Japanese hanged for waterboarding...


Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding

Paul Begala
April 24, 2009

In a CNN debate with Ari Fleischer, I said the United States executed Japanese war criminals for waterboarding. My point was that it is disingenuous for Bush Republicans to argue that waterboarding is not torture and thus illegal. It's kind of awkward to argue that waterboarding is not a crime when you hanged someone for doing it to our troops. My precise words were: "Our country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime we are now committing ourselves."

Mr. Fleischer, ordinarily the most voluble of men, was tongue-tied. The silence, rare in cable debates, spoke volumes for the vacuity of his position. Now Mark Hemingway of the National Review Online has asserted that I was wrong. I bookmark NRO and read it frequently. It's smart and breezy -- but on this one it got its facts wrong. Mr. Hemingway assumed I was citing the case of Yukio Asano, who was convicted of waterboarding and other offenses and sentenced to 15 years hard labor -- not death by hanging. Mr. Hemingway made the assumption that I was referring to the Asano case because in 2006 Sen. Edward Kennedy had referred to it. (Sen. Kennedy accurately described the sentence as hard labor and not execution, by the way.)

But I was not referring to Asano, nor was my source Sen. Kennedy. Instead I was referencing the statement of a different member of the Senate: John McCain. On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding." Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts." Bottom line: Sen. McCain was right in 2007 and National Review Online is wrong today. America did execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html

HEDZUP...

Pandemic ~ Swine Flu H1N1 map (updates automatically):

http://tinyurl.com/cywddc
=============================================
There are four different antiviral drugs that are licensed for use in the United States for the treatment of influenza: amantadine, rimantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir. While most swine-influenza viruses have been susceptible to all four drugs, the most recent U.S. swine-flu viruses isolated from humans are resistant to amantadine and rimantadine.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/article...
=============================================
Get Tamiflu. Some vets have it...most wildlife rehabbers have it.
=============================================
Swine Flu H1N1 is a never before seen variant composed of swine/human/avian subsets. If you had a flu shot this year you're probably okay. There's no reason to panic...just be aware intl travel will be restricted soon.

If you love football...

These guys are nutz...in a good way:

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton-phillipsburg/

re; Knife Sharpening...

Roll your car window down a bit & sharpen your knife on the window edge.

Mr. O cleaning house #2

UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers
Apr 24 10:17 AM US/Eastern
By VERONIKA OLEKSYN

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal.

"That's exactly what I call complicity or participation" to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. "At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture."

Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said it was up to U.S. courts and prosecutors to prove that the memos were written with the intention to incite torture.

Nowak also said any probe of questionable CIA interrogation tactics must be independent and have thorough investigative powers.

"It can be a congressional investigation commission, a special investigator, but it must be independent and with thorough investigative powers," Nowak said.

On Thursday, Obama's press secretary suggested Obama does not care for an independent panel.

Last week, the Obama administration released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under Bush.

The memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.

Nowak said Saturday that Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates the same U.N. convention. But at that point he did not specifically address the issue of how the convention would apply to those who drafted the interrogation policy and gave the CIA the legal go-ahead.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97OTG5G0&show_article=1

Mr. O cleaning house #1

Obama Administration to Release Detainee Abuse Photos; Former CIA Official Says Former Colleagues 'Don't Believe They Have Cover Anymore'

April 24, 2009 10:23 AM

In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge yesterday, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU for all information relating to the treatment of detainees -- the same battle that led, last week, to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for harsh interrogation methods that human rights groups call torture.

Courts had ruled against the Bush administration's attempts to keep the photographs from public view. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh tells ABC News that "the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency."

Singh added that the photographs "only underscore the need for a criminal investigation and prosecution if warranted" of U.S. officials responsible for the harsh treatment of detainees.

But some experts say the move could have a chilling effect on the CIA even beyond President Obama's decision last week to release the so-called "torture memos."

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs "prurient" and "reprehensible," Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

"They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost," Lowenthal said. "There's nothing to be gained from it. There's no substantive reason why those photos have to be released."

Lowenthal said the president's moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on "the undercurrent I've been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago."

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

Even though President Obama has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who were operating within the four corners of what they'd been told was the law, Lowenthal says members of the CIA are worried. "They feel exposed already, and this is going to increase drumbeat for an investigation or a commission" to explore detainee treatment during the Bush years, he said. "It's going to make it much harder to resist, and they fear they're then going to be thrown over."

The Bush administration argued that releasing these photographs would violate US obligations towards detainees and would prompt outrage and perhaps attacks against the U.S. On June 9 and June 21, 2006 judges directed the Bush administration to release 21 photographs depicting the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and last September, the Second Circuit Court affirmed that decision.

The Bush administration had argued that an exemption from FOIA was needed here because of the exemption for law enforcement records that could reasonably be expected to endanger “any individual." The release of the disputed photographs, the Bush administration argued, will endanger United States troops, other Coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the court found that the exemption was not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy."

The Bush administration had also argued that releasing the photographs would violated the Geneva Conventions, which protect prisoners of war and detained civilians “against insults and public curiosity." The court ruled that the Geneva Conventions "do not prohibit dissemination of images of detainees being abused when the images are redacted so as to protect the identities of the detainees, at least in situations where, as here, the purpose of the dissemination is not itself to humiliate the detainees."

Moreover, the court found that releasing "the photographs is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners."

"There is a significant public interest in the disclosure of these photographs," the court ruled. "The defendants concede that these photographs yield evidence of governmental wrongdoing, but nonetheless argue that they add little additional value to the written summaries of the depicted events, which have already been made public. This contention disregards FOIA’s central purpose of furthering governmental accountability, and the special importance the law accords to information revealing official misconduct."

A November 6, 2008, petition for a re-hearing was denied last month.

The Obama administration could have opted to go all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep these photographs from public view, but yesterday Acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin wrote to District Judge Alvin Hellerstein and said the Pentagon was preparing to release 21 photos at issue in the appeal, in addition to 23 others "previously identified as responsive."

The materials will be released to the ACLU no later than May 28, after which the ACLU says it will make them public. This release will come just days before President Obama travels to the volatile Middle East.

Dassin wrote that the Pentagon also was "processing for release a substantial number of other images contained in Army CID reports that have been closed during the pendency of this case."

Singh said in a statement that the photographs "will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational. Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."

Lowenthal said his former colleagues at the CIA were "put off" by President Obama's trip to the CIA earlier this week. "I don't think the president's speech went down very well, particularly the part when he said they made mistakes. They don't think they made mistakes. They think they acted to execute policy. And those in the intelligence service don't make policy."

Those in intelligence are "gong to become increasingly wary about doing dangerous things," Lowenthal said. "They feel at the end of the day they won't be covered. It's not irreparable right now, but it's problematic."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-adminis-3.html

The comment section is especially revealing.

I am a TARP wife.

by Anonymous May 2009 Issue

In keeping with the unwritten code of this new sisterhood, I have taken a vow of financial abstinence. I returned the presents my husband gave me for Christmas (but didn’t tell him, since he’s already awash in gloom) and am using my credit balances at all the major department stores for important gifts and other necessities. I haven’t even looked at spring clothes; God forbid someone catches me out in something new. Keeping up with fashion seems somehow decadent in this new era, like getting Botox injections or catered dinners. Like so many others, I’m shopping in my closet. I’ve bought exactly two things this year—makeup and panty hose. If I buy a present for someone, I have the package sent to their home. I don’t want to be spotted climbing into a taxi, laden with Bergdorf Goodman shopping bags.

As you can see, being a TARP wife means, in short, making decisions according to a complex algorithm: balancing the need to look like your world hasn’t crumbled beneath you—let’s not alarm the investors!—with the need to appear duly repentant for your subprime sins. It also means we’re part of the community of more than 400 companies that have received government bailout funds, whose fall from grace has been swifter and harsher than any since Mao frog-marched intellectuals into China’s countryside. Hitting the perfect note isn’t always easy. For instance, for the past 15 years or so, I have thrown my husband a birthday party. We traditionally celebrate with about 30 friends, mostly New York pals we’ve known for decades. We’re not talking an end-of-an-era Stephen Schwarzman-type $10 million blowout. Ours is a pretty sedate affair.

This year, of course, entertaining our crowd at our usual multi-star Michelin hotspots would simply not do. Extravagant is out; conservative is in. But not hosting a birthday dinner would have spurred rumors that we were broke, not a welcome thought either. Juggling these conflicting impulses, I decided on a slimmed-down party. Choosing Versailles to host World War I peace negotiations could not have been more complicated than my attempt to select the perfect spot for our annual dinner. Naturally, every restaurant I contacted was willing to meet my reduced budget; now that Wall Street firms are no longer entertaining clients or hosting events, New York eateries are struggling.

At the end of the day, it came down to a choice between an especially accommodating (and well-known) high-end restaurant and a less expensive, clubbier spot. We ultimately picked the cozier restaurant—even though it ended up costing us more, so eager was the more chic outfit to host the party. Why spend the extra bucks? Because our chosen place is distinctly low-profile and rarely mentioned in the press. We did not need a snarky story about a “Wall Street bigwig living it up while taxpayers wonder where their money went.” Really, not even President Obama spends this much time looking after his image.

It wasn’t long ago that America celebrated successful companies and the people who run them. My husband, CEO of one of the biggest TARP recipients, has received more than his share of accolades (in my opinion, well deserved). But because of a few tin-eared nitwits who failed to notice that their industry was under siege, the entire country now thinks that TARP bankers are greedy incompetents dedicated to ripping off taxpayers. Fancy wastebaskets, under-the-rug bonuses, lavish junkets—these are Exhibits A, B, and C in the people’s case against Wall Street. Even the Octomom gets better press.

Here is the reality: TARP managers are scared to death. The executives of these companies are desperately trying to hold their businesses together while complying with a slew of damaging bills flooding out of Congress. My husband has battled the shutdown of the credit markets and a deteriorating business environment for two endless years without respite. He’s exhausted, terrified of losing the company, and beaten down by the constant criticism hurled at him. I’m trying to buck him up and not complicate his life. The last thing he needs is unpleasant publicity, so I’m learning to fly so far below the radar that I have perpetually skinned knees. We’ve picked up new habits, like making donations anonymously and sneaking in late to black-tie galas after society photographer Patrick McMullan has packed up his camera and gone home. We now regularly turn down the invitations we receive from museums and arts organizations that will inevitably be followed by a request for funds. No point in getting their hopes up.
I get it that I may not win much sympathy. Why should I? I’m not pleading poverty. We still live in relative luxury, we can afford almost everything we need, and we aren’t facing the prospect of losing our home or having to turn to our families to support us. But we are getting squeezed.

Like most Americans, we are worried about money. Our net worth is tied up in stock that is down 95 percent. Last year, before it became fashionable to do so, my husband refused a bonus. Because of the new restrictions, his pay this year will be a fraction of what it was. The combined swoon in our income has caused us to cut spending drastically, in hopes that we can hang on to some remnant of our former lifestyle. In an effort to conserve cash, we are eating out less frequently, meaning that I’ve been turning out some pretty dreadful lasagna. Actually, staying home and watching Law & Order reruns has become our new guilty pleasure. It’s a far cry from opening night at the Metropolitan Opera, but it’s not bad. I drive the family crazy by switching off the lights every time we leave a room. Needless to say, we fly commercial. Using the company plane is now out of bounds; we’ve heard there are reporters staking out the private airports.

I have become oddly superstitious. On some level, I feel I’m being punished for too many thoughtless years of assuming that the trappings of success were earned and not given. I’m constantly knocking on wood or offering little good-citizen sacrifices, like manically recycling or chatting with telemarketers. I’m struggling with how to communicate all this to our children. We’re thankful that they’re intent on making their own way in the world, but at the same time, they confidently rely on us for help. One daughter recently mused about going back to business school. I hope she didn’t notice my instantly negative reaction, stemming completely from concern about the cost. I cannot bring myself to shake her foundation. The collapse of the world economy has already crushed the confidence of young people just starting out. Meanwhile, retirement is like a rainbow, a beautiful mirage that we’ll probably never reach. To some people, these may seem like luxury problems, but to us they are painful.

I’ve watched the skin under my husband’s eyes take on a yellowish hue, and his hair turn from gray to grayer, as he tries to lead his company through this mess. He’s up every night for hours at a stretch, and for the first time, he has health issues. For a person whose life has been punctuated mainly by success—from perennial class president and high-school sports star to Ivy League MBA—failure is the worst of all nightmares. He seems off balance, as though self-confidence were a physical ballast that he is slowly losing. It’s heartbreaking how often he apologizes to me for losing so much of our money, for making so many mistakes.

I know people are angry—angry at those they view as responsible for the subprime crisis and the subsequent economic meltdown. I don’t blame them. I’m angry too. But my fury extends to any number of culprits: to Alan Greenspan, who encouraged the loose-money policies that undermined the pricing of risk; to Barney Frank, who cudgeled Fannie Mae into supporting loans to unfit homebuyers; to the rating agencies that were ethically compromised; to the subprime-mortgage brokers who chased fees and ignored any accountability; to the investors who didn’t do their homework and absurdly leveraged up their balance sheets. I’m an equal-opportunity blamer.

And yes, I blame those who were in charge of the big banks—including my husband—for not seeing the default tsunami coming. But almost no one did. Everyone knows this, yet financial CEOs have replaced the Mob as the most despised group in the country. The good news is that Americans have short attention spans. Before long, some other group will come along to absorb all the frustration and anger. Meanwhile, I’m off to the tailors to get some clothes altered. Shopping your closet is great unless you’ve put on a few pounds over the years. I’ve been holding out hope that fewer nights out could shrink me to fit back into some of the past warhorses of my wardrobe. Unfortunately, our appetite for comfort food has risen in proportion to the Dow’s decline; the selloff this past month has upped our mac-and-cheese intake and created a sinecure for my seamstress.

http://www.portfolio.com/executives/2009/04/21/Confessions-of-a-Bailout-CEO-Wife?page=0

WSJ yellow journalism...

Presidential Poison

04/23/09

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"

So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for "anger and retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist.

Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.

Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Homeland Security chief seeks to repeal Real ID Act

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A post-9/11 law that sets federal standards for state driver's licenses and identification cards is under fire from the head of the agency enforcing that law, the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week said she is working with governors to repeal the Real ID Act, which was passed in 2005 and went into effect last year. The bill is popular in Washington, but is scorned by many governors who bear the responsibility and cost of validating that holders of driver's licenses are citizens or legal residents of the United States. MORE...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/real.ID.debate/index.html

This falls under the rubric..."Be careful what you ask for...". The idiot govs just forfeited their right to 'contribute ideas' on the issue when the Fed uses it to discredit & destroy the 10th Amendment Movement next year.

In THIS coddled society?...

You're kidding, right?

Common sense can't be taught, it's the product of experience. Every decision an officer makes is reviewed later...usually by a judge. That fact AND job security guarantees that the path of least legal resistance...allowing for witnesses, of course...will always be followed.

30 years ago whenever I caught a carload of kids with beer, I made 'em pour every can out on the street in full view of their peers & sent 'em on their way. The record...3 dorks w/ 5 cases of Bud.

It's now illegal to do that...it's called 'harassment' and 'littering'. Hellraisers make the best cops, but there aren't many left due to the pantywaist society we've facilitated with our PC attitudes.



RE;

Threat recognition training is terrible to non-existent.

Maybe, but what about plain old common sense? Or the ability to make a decision based on the circumstances?

If they don't have the ability to discern between a real threat and an 'idiot call', perhaps they shouldn't have passed the academy.

What happened to Peace Officers?...

Gangbangers.

Druggies.

Crazies.


The whole Peace Officer shtick was abandoned around 1984 or so when two FBI agents were gunned down because their Quantico pistol training was totally worthless. As most PDs have neither the funds or political will to send their officers to Gunsite, they compensate by teaching 'extreme early threat containment' instead. To further reinforce the concept, many depts. require snatch-proof holsters which reduces an officer's response time appreciably. Some even 'discourage' hide-out weapons.

The result is obvious...

Threat recognition training is terrible to non-existent.

Most officers can't hit a bull in the ass @ 10 feet.


Believe me, the officers in that article HATE being saddled with political expediency BS but have NO choice if they want to work.

Police Stop Man For Carrying Gun Out In Open

Milwaukee Chief To Officers: Ignore Gun Memo
UPDATED: 11:31 am CDT April 22, 2009

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, Wis. -- As WISN 12 News was interviewing a West Allis man about his past arrest for carrying a gun in the open, police confronted him again Tuesday night -- one day after the state's attorney general ruled it's legal. "Somebody called the police that somebody was walking around with a gun on their hip," a West Allis police officer said.

"I would fit that description," Krause said.

"That would be you," a West Allis police officer said.

Police arrived up to investigate Krause while 12 News was interviewing him about his previous arrest for carrying a holstered gun on his hip outside his home. One officer saw Krause's gun and asked what agency he's affiliated with. "I'm the same guy I was when you arrested me the last time," Krause said. The officers asked for his name and called dispatch. "The reason I'm checking is because felons can't have guns in Wisconsin," West Allis police said.

Krause is not a felon. He's a certified firearms instructor. "Pretty much any time my pants are on, I'm armed," Krause said. That includes carrying a gun outside his home as Wisconsin's attorney general has ruled is legal.

"I'm totally opposed to it. I do not think we need more guns on the streets," state Rep. Leon Young said. Young, a former Milwaukee police officer who represents part of Milwaukee's north side, said he's working on fast track legislation to clear up confusion with Wisconsin's gun law. "If you're walking down the street with a gun in your hand and people can see it or you've got one in your holster here and people can see it, it's going to create a disturbance," Young said.

But until there's a new law, the officers explained to Krause, the attorney general's ruling is brand new to them and they'll act accordingly. "How it was explained to us is that if somebody calls and makes a complaint -- in other words, they feel threatened -- they feel it's causing a disturbance or they feel that it's disorderly in some fashion. They call us and we respond and we investigate it," a West Allis police officer said.

"This is America. If we don't stand up for our rights, you know, what are we doing here? What have people fought and died for? Why'd we found this country?" Krause said. Krause was not arrested, and he said the officers Tuesday night acted professionally, although he disputes whether they should have confronted him. The officers said in a different situation they would likely still order someone carrying a gun to the ground until they could make sure the situation is safe.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said his memo was simply intended to "clarify" the law, and he does not believe more people will start openly carrying guns because of it. Gov. Jim Doyle hopes it won't change how police officers respond when they see weapons. "Our advice was people are permitted to openly carry firearms -- that it wasn't in and of itself disorderly conduct. We intentionally didn't go into any factual-based scenarios because they're all different," Van Hollen said. "I assume that local DAs and local police departments are gonna continue to act as they already have," Doyle said.

Police Response

Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully. Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years. He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it. Flynn said it's irresponsible to send a message that if someone carries a weapon openly, no one can bother them.

Milwaukee-area police chiefs have a monthly meeting on Wednesday, and they're expected to discuss this issue. Shorewood Police Chief David Banaszynski is the leader of the state chief's association. He said many departments are asking questions about how to deal with people openly carrying firearms. He said it may end up being a community-by-community, case-by-case issue fraught with the potential for danger.

"Now, with open carry, which is legal, there may be no training. I could hand you my handgun, you could walk down the street carrying it with no training whatsoever. To me, there is a lot more danger now with people thinking, 'I have the right to carry it so I'm going to carry it, and not have the training,'" Banaszynski said. Guns are still prohibited in schools and any private property owner, including businesses, can ban firearms.

Previous Stories:

* April 22, 2009: Milwaukee Chief To Officers: Ignore Gun Memo
* April 21, 2009: AG Says Citizens Have Right To Openly Carry Firearms

http://www.wisn.com/cnn-news/19235901/detail.html

That being your position...

Why are you here?


Thanks.


RE;

< The position of an over abundance of raw energy will keep prices down seemingly subscribes to the same thought process and confidence that Americans held in the mid 1970's, thinking that Saudi oil would be forever cheap and they would self regulate to keep those prices down. The lesson came in the following years beginning in 1979 ... No, I believe prices will remain down till Americans loose up in their spending trends. That will not happen till Washington Leadership realizes that over taxing small business is not the answer to huge uncontrolled government spending. We have a minimum of 4 more years of am unstable world economy, This all being said, the Eberle project is not as attractive as it was a year ago.>

...especially backwards. ;-[

U got it...

Helluva play on words though.


LOL!

Thanks DWB...

It was a good interview...except for one sentence that cracked me up:

"www.scatlover.com to go public via reverse merger!!!"


ROFLMAO!!!

Yeah...

Toth evidently didn't do what I thought he would.


grrrrrrrrrr.

Just got back...

how's the interview going?

Betcha there's more...

in a coupla weeks or so. Give GSRE time.

GSRE/Not bad, 4 a 'plugged' hole. LOL!

VERY informative, THANKS.

I have no way of knowing for sure...

But if GSRE has set up what I think they may have (don't ask), a spurt to .06 & a settle @ .03 isn't out of the question. The fact that Toth has stayed mum for so long and suddenly is announcing news with none of the usual run-up so common in pennys supports my hunch.

Agreed. GSRE has been tight lipped...

of late for a reason, I believe. It certainly appears that Mr. Toth prefers to take care of business rather than continually pander to shareholder whim like most Penny CEOs do.

re; Impending PR...

Verbatim from the GSRE Website:

Green Star Energies CEO Announces Personal Interview With Play Money Traders.

Substantial Corporate Developments to Be Released Tuesday Prior to the Interview.

PICKS, Very nice GSRE DD...

It is much appreciated sir.


Re;

<CROWIN like i said here is the answer to your bashing about the plugged hole....maybe this can be put to rest once and for all


we explain it in detail in our Eberle report
Green Star: http://www.greenstarenergies.com/pdf/projects/eberle/tnog-eberle-lease-report-05-18-08.pdf
Green Star: It is important to focus the pressure directly on the zone which is being
tested for gas. In the Eberle # 1 well, this is at approx. 5,000 feet in depth,
in what was determined to be a Taylor Sand Formation. The test verified a
solid cement bond, with no need to utilize further specialized cement
applications to isolate the target zone. The well at this point was prepared
and ready. From this point it would remain capped until it is hooked up to a
nearby pipeline. The status of the well will remain “plugged” until such time
as it can attached to the pipeline. The status cannot change with the
Texas Railroad Commission until the well actually moves into production>

GSRE interview site is fixed. e/m

Guys, If you want your posts...

to appear whenever someone does a Public Msgs DD search, ya gotta include the 4 digit stock symbol in your post.

Will there also be a PR? e/m

THG, I queried your agenda...

by posting:

What good does it do to keep trumpeting FUD when all here are pretty cognizant of the realities, THG? The possible fall of America isn't exactly a moment to be celebrated, unless you're responsible for...& profiting from...the event.


Rather than support/define your position, you petulantly replied...


What good does it do to spend the time even typing that post?


Not acceptable. I expect cogency, not flippancy from one of your intellectual prowess. I know you are quite familiar with the concept that Thoughts Are Things. Application of that awareness for the common good by positing solutions rather than incessantly drumming Woe Is Us is the only way to restore proper societal balance.

Knowledge doesn't bestow privilege...it is an assumption of responsibility.


Be Well,

John

Judge Richard Posner Questions His Free-Market Faith In "A Failure Of Capitalism"

04/20/09 06:33 PM

"If you're worried that lions are eating too many zebras, you don't say to the lions, 'You're eating too many zebras.' You have to build a fence around the lions. They're not going to build it."
- Judge Richard A. Posner

One of the most prominent proponents of free-market capitalism is having second thoughts. Judge Richard A. Posner, a federal appeals court judge who has been called the most cited legal scholar of all time, discussed his doubts and his analysis of the current financial crisis in a wide-ranging interview with the Huffington Post. A longtime proponent of deregulation, the idea that business works best in a free market without burdensome government regulations, Posner began to change his mind when he realized the enormity of the crisis. This change of heart inspired him to write his upcoming book, "A Failure Of Capitalism."

Though still a believer in the virtues of capitalism, Posner now emphasizes the importance of government regulations; the need to strengthen the regulatory structure by directly funding authorities rather than the current fee-based model; the dangers of excessive executive compensation, and even expressed support for the idea of changing bankruptcy law to make it easier for homeowners who face foreclosure. "I wouldn't have thought the economy was as vulnerable," he explains. "I wouldn't have thought that banking deregulation was dangerous."

Posner says he grew "complacent" about the risks of deregulation since economists "said they had solved the problem of depression and knew how to control inflation without causing recession." His relaxed attitude was also due to the fact that the economy had been running fairly smoothly since the early 1980s. Now, he realizes that more regulation of our financial markets is needed, employing a typically entertaining analogy to illustrate his point: "If you're worried that lions are eating too many zebras, you don't say to the lions, 'You're eating too many zebras.' You have to build a fence around the lions. They're not going to build it."

Posner emphasizes that he doesn't blame the bankers for not sensing earlier the damage that their risky behavior had on the larger economy. "If you say to a banker, 'If all the banks go broke, the economy will take a hit.' They'll say, 'What can I do. If I decide to play it safe, my competitors will take all my business.' Since our free-market system encourages businessmen to be self-interested profit maximizers, Posner says it doesn't make sense to also ask them to be conscious of their impact on the wider economy. "You can't expect [an] individual firm to be worrying about what his collapse will do to the rest of economy. That's why you need government regulation of banking... Coal-burning utilities in the Midwest don't worry about acid rain because that's going to be in the east. That's why you need regulation."

Posner is critical of the government bailout because it doesn't seem to have served its purpose: banks are not lending, but rather hoarding the billions they have received of TARP funds. "What government has been trying to do is give them enough money to feel safer. But it doesn't work too well because if making loans is risky... and there's not much demand for loans... they'll find other things to do with the money. You can lead a bank to money but you can't make it lend." Posner is careful to emphasize that while the bailout may be wrong, it may have prevented an even greater crisis: "You don't know how much worse things would be if government hadn't done this. Without all those hundreds of billions, maybe the banks would have collapsed."

Overall, he doesn't have much confidence in the government's approach. "What I criticize them for is the failure to have had any contingency plan. So it's now 6 months since the September crash of the banking industry... my sense is that the government is still feeling its way. It improvises, doesn't have any real long-term plan." And he warns that the crisis's aftershock may be worse. "The danger here is that the Fed is pumping several trillion dollars into the economy, on top of the Bush deficits... the danger is that in a couple of years, we have very severe inflation."

Posner even seems amenable to an idea suggested recently by Yale professors John Geanakoplos and Richard Levin to reduce the mortgage principal and not just the interest rate of homeowners facing foreclosure that would probably involve a change in bankruptcy law: "It's not a bad idea... If you reduce the principal, you're going to reduce foreclosures... It might be possible to have a law that does that - that would be really radical... if it could be done legally."

Posner was also critical of the current regulatory structure, in which the numerous federal agencies are funded by fees from the banks and institutions they regulate. That creates a "cozy" relationship which can lead to lax regulation. "There's a kind of shopping involved. Countrywide was originally under the Federal Reserve because it had a bank connected to it... and decided that the Fed was too rough on it, got rid of its bank and as a result was regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision." Instead, he suggests, regulatory agencies should be "supported by general tax revenues."

Posner's other non-traditional free market suggestions: Putting a ceiling on credit card interest rates and payday loans and possibly capping the salaries of bank executives (though he prefers disclosing the full compensation of all senior executives and requiring that a substantial share of compensation be tied to a company's future performance) and even increasing the marginal income tax rate of high-income individuals.

In his book, Posner takes aim at the Republican Party, explaining that thoughtful conservatives were "appalled at the intellectual vacuity" of the McCain campaign. Echoing Stephen Colbert's mock-conservative take, he derides how the party flaunted the 'anti-intellectualism of its supporters', concluding that "The economic crisis in which the nation finds itself cannot be solved in the gut." And he makes sure to include the failures of liberalism in his rant, condemning how they are "trapped in fantasies of equality."

Filed by Marcus Baram

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/judge-richard-posner-disc_n_188950.html

If he's truly appalled at the intellectual vacuity of the McCain campaign he needs to back off & take another look. He may find the whole thing was nothing more than a sham constructed by the Reps to settle long-standing political debts and avoid being the fall guy for what was obviously coming. Successful politics is nothing more than knowing when to duck.

Obama to attend meeting with credit card firms

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will participate in a meeting on Thursday with executives of U.S. credit card companies, the White House said. Aides to Obama had previously announced that the credit card firms would be meeting at the White House with top administration officials, including Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council.

But the White House made clear in a statement that Obama would participate in the meeting as well. He is expected to press the companies to change what administration officials see as deceptive practices that have saddled consumers with high debt and high interest rates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090420/pl_nm/us_creditcards_regulation_obama

Why didn't Bush ever do this...hmmm?

Somebody better contact...

ol' Clayton & tell him to get his butt in gear!


ROFLMAO!!!

What good does it do...

to keep trumpeting FUD when all here are pretty cognizant of the realities, THG? The possible fall of America isn't exactly a moment to be celebrated, unless you're responsible for...& profiting from...the event.

I was referring to...

when the pps will start to get serious. If Mr. Toth announces what I expect, there will be some very happy longs. Anyone selling short into the surge will likely regret it.


LOLOLOL!!!

Wait 'till Wednesday afternoon...

The longer the amateur nervous nellies hold out, the better.

I doubt any...

of the large holders will sell before at least.028, if then.

i.e;...Filling a short's gonna get expensive.


LOL!

I kinda wonder if...

somebody hacked the site for...fun.

Buy a doz of 'em...

Donate 'em to the Fire Dept for practice work & bulldoze what's left. Then get the prop tax lowered, pay it for two years. eventually selling the lots for new construction.

rah

The significance of Obama's decision to release the torture memos


Numerous commentators are objecting to the idea that Barack Obama deserves credit for his release of the OLC torture memos yesterday in light of his accompanying pledge that CIA officials relying in good faith on those memos won't be prosecuted. Chris Floyd is one who articulates that objection quite well and, as is always true for Chris, his criticisms are well worth reading. Many others -- including Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, John Dean and Bruce Fein -- yesterday lambasted Obama for his anti-prosecution stance. Since I gave substantial credit to Obama yesterday for the release of the memos and believe even more so today that he deserves it (despite finding the anti-prosecution case as corrupted and morally bankrupt as ever), I want to return to the issue of Obama's actions.

Purely as an analytical matter, releasing the OLC memos and advocating against prosecutions are two separate acts. It's perfectly coherent to praise one and condemn the other. There is an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially ("I like him"/"I don't like him"; "I trust him/I don't trust him") rather than case-by-case judgments about his specific acts. "Like" and "trust" are sentiments appropriate for one's friends and loved ones, not political leaders. A politician who does something horrible yesterday can do something praiseworthy tomorrow. Generally bad people can do good things (even if for ignoble reasons) and generally good people can do bad things. That's why I care little about motives, which I think, in any event, are impossible to know. Regardless of motives, good acts (releasing the torture memos) should be praised, and bad acts (arguing against prosecutions) should be condemned.

Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class.

In the United States, what Obama did yesterday is simply not done. American Presidents do not disseminate to the world documents which narrate in vivid, elaborate detail the dirty, illegal deeds done by the CIA, especially not when the actions are very recent, were approved and ordered by the President of the United States, and the CIA is aggressively demanding that the documents remain concealed and claiming that their release will harm national security. When is the last time a President did that?

Other than mildly placating growing anger over his betrayals of his civil liberties commitments (which, by the way, is proof of the need to criticize Obama when he does the wrong thing), there wasn't much political gain for Obama in releasing these documents. And he certainly knew that, by doing so, he would be subjected to an onslaught of accusations that he was helping Al Qaeda and endangering American National Security. And that's exactly what happened, as in this cliché-filled tripe from Hayden and Michael Mukasey in today's Wall St. Journal, and this from an anonymous, cowardly "top Bush official" smearing Obama while being allowed to hide behind the Jay Bybee of journalism, Politico's Mike Allen.

But Obama knowingly infuriated the CIA, including many of his own top intelligence advisers; purposely subjected himself to widespread attacks from the Right that he was giving Al Qaeda our "playbook"; and he released to the world documents that conclusively prove how that the U.S. Government, at the highest levels, purported to legalize torture and committed blatant war crimes. There's just no denying that those actions are praiseworthy. I understand the argument that Obama only did what the law requires. That is absolutely true. We're so trained to meekly accept that our Government has the right to do whatever it wants in secret -- we accept that it's best that most things be kept from us -- that we forget that a core premise of our government is transparency; that the law permits secrecy only in the narrowest of cases; and that it's certainly not legal to suppress evidence of government criminality on the grounds that it is classified.

Still, as a matter of political reality, Obama had to incur significant wrath from powerful factions by releasing these memos, and he did that. That's an extremely unusual act for a politician, especially a President, and it deserves praise. None of this mitigates any of the bad acts Obama has engaged in recently -- particularly his ongoing efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review by relying on extreme assertions of presidential secrecy powers -- but, standing alone, his actions yesterday are quite significant.

As is obvious from everything I've written over the past three years, I think the need to criminally prosecute those who authorized and ordered torture (as well as illegal surveillance) is absolute and non-negotiable (and, as I wrote earlier today, in the case of torture, criminal investigations are legally compelled). A collective refusal to prosecute the grotesque war crimes that we know our Government committed is to indict all of us in those crimes, to make us complict in their commission.

Criticisms directed at Obama and Holder for advocating immunity for CIA officials who relied in "good faith" on DOJ memos (a mere subset of the government criminals) is absolutely warranted. But, it is not Obama's sole responsibility -- or even his decision -- to prosecute. As a strictly legal matter, that is a decision for the Attorney General, independently, to make; it is Eric Holder who has the obligation to enforce the law, independent of anything Obama wants or says and regardless of what public opinion demands.

But more crucially, it is also the responsibility of the citizenry to demand that this happen. What Obama did yesterday -- whether by design or not -- provided the most potent tools yet to create the political pressure for prosecutions. As Kevin Drum makes clear, no decent human being reading those memos would be anything other than repelled by what was in them. Polls already found that large percentages of Americans, majorities even, favor investigations and/or prosecutions for Bush crimes. The onus is on those who believe in the rule of law to find ways to force the government to criminally investigate whether they want to or not (this petition demanding that Holder appoint a Special Prosecutor is a very good place to begin, though it will require much more than just petitions).

The most criticism-worthy act that Obama engaged in yesterday was to affirm and perpetuate what is the single most-destructive premise in our political culture: namely, that when high government officials get caught committing serious crimes, the responsible and constructive thing to do is demand immunity for them, while only those who are vindictive and divisive want political leaders to be held accountable for their crimes. This is what Obama said in affirming that rotted premise:

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. . . . But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

That passage, more than anything else, is the mindset that has destroyed the rule of law in the U.S. and spawned massive criminality in our elite class. Accountability for crimes committed by political leaders (as opposed to ordinary Americans) is scorned as "retribution" and "laying blame for the past." Those who believe that the rule of law should be applied to the powerful as well as to ordinary citizens are demonized as the "forces that divide us." The bottomless corruption of immunizing political elites for serious crimes is glorified in the most Orwellian terms as "a time for reflection," "moving forward," and "coming together on behalf of our common future."

Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that Obama will not single-handedly eliminate the immunity from the rule of law which the political class and other elites have arrogated unto themselves. If anything, as his comments yesterday reflect, he is likely to affirm and defend that immunity (and, obviously, he personally benefits from its ongoing vitality). Demanding that political leaders be subjected to the rule of law -- and finding ways to force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor -- is what citizens ought to be doing. Either we care about the rule of law or we don't -- and if we do, we'll find the ways to demand its application to the politically powerful criminals who broke multiple laws over the last eight years. Obama's release of those torture memos yesterday makes that choice unambiguously clear and enables the right to choice to be made.



UPDATE: Time's Joe Klein purports to list all the dangers for Obama in alienating the CIA as he has: morale will drop; they'll all retire at the time he needs them most for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Obama is sparking a "potential rebellion in the clandestine service." Klein then unleashes this deeply Orwellian observation (h/t CRust1): "This is an extremely serious claim in the intelligence culture, where some operators are asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation."

That's what government crimes are called in the eyes of our press corps: they're just acting "extra-legally" -- and not just "extra-legally," but "for the greater good of the nation." You should try that at home. Go rob a bank and when the police try to arrest you, just tell them: "I was just making an extra-legal withdrawal; what's the problem"? That's also how the media (and Democrats) constantly talked about Bush's illegal spying on Americans. What he did was never a "crime" or even "illegal" (even though the law criminalizes the very conduct he got caught engaging in with prison terms and fines); at worst, it was: "he was engaged in eavesdropping in circumvention of the FISA framework." That works, too, if you want to rob a bank: "I was just making a withdrawal in circumvention of the banking regulatory framework."

Similarly, Politico's Mike Allen -- in the same article where he granted anonymity to a cowardly "top Bush official" to do nothing other than smear Obama as a friend of Al Qaeda (and marvel at Allen's pathetic "justification" for doing that) -- proceeded to describe conduct authorized by the OLC memos this way: "aggressive interrogation practices critics decried as torture." I think I know how to speak Politicoese: the attack on Iraq was "aggressive diplomatic outreach critics decried as an invasion"; Lewis Libby's lying was "spirited and inventive story-telling critics decried as obstruction of justice"; and a super-important, extremely influential and profoundly brilliant person with intimate knowledge of many, many important things told me last night: "Politico is a trashy gossip rag with only one governing principle: What will Drudge like?" Another top, key insider added: "they should hand out Mike Allen columns to journalism school students as a guide to what they should avoid at all costs."

George Orwell mistakenly assumed that obfuscating language designed to glorify criminal acts would be invented and normalized by government. At least in the U.S., that function is outsourced to government's most loyal and eager servants: establishment journalists. A principal reason why the government has been able to engage with impunity in the extremism and lawlessness of the last decade is because most journalists refuse even to describe it as what it is.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/