Politics Extra: Cryptic Graffiti

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Cryptic Graffiti

That's not a band. The Enquirer's Tim Bonfield reports:

Drivers entering downtown Cincinnati from the I-71 tunnel, and some other places around town, may have noticed an unusually cryptic piece of graffiti: “Habeas Corpus R.I.P 1215-2006.”

The words appear to be a protest against the Bush administration based in part on a Molly Ivins column that was published last month and has been circulating on the Internet. The graffiti matches the headline of Ivins’ column.

The year 1215 refers to the establishment of the Magna Carta, a document from old England that helped establish the concepts of contitutional law and individual legal rights.

Specifically, Ivins was criticizing a bill – passed by the Senate Sept. 28, then signed into law by President Bush Oct. 17 -- that affects the rights of detainees imprisoned as alleged terrorists.
Ivins criticizes several aspects of the detainee bill.

The habeas corpus aspect refers specifically to a part of the bill that Ivins contends removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court – a right that traces back to the Magna Carta.
Here’s one of several links to Web sites displaying Ivin’s column:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

16 Comments:

at 11:47 AM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anyone who disagrees with Military Commissions Act of 2006 is instantly branded as weak and against national security. The Republican Party Chairman described the Democrats who voted against the bill as, "... voting against interrogating terrorists." No, I believe their votes were against abandoning all that this nation has held dear for 200+ years in an atmosphere of fear and hysteria. There is no desire to "pamper" terrorists. There is only the belief that every American is entitled to the rights afforded by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that no single person, to include the President and the Secretary of Defense, can declare a citizen of this nation beyond the rule of law.

Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."<13> An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."<14>

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions." <15>

According to the ACLU, this bill "removes important checks on the president by: failing to protect due process, eliminating habeas corpus for many detainees, undermining enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, and giving a "get out of jail free card" to senior officials who authorized or ordered illegal torture and abuse." According to Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, "nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition, but that’s exactly what Congress just approved." [4]

Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University, joined Keith Olbermann last night to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly. People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

Does that not basically mean that at Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld's say-so anybody in this country, enemy or not, citizen or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

TURLEY: It certainly does. And, in fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the President deems is connected to one of these groups, you, too, can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. Standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his Attorney General who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if you appoint someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who's gonna be putting on this board

And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or the good mood of the President. In fact, Madison said he created a system essentially to be run by devils where they could not do harm because we didn't rely on their good motivations. And now we must. People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly.

I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this President from taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, and he indicated that if Congress gave the President these types of power that he might go along, and so we may have in this country some type of uber-president, some type of absolute ruler. And it will be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial. It's something no one thought, certainly I did think, was possibly in the United States. I'm not sure how we got to this point. But, people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon.

The United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the President could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death. The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture - we prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime, and, my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for. Who are we now? I know who we were then, but when the President said that we don't torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set.

Well, this is going to go down in history as one our greatest self-inflicted wounds, and I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won't be kind of President Bush, but frankly, I don't think it will kind to the rest of us. I think history will ask: Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people who protested these other acts. But, we are strangely silent in this national yawn, as our rights evaporate.

MSNBC's Countdown

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

at 12:11 PM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Steve Chabot. Thanks for eroding the central right of "Englishmen" for nearly 800 years. Oh well, I guess Star Chamber proceedings can't really be all that bad... I mean now the the President doesn't have to worry about any "pesky" questions not only from you, but from anyone. Long live the American gulag!

at 12:14 PM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

"Nascar Dad" comments on Habeas Corpus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qIiz_Q5Qc#x6Z4CaUwXlc

at 2:13 PM, October 21, 2006

JohnDWoodSr said...

For more on this, click on my name and read my blog post titled
THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006-A BLESSING IN DISGUISE.
Thanks.

at 2:56 PM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

And where was the press? Worrying about old white men calling them liberal?

at 4:26 PM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

1. I didn't find it at all cryptic. Neither would anyone who's taken a high school-level civics class.

2. Why are you glorifying graffiti?

3. What does it have to do with local politics?

at 4:49 PM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

What about the graffiti near the intersection of OH-562 East and I-71 North that says "Colin Powell = Vanilla Ice" or the Cincinnati classic "Chris Sabo died for our sins"?

When will the liberals do a little verbal vomit about those, too?

at 12:16 AM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable. The "political reporters" are unfamiliar with the most basic right in Anglo-American law. This Congress has literally made W. a dictator. But you;d never know it if you only read the Enquirer.

Go write another "news story"/propaganda piece praising Blackwell or Busholini. But don't pretent to be reporters any more. You've contributed to a constitutional coup d'etat.

Jefferson and Madison weep.

at 5:18 AM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

Chris Sabo did, in fact, die for our sins. Colon Powell, yes, is Vanilla Ice. Pat Berry is, beyond any doubt, a fat bastard, and Wild Man Walker needs to stay indoors from now on.

At this point, I am definately willing to shoot the President's dog to make a point.

Not tryin' to promote any yahoo ideas, I love Freedom a lot, but jesus christ, man. Habeas Corpus! George needs to take one of his month-long vacations and force himself to play Jenga. I'm no psychic, but I bet he's real bad at that game.

~brad sundress~
ANP CINCY
http://www.myspace.com/bradleygordon

at 8:54 AM, October 22, 2006

Someone said...

I wrote about this same issue two weeks ago.

Click here.

I almost mentioned the Vanilla Ice piece in my article, but I changed my mind at the last minute.

at 9:59 AM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

I wrote about this same issue two weeks ago.

weaning - deanie must feel rejected ?

Pay attention to me !

Pay attention to me !

I think I known how to write, so, why am I unemployed ?

Why won't anybody support my witch hunts ?

I got a quack doctor who said weight loss programs may not be truthfull !

It's like pulling teeth to get any respect !

If I don't like the direction or support I get from my posts, I just post it again with the same rethoric !

Come on folks, I'm beeter than those guy's at the fishwRap, although, some say I'm green !

I'm my main man, just ask jason haap !

PATHETIC

signed,

The Dean of Mean !

at 10:29 AM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

By Every Means Unneccesary - Why Habeas is Gone Forever

This week President Bush in his head-long rush for Jack Bauer Justice signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pdf)", and act which essentially ends the great Writ of Habeas Corpus, allows for coerced and hearsay evidence and codifies various forms of torture as authorized under the law.

But the most shocking element of all of this is the very strong likelyhood that we just might not see the return of Habeas in our lifetimes.

Why not?

Because under the Consitution the Congress actually does have the authority to do what they did - Suspend Habeas.

In Hamdi V Rumsfeld the SCOTUS stated:

Likewise,we have made clear that,unless Congress acts to suspend it,the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance,serving as an important judicial check on the Executive 's discretion in the realm of detentions.
Habeas Defined:

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.
Military Commission Act:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
U.S. Constitution Under Article I (Limits and Powers of the Congress) states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
In this case the "Invasion" is the ongoing infiltration of the United States by the agents of al Qeada - an endless condition of War where the public safety is always in jeopardy. So when exactly will the "public safety" no longer require it?

Never.

Historically speaking, George Bush isn't the first President to attempt to suspend Habeas. In 1861 President Lincoln Suspended Habeas during the Civil War, and had his decision overtuned by Justice Taney in Ex Parte Merryman.

Ex parte Merryman (literally "from one side," and therefore meaning "on behalf of Merryman") is the case of Lt. John Merryman, of the Baltimore County Horse Guards, who was imprisoned on May 25, 1861, in, of all places, Baltimore's Fort McHenry, on order of Union General Winfield Scott. Union troops had just occupied the city and began arresting suspected secessionists.
In Taney's response he stated:

As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress.
The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives."

In 1864 Congress passed a law which fit Haney's requirements and Suspended Habeas for the duration of the War and Reconstruction - this eventually lead to Ex Parte Milligan.

Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended.
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.

In short, the Congressional Suspension of Habeas in response to a Rebellion (or Invasion) was upheld, and most likely would be upheld again even by the current Supreme Court since Congressional Authorization is exactly what they requested under Hamdi, which leaves all of us pretty much screwed for the foreseable future.

Even a New Congress is unlikely to overturn this law since 34 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate supported it - with only a slim margin projected for the Demcratic Majority in November - such a reversal would be far from Veto proof.

There are however some potential bright spots among the darkness.

in response to Hamdan V Rumsfeld John Dean argued against the MCA as it was being drafted.

Since the inception of the Bush Administration's war against terror, the President has claimed - unreasonably and without justification - that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to this war with stateless forces such as al Qaeda (or similar organizations) for they are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. But Bush is wrong.
The Hamdan Court explained that "Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because ... it appears in all four Geneva Conventions" applies here. Moreover, the Court noted, Common Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

So the question is no longer purely a Constitutional one, but one which begs whether the Military Tribunals which have now been authorized actually satisfy Geneva as "regularly constituted courts". But clearly they do not include "all the judicial guarantees" - since Habeas is regards to "Enemy Combatants" is now non-functional.

Under Article VI it states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
By Ratifying Geneva in 1948, we have made it a part and equal to our own law and Constitution. This is further reiterated by Justice Stevens in Hamdan.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, (1955 ) 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered "war crimes," punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.
Even though Bush has attempted to Redefine both Geneva, Torture and War Crimes with this Act - rewriting 18 U.S.C.18 U.S.C.§2441 into a laundry list what allegedly is and isn't covered - the core issue here is still whether these new tribunals are "regularly constituted" and whether this breach of Geneva would actually overide Congresses own legitimate authority to suspend Habeas?

On that point I am far from certain of the outcome.

There is another argument to made however - the Suspension of Habeas under the MCA (quoted above) clearly applies to "Alien Enemy Combatants" not neccesarily U.S. citizens, although U.S. Citizens can clearly be considered Enemy Combatants under this law - Hamdi (who is a U.S. Citizen) supports this view - the disparate treatment here between U.S. Citizens (who still retain some form of Habeas relief) and Non-Citizens who do not may present a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Challenge.

Hamdi was the first case to extend the 14th to cover areas outside the U.S. (such as those being held in Gitmo), this just might be the first case that I know of - if such a challenge is brought - to extend the 14th to Non-citizens under U.S. Jurisdiction and control. There are two suits against the MCA already.

Although Habeas is now gone for aliens, the ability to challenge ones status as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant itself has been upheld and is retained in the current law (as part of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal).

``(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.--A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
Basically there are two Tribunals, the first of which is established by the President or SecDef for establish the status of a detainee. (Ironically, this is in according with Geneva, which requires that all persons of unknown status be given a hearing to determine their status). Under both the MCA and the Detainee Treament Act of 2005, the findings of the CSRT can be appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

This is still only a maginal improvement over the current sitaution where we already know most of the combatants held at Gitmo are innocent and we've refused to release them.

(A deposition by Brig. Gen. Karpinski's (former Abu Ghraib CO)) cited the comments of another official, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, who told her, "I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians! We're winning the war!" A former commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion notes in a sworn statement, "It became obvious to me that the majority of our detainees were detained as the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were swept up by Coalition Forces as peripheral bystanders during raids. I think perhaps only one in ten security detainees were of any particular intelligence value."
Clearly if one is found by the CSRT to not be an Unlawful Combatant, one would not automatically go free. What shoudl occur is that they would then be relegated to the regular Civilian or Courts Marshal as a "Lawful Enemy Combatant", so the CSRT is not a "Get out of GITMO Free" Card. If the CSRT finding is "Unlawful", the detainee then skips "Go" and heads forward to his Military Tribunal Only if the President subsequently seeks to press charges -- if he does not, that person disappears into a black hole. Forever.

The very existence of this law is extremely onerous - particular the section which reduces the Geneva-based prohibitions against "Offenses to Personal Dignity" and instead prohibits torture - sort of.

Any person subject to this chapter who
commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commis-sion under this chapter may direct.
...

The term `serious physical pain or suffering'
means bodily injury that involves--
``(I) a substantial risk of death;
``(II) extreme physical pain;
``(III) a burn or physical disfigurement of a
serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or
bruises); or
``(IV) significant loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental
faculty.

Guess what folks, the Bybee memo is now the law. A simple reading makes it plainly obvious that non-lethal methods of humiliation, and "non-severe" pain, which leave no visible marks, burns, cuts or abrasion and do not risk "organ failure" -- are absolutely permissable. This act is like a "How To" manual on how to became a Totalitarian Dictatorship, which is further underscored by the fact that coerced testimony is now allowed

STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.--A statement obtained before December
30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment
Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
``(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
``(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
And for coercion hich occured after the DTA this is added:

``(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
What is most tragic here, is the well known fact that Coercive Interrogation Techniques Simply don't Work. The subject is more likely to lie and fabricate than actually provide valid information. These heavy-handed uber-macho measures by the Administration are completely unneccesary. Ibn al-Libi was tortured and lied to us. Abu Zubaydah actually gave us some good information before he was tortured, then started lying after he was. If we want good and accurate information to protect Americans, coercian and pseudo torture is not the way - and it completely destroys the moral justification for our War against terror when we behave like terrorists.

Innocent muslims such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar have already been unlawfully detained (kidnapped actually in Omar's case) rendered to Egypt and Syria where they were tortured.

In Iraq AP Reporter Bilal Hussein has been held by U.S. Forces for the past five months - without a hearing.

These are not isolated cases - to date the U.S. nearly 50,000 people under detention worldwide. We're talking about a major humanitary crises here.

But if you listen to the Wingnut Brigade, the Human Rights and Dignity of these individuals of no concern to them what so ever - the goal of this law is FEAR - especially the fear into the New York Times and WaPo Editorial Board.

From RedState.com

One sees immediately why the definition of treason makes the Washington Post editorial board queasy. If they vacation in the Caribbean (how déclassé) they would prefer it not be at Club Gitmo and definitely not preceded by Donald Rumsfeld's bully boys kicking in their door, being flexi-cuffed, tossed in a blacked out LearJet with bogus registration numbers, dressed in an orange jumpsuit and then allotted a no-amenities guest room with Abdul.
Let's get serious - this isn't about stopping the next major bombing attack on U.S. Soil - it's about shutting up James Risen and all the reporters who've released classified material (like Bob Woodward) which happen to be a) True and b) Display a propensity for the Bush Administration to violate the law (such as FISA).

Now they've managed to use the law itself to justify their lawbreaking. Undoing this law completely will be difficult if not impossible until the Presidency changes hands, and even if it is corrected the damage to our international prestige may in fact be permenent. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is laughing at us as we gradually destroy ourselves and our own values.

at 10:33 AM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

TODAY MY 5 YO TORTURED THE FAMILY DOG

Now before you get your panties in a tizzy, it wasn't his idea. He was not born sadistic and twisted... no child is. Up until today, he was a sweetheart of a child. He never caused harm to anything save for the occasional ant or potato bug that would scurry across his path. He'd pick them up with his clumsy little fingers and pinch the life out of them, strictly out of curiosity. He didn't mean them harm, he only wanted to get a closer look and their frail bodies just couldn't survive his natural inquisitiveness.

But today was the first day he intentionally harmed another living thing. He came home from kindergarten about 12:30 and I had taken the day off just so I could spend some quality time with him. I work so much it's hard to find the time to spend with him so when I do, I usually try to help mold him into not only a good man but a good law-abiding American. This day in age it's important to have the right qualifications to find a good job and things like morality and decency do not pay good dividends. It's also vitally important to start early. The formative years have a huge impact on how a child develops so I felt it necessary to prepare him for the job he may one day be forced to perform in defense of the innocent.

I figured the best way to prepare him for a job as an American "Detainer" was to introduce him to water-boarding. The nice thing about water-boarding is it doesn't leave any visible marks and isn't torture. I'd never want to think of my child as someone who would torture and as we all know, "America does not torture."

I began by explaining to him what we would be doing. Nothing in the past had prepared him for what we would do to the dog he loved so much so I didn't want to just jump right in without first explaining the reasoning behind what we were doing. I must admit, my first instinct was to lie to him. I thought that I could tell him that our dog, while appearing sweet and lovable, was actually planning on killing everyone in the house while we were sleeping and that we needed to make sure he never developed such ideas again in the future. I quickly discarded this idea as I realized that no one under the age of 18 would ever buy such nonsense. So instead, I decided to level with him. I told him...

"Son, the world has changed and it's important that you understand that you have to change with it. Now, you remember how I told you that it was never okay to intentionally cause harm to anything and that God would punish those who hurt others... well, that is different now. God wants us to do what our laws say to do and our President needs people who can follow the law. Do you understand?"

He nodded with a very serious expression on his face. I think my tone of voice was scaring him a bit but I had to go on.

"Good, that's good. Now, when you become a man, you must be prepared to do things to other men who are bad, things that take a lot of strength and courage to do. Sometimes you have to hurt a few bad people to save the good people. Even though you may not want to hurt people, don't you think it's worth it to save all the good people?

Again he nodded, this time a little slower and it was clear he didn't understood where I was going with this. In spite of his confusion, I pressed on...

"Good boy. Now sometimes it's not so easy to tell the good people from the bad people. Remember how I told you some bad people look like nice people and they try to get you to go with them by being nice and giving you candy? And remember how I told you about the lady down the street, how she looks mean but she's really not all that mean? It's sort of like that, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes and to save all the good people, it's some times necessary to hurt other good people by mistake to get to the bad people. Does this make sense?"

Clearly he didn't understand and his eyes got a little more frightened. He didn't nod but I knew he was starting to get the idea we were heading in a radically different direction than our previous talks. Usually, we'd talk about God and goodness, love and compassion and this conversation was unlike anything he was prepared for. He fidgeted a bit and started squirming in his chair but he was still listening.

"Okay, you're doing fine, don't be scared. I need you to listen to me a little while longer and then we're going to practice something new. Now, like I said, sometimes you have to hurt a few good people to get to the bad people and someone has to do it. Even though you may not want to, someone has to do it to keep everybody safe from the bad people. One day, you may be called on to do that, one day your country might need you to help save the whole world from the bad people and when that happens you have to be prepared to do that. You have to be ready to hurt innocent people to get to bad people and as your father, I have to prepare you for that day. Right now, you don't like hurting things and that's good but one day you're going to have to be able to do that... one day you may join the Army or get drafted into war and you will be ordered to do that. If they order you to do that, you have to do it, it's the law now... Remember how I told you that you always have to listen to the law, well, hurting bad people is now the law and one day you may have to do it to get a good job and feed your family and take care of your kids. That's what men do, we take care of our families and to do that you need a good job. To get a good job you have to do whatever the President says, do you understand?"

He nodded very slowly and even though I know he didn't understand what we were about to do, the seriousness in my voice and the patriotic passion in my eyes told him to just agree. I didn't really know how to make him feel any better about what we were going to do so I just accepted that he was still listening. I knew the act was going to teach him more than I ever could with words.

"Now, to get ready for when you are a man and you're country calls on you to hurt the bad people, you have to start now, you have to start early and get rid of anything that can stop you from doing what you have to do to survive. I know you're a good boy, I do, you're such a good boy and you always do what you have to do and I need you to be strong. I need you to get used to hurting things, I need you to start hurting small things so that when you are older you can do what your President wants you to do, okay? So we're going to start easy, we're not going to hurt anything really bad, we're just going to start real easy... Rusty!"

The dog came over wagging his tail and I picked him up. "Son, I know you love Rusty don't you?"

Even his young mind began to understand where we were going. I could see the fear and trepidation in his eyes, it registered in his whole body, he was paralyzed by it and could only nod. "Well, son, Rusty never hurt anything, he's innocent. Sure, he's pooped on the rug a few times and I hit him with rolled up newspaper for it but he's not "bad". But see, in order to hurt innocent people to get to the bad people, you need to start by being able to hurt this dog. Son, this is a dog and only a dog. It doesn't have a soul and God doesn't love dogs like he loves good people. It's okay to hurt a dog so that you can learn how to save good people..."

The realization of what I was talking about seemed to sink in like a ton of bricks settling on his head. He jumped up crying and ran to our dog screaming... "No, no, daddy, don't hurt Rusty, don't hurt Rusty..."

He was crying uncontrollably and I had to pry his little face from the dogs fur and I raised it up close to mine. In the calmest voice I could muster, I said, "Son, I'm not going to hurt Rusty..." I paused and the silence hung in the air for what seemed like an eterenity... "I'm not going to hurt him... you are."

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

Is this what we must start teaching our children now Mr. Bush? When do we start teaching them, Mr. Bush? When they're 18? Or should we start when they're younger like 12 or 8 or even 5. When do we teach them to torture? When do we destroy their souls by ruining their morality? When do we teach them that it's okay to do evil to do good? Of course this story is a lie because I would never... could never teach my children to do what you have just signed into law. You, Sir, are an apostate and a spawn of the devil and even though I pray for your soul, I despise your wickedness. Shame on you, Sir, shame on you and all those who stood with you and clapped for that monstrosity of legislation you passed. I promise you, God will not forgive you and the Devil will suffer no competition when you get to Hell.

at 12:47 PM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

The headline, using "cryptic," either puts the reporter's
ignorance on display, or is another fishwrap attempt to diminish the seriousness of the Great Writ. Karl...
("K" intentional) YOUR READERS ARE A HELLUVA LOT BRIGHTER AND INFORMED THAN YOU THINK!
Seems the Kool-Aid is drunk not only in the Editorial
Board meetings but in the bullpen as well. Funnnee!
How does David Wells survive this circus of the absurd?

at 5:30 PM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

BTW The NSA Spying on Americans has nothing to do about listening to terrorists:

The terrorists use VOIP with off the shelf computer technology and set up their own telephone companies. They can't be tapped. The NSA is wiretapping US citizens for other reasons.

Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8493098426180726284&pr=goog-sl

at 11:29 PM, October 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

Little David is pretty smart, and lives under such a handicap.
Little David was in his 4th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for living.

All the typical answers came up--fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, etc.

David was being uncharacteristically quiet, so the teacher asked him about his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear.

Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and make love with him for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said David, "He works for the Republican National Committee, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

Previous Posts

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Cryptic Graffiti

16 Comments: