrina Hurricane victims. They are eviscerated and empty souls that sit at Pennsylvania Avenue......
June 28, 2007
Justice Clarence Thomas and the Conservative's 'Colorblind Constitution'
In today's decision the Supreme Court struck down the ability of schools to limit diversity among student ranks on the basis of race. While the issue of diversity and equality is a difficult path to navigate this quote from Justice Clarence Thomas, the bench's only African American judge, is most disturbing:
"What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today," Thomas said. "The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students' race. Because 'our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,' such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional."
To suggest that the Constitution is "colorblind" is absurd. The refusal of current historians, academicians and others to admit the power of race that was built into this document is folly. A folly that continues to be played out some 130 years later. Archaeological digs at Philadelphia put into perspective the reality of George Washington keeping slaves at the home of the president and continue to call into question his practices of scooting them in an out of the state every six months just so he could stay within the "legality" of keeping them indefinitely (it was long since illegal to keep slaves, unless you removed them from state lines before the six month period had passed). And then there's Jefferson mistress, Sally Hemings. From CNN to others it has been bantered about as to whether or not it is "true" that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemming's children but the Thomas Jefferson Foundation itself reported "that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children". Yet others then mounted challenges against this "disgrace" because, of course the architects of the Constitution too must be color-blind in our eyes.
To have them, the architects of the Constitution, as slave holders, as oppressors of individual freedom of course runs counter to core purposes of the country and its ideals. But the Constitution was written by people who owned slaves, who were not permitted their freedoms - and "on purpose" since it would have financially ruined many, likely. At what point do/will people like Thomas admit this reality, that the Constitution is FLAWED in many respects. It can be revisited and should be re-interpreted with an eye to the reality of the day that casts forward the truth of our reality today. But Clarence has too much to lose... just ask Anita Hill what it's like to live in the world of his blind idiocy. And so the fragile fiction continues - but choose to know the whole story - not what the conservers of power want you to believe. Colorblindness is only a convenience, exercised at once to preserve white power (and I'm a white guy) but the glasses come off when it comes to terrorism, or crime don't you know it....
"What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today," Thomas said. "The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students' race. Because 'our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,' such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional."
To suggest that the Constitution is "colorblind" is absurd. The refusal of current historians, academicians and others to admit the power of race that was built into this document is folly. A folly that continues to be played out some 130 years later. Archaeological digs at Philadelphia put into perspective the reality of George Washington keeping slaves at the home of the president and continue to call into question his practices of scooting them in an out of the state every six months just so he could stay within the "legality" of keeping them indefinitely (it was long since illegal to keep slaves, unless you removed them from state lines before the six month period had passed). And then there's Jefferson mistress, Sally Hemings. From CNN to others it has been bantered about as to whether or not it is "true" that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemming's children but the Thomas Jefferson Foundation itself reported "that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children". Yet others then mounted challenges against this "disgrace" because, of course the architects of the Constitution too must be color-blind in our eyes.
To have them, the architects of the Constitution, as slave holders, as oppressors of individual freedom of course runs counter to core purposes of the country and its ideals. But the Constitution was written by people who owned slaves, who were not permitted their freedoms - and "on purpose" since it would have financially ruined many, likely. At what point do/will people like Thomas admit this reality, that the Constitution is FLAWED in many respects. It can be revisited and should be re-interpreted with an eye to the reality of the day that casts forward the truth of our reality today. But Clarence has too much to lose... just ask Anita Hill what it's like to live in the world of his blind idiocy. And so the fragile fiction continues - but choose to know the whole story - not what the conservers of power want you to believe. Colorblindness is only a convenience, exercised at once to preserve white power (and I'm a white guy) but the glasses come off when it comes to terrorism, or crime don't you know it....
June 21, 2007
Operating Under the Law? Cheney's Dream Prison of Guantanamo Bay
Today the AP wire runs the story "White House near decision to close Gitmo" by Matthew Lee.
In it the expected tormented White House is progressively (if there was ever an anachronism it has to be "White House" and "progress" in the same sentence) being forced into the reality of accepting this hell hole should be shut down if they country is to retain any semblance of respect by its international neighbors when it comes to issues of international justice.
But lurking in the background is this observation:
And while Cheney hasn't said as much lately let's face it, 'Dick' (if there ever was a better double entendre....) hasn't likely changed his tune. Nor has Dubya. Cheney's argument is simple since they're "unlawful" they don't deserve rights. Fine. But you can't extend that argument to your own prosecutorial practices - you don't get to say "Since they're unlawful then we should be about to operate outside our own legal framework to detain them, interrogate and prosecute them." Just because Gitmo's closing maybe doesn't change the hypocrisy of the Office of the Attorney General and the manipulation of the current Justice Department mechanisms to suit a few people on Pennsylvania Avenue.
In it the expected tormented White House is progressively (if there was ever an anachronism it has to be "White House" and "progress" in the same sentence) being forced into the reality of accepting this hell hole should be shut down if they country is to retain any semblance of respect by its international neighbors when it comes to issues of international justice.
But lurking in the background is this observation:
- "Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights."
And while Cheney hasn't said as much lately let's face it, 'Dick' (if there ever was a better double entendre....) hasn't likely changed his tune. Nor has Dubya. Cheney's argument is simple since they're "unlawful" they don't deserve rights. Fine. But you can't extend that argument to your own prosecutorial practices - you don't get to say "Since they're unlawful then we should be about to operate outside our own legal framework to detain them, interrogate and prosecute them." Just because Gitmo's closing maybe doesn't change the hypocrisy of the Office of the Attorney General and the manipulation of the current Justice Department mechanisms to suit a few people on Pennsylvania Avenue.
powered by performancing firefox
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)