Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

Well, I sure cannot disagree with him there. It is really astonishing to me the lengths to which people have gone to convince themselves that Obama was not a part of Chicago-style politics, all evidence to the contrary. I know, I know – that was one of just many things about which they turned a blind eye and deaf ear, but it is a big jumping off point.

Hanson continues with his review of Obama in the White House:

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the “stimulus” (the euphemism for “borrow/print money”) that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by “all that for now stays the same” inasmuch as we haven’t ben (sic) hit in over seven years and can’t risk another attack.

Remember when Obama reneged on his campaign promise to filibuster the FISA bill? Assuring his minions there was NO way he would ever vote for something so clearly un-Constitutional?? Oh, I do. He broke that promise with nary a “by your leave,” just a “yep, I did it! You’ll still vote for me, though, won’t you?!” Or something along those lines. One of my siblings, a big Obot, shrugged his shoulders and said he was “disappointed” by Obama voting for FISA. Uh, yeah, I get “disappointed” too when my country’s Constitution is being ripped to shreds by someone who got people to buy that he is a Constitutional “scholar.” Sure, Obama.

I digress:

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he’s ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it’s only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

His claims of “CATASTROPHE!!!” if the Senate doesn’t give him all of our money for generations to come is pretty good evidence of that.
His lack of preparedness, experience, and knowledge of policy come into play, too:

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Nice of Hanson to get a little slam of Hillary in there, too. Sheesh.

Anyway, yes, this whole messianic thing is just a bit of a problem. But what kind of Messiah is in constant need of ego-strokes and propping up? I speak, of course, of the “Great job, Barry!” campaign sponsored by Senators Durbin and Boxer to tell Obama that he is just doing a bang-up, job, he’s the best president ever, and this is the best two weeks any president has ever had – YAY!!! I am not kidding you. Ani, has all of the info on this “campaign in her outstanding piece, “Maureen Dowd Berates Obama While Senators Durbin and Boxer Want Us to Kiss-y the Prez and Make-y Better.”

Just think about that. People voted for a man whose ego is so incredibly delicate that he has to CONSTANTLY be on the receiving end of praise and accolades, even when he doesn’t deserve it. Otherwise, I guess he will just go sulk in the corner, or throw a hissy fit. Like I have said all along, Obama’s petulance and requirement for non-stop adulation makes George Bush look like, well, an adult.

Can you just imagine, just IMAGINE, if this had been done by two Republican Senators back in 2001 the ridicule from all of us who opposed Bush? Jon Stewart would get mileage out of that for at least a week. Maybe a month. All of the late night hosts would be making fun of the Stewart Smalley-esque needs of the president (h/t to American Girl for reminding me of the, “I’m smart enough, I’m good enough, and dog-gone it, people LIKE me!”). But Obama? I have heard not ONE word about this campaign by two long-term US Senators. I guess not enough of these jokers have gotten their heads out of their…Obama-love.

I can say this will the fullest confidence – Hillary Clinton would never, in a gazillion years, require that kind of over-the-top praise and adoration that Obama seems to need. He needs to grow the hell up already and start worrying about his job. The one for which he CLEARLY was not ready on Day One to have. She was, which she has demonstrated with her hard work already at the State Department. Obama? Well, he’s been busy trying out all the new “toys” (read: Air Force 1, etc.) of his office (really? AF 1 to fly to VA???), going before House Democrats and acting all tough with his teleprompter on those horrible Republicans who were standing in the way of his repaying ACORN with our money. Oh, yeah.

This is the guy the DNC hand-selected. The one for whom it sold its soul. Now, go get your crayons and paper, and send the poor little president a note telling him what a bang-up job he has done in the past two-plus weeks, with the massive stimulus package he wants, the tax evader he put in charge of the IRS, as well as the other tax evaders with whom he wanted to surround himself, putting off getting the troops out of Iraq, but not wasting any time expanding Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives (more on that soon), already getting it up and running, and so much more. Let him know that you know he is the quintessential Chicago-style politician despite his “words, just words.” Remember, your job is to prop him up, not hurt his little feelings, so you should make sure you draw some little rainbows, unicorns, and smiley faces on it. That should do it.

Sure did it for me. Excuse me while I go get ill.

A military judge has refused the Obama administration’s request to delay proceeding for 120 days in the case of a detainee held at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who is accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.

The decision throws into some disarray the administration’s plan to buy some time as it reviews individual detainee cases as part of its plan to close the prison. The Pentagon may now be forced to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent. In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors to seek 120-day suspensions of legal proceedings in the cases of 21 detainees who have been charged.

The request was quickly granted in other cases when prosecutors told military judges that “the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically.”

But Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, said he found the government’s reasoning “unpersuasive.” … Read all.

BELOW, “Top Myths About Closing Guantanamo“ — which I shared with Larry Johnson who agreed that we need to get this up in a post here at NoQuarter:

Top Myths About Closing Guantanamo

On his second day in office, President Obama took a bold step away from the Bush administration and signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within one year while suspending all military tribunals for six months. Obama said that the United States was sending the world a message that the “struggle against violence and terrorism” would be fought “in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.” Each day that Guantanamo remains open is another day that U.S. troops are put in further unnecessary danger. One U.S. military officer wrote in the Washington Post that he “learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” Obama has taken the first crucial step in shutting down this stain on America’s reputation. As the Center for American Progress has outlined, the next steps — including arranging for trials in federal or military courts, finding homes for detainees who can’t return to their native countries, transferring detainees who will stand trial into the United States, and establishing a lawful military detention regime for the small number of remaining detainees — won’t be easy, but they’re not impossible. Nevertheless, conservatives are coming up with a number of inaccurate — and often outright ludicrous — excuses for why Guantanamo needs to remain open. The Progress Report debunks some of the most ill-informed myths.

MYTH #1 — GUANTANAMO IS A GREAT PLACE TO BE: Conservatives often try to argue that life at Guantanamo is just fine. Reacting to Obama’s executive order, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said that detainees there receive “more comforts than a lot of Americans get.” In December, Vice President Cheney argued that Guantanamo “has been very well run.” Neither of these claims are true. The Washington Post recently revealed that the top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to prosecute detainees concluded that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured by the U.S. military at Guantanamo. The detention center was so poorly run that Obama administration officials are now finding out that Bush officials never kept comprehensive case files on many detainees.

MYTH #2 — DETAINEES ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO BRING INTO THE UNITED STATES: This myth is the one that conservatives cite most often. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has said that transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil “will endanger American lives.” Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Boehner said that it would be “irresponsible” to transfer these “terrorists who have attempted to kill Americans.” This morning, Fox and Friends took pictures of various terrorists and went around to Pennsylvania residents and asked them if they wanted these people living in their “backyards.” However, U.S. federal prisons are already home to dozens of the most dangerous terrorists the world has ever known. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has written, “Both before and after 9/11, the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts — in fact, the record is far more successful than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at Guantanamo.” In fact, there have been 145 terrorist convictions in federal courts since 9/11. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) has said that he wouldn’t necessarily oppose transferring detainees who are convicted terrorists headed to trial to the state’s “Supermax”, a role that the prison is already playing and that CAP recommended in its report. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has also expressed a willingness to bring some detainees into his district, stating, “I mean, they’re no more dangerous in a prison in my district than they are in Guantanamo.”

MYTH #3 — DETAINEES WILL RECEIVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF U.S. CITIZENS: One of the most absurd myths has come from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who asked last week, “What happens then if another judge grants him asylum in the United States and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is on a path to citizenship?” King added that they could then “tap into welfare.” Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, Vice President Biden addressed these ridiculous claims. “If they are not a U.S. citizen or if they are not here legally, then, even if they were released by a federal judge, they would not be able to stay here in the United States,” said Biden. “They would be sent back to their country of origin. They would not stay here.” CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen has also noted, “When terrorists have been tried in the United States, they go away forever. The embassy attackers in ‘98 who blew up two American embassies, they are in prison for life without parole.”

MYTH #4 — 61 RELEASED DETAINEES HAVE RETURNED TO THE BATTLEFIELD: One conservative talking point that has been especially effective at making its way into traditional media reporting is that 61 “of the people that were incarcerated at Guantanamo and then released have returned to the battlefield, have engaged in further terrorist activities,” as CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said yesterday. The Associated Press has made a similar claim. But in fact, as Media Matters has reported, “according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having ‘return[ed] to the fight.’” Bergen has also noted that “returning to the fight” could simply mean writing a negative op-ed. Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Seton Hall Law School Center for Policy and Research, has been tracking the Bush administration’s claims. He told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “Their numbers have changed from 20 to 12 to seven to more than five to two to a couple to a few — 25, 29, 12 to 24. Every time, the number has been different. In fact, every time they give a number, they don’t identify a date, a place, a time, a name or an incident to support their claim.”

MYTH #5 — WE SHOULD JUST HOUSE THE DETAINEES AT ALCATRAZ: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been a vocal supporter of closing down Guantanamo. Therefore, conservatives have retaliated by proposing that she take the detainees. “Let our good friends in San Francisco deal with these deadly combatants,” said Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO). Boehner and Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) have suggested Alcatraz prison, which sits in the middle of the San Francisco Bay. This proposal is a joke. Alcatraz shut down as a federal prison in 1963. It became a national historic landmark in 1986. Apparentlty, conservatives are unwilling to house detainees in maximum security federal prisons but are happy to put them up in a tourist attraction. As Pelosi said yesterday on ABC’s This Week, “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

– From The Progress Report, a great e-mail newsletter to which I heartily recommend subscribing. The subscription window is in the right column of this page.

NOW: What else is going on in the world, or your very own world?

Larry joins the show at 7:35 p.m. every Sunday.

Listen live here via Los Angeles AM station KFI 640. (Drop by early if you haven’t listened before since you may need to download a small, easy-to-install piece of software to listen.)

Here is John Batchelor’s preview of tonight’s show — including what to do about Guantanamo, the Justice Dept. implications, and whether prisoners should be handled by the military or the U.S. justice system:

735P:  Professional Roundtable with with Diana West, author, Larry Johnson, No Quarter and State (ret), Margaret Hoover, FNC, re the Inauguration, re the GITMO decision to close the facility and redistribute the inmates, re the voiding of Justice decisions since September 11, 2001, re the war continues as a military operation or as a law enforcement operation?

BELOW, Part II of the discussion, this time on “Larry Johnson, Gen. David Maddox and Jeffery Toobin on the Army Field Manual”:

I checked, and the transcript isn’t yet available, but should be shortly.

SPECIAL THANKS to Truthelling007 for reviving our No Quarter USA channel at YouTube.

The second segment below gets into the complex nature of the issues surrounding the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay:

Barack Obama suggested he’s not likely to actively pursue criminal charges against national security officials who were directly involved in unlawful interrogations or wire-tapping, and said it would be difficult to quickly close down Guantanamo Bay.

Hold on to your hats, folks. This doesn’t sound like what he campaigned on – does it?

“That’s a challenge,” the president-elect said about the prospect of closing down to the detainee facility within the first 100 days of taking office. “I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.”

On the question of prosecuting crimes that may have been committed during the Bush presidency in the course of the war on terror, Obama continued the theme of “looking forward as opposed to backwards” he took on the campaign trail and reaffirmed since winning the presidency last November.

Let me repeat that for you — looking forward as opposed to backwards. Apparently, he repeated that theme a number of times in his interview.

In Glen Greenwald’s biting Salon piece “Obama’s allegedly “new” centrism and his ABC interview today”, he quotes Obama’s statement on the subject:

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

Greenwald then clarifies the butter:

What [Obama's] saying is quite clear. There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it’s a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway — even though we can’t convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created — presumably by an act of Congress — where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone’s detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That’s what he means when he refers to “creating a process.”

Amazingly, when discussing the same topic, Obama vowed that “we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.” How? By creating a new court just for accused Islamic radicals that allows us to use confessions and other evidence that we obtained through torture? That sounds like exactly the same “message about our values” that we’ve been sending.

Great analysis, Glen. Perhaps Obama’s statements then prompted Politico’s Martin to note:

While aimed at attracting consensus from a broader electorate, the position is not exactly what many in the liberal base of his party would prefer.

Uh, no kidding. Along with Obama inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration and appointing Governor Tim “anti–choice, anti-Gay union, pro Iraq war” Kaine as the new Democratic Party Chair, this is just another instance of P.E. Obama getting elected on a totally fictional platform and thumbing his nose at the very people who brought him to the table in the first place.

As Stephanopoulos noted, the most asked question on Obama’s own transition website relates to investigating the “crimes” of the Bush administration. Asked if he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such matters as warrantless wire-tapping and torture, Obama demurred.

You betcha he demurred. Stephanopoulus asked Obama if he was going to take a piece of advice that Dick Cheney offered in reference to the very subject of Bush’s counterterrorism policies. From ABC News:

DICK CHENEY (via audio clip): Before you start to implement your campaign rhetoric you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it. Because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead and it would be a tragedy if they threw over those policies simply because they’ve campaigned against them.
…
OBAMA: I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So, I’ve got no quibble with that particular quote.

Obama went on to say:

“We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth,” he said. “And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices, and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law.

“On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering.”

Pressed, Obama said twice more that he wanted to get “things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

Again, ‘look forward,’ ‘look to the future.’ In other words, folks, if you are waiting for accountability in Obama’s administration, you can wait long. As far as an independent body similar to the 9/11 commission being formed to investigate these crimes:

“We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation’s going to be to move forward.”

I think that statement makes pretty clear that whatever bodies are buried are probably going to stay buried. And as to Mr. sit down and meet with anybody, new world of peacenik diplomacy – try this on for size:

Obama also reiterated his desire for a “new approach” to Iran — something he frequently mentioned during the Democratic primary — but was quick to add a stick to go with the carrot.

Asked if U.S. relations with Tehran would include a “new emphasis on respect,” Obama replied: “Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are.”

Could it be that in his recent security briefings, he has had a come to Jesus moment and realized that all the nonsense he was spewing on the campaign trail was just that? Or do you think he knew that information all along and was just strategizing to pull the most votes away from Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general by supplying a war weary, Bush-weary electorate with the pablum they wanted to hear? I go with the latter.

Greenwald also notes that while Obama’s fans in the pundit class are celebrating his shifts to the right as “remarkable” – this strategy is old as the hills:

The central tenets of the Beltway religion — particularly when a Democrat is in the White House — have long been “centrism” and “bipartisanship.” The only good Democrats are the ones who scorn their “left-wing” base while embracing Republicans. In Beltway lingo, that’s what “pragmatism” and good “post-partisanship” mean: a Democrat whose primary goal is to prove he’s not one of those leftists.

I guess this is Mr. Greenwald’s way of informing Obama supporters they’ve been had.

Obama has a history of doing and saying anything in the moment that will take him the farthest. If that amounts to a lie that doesn’t conflate with the next lie, so be it. And if the past year is any indication, Obama has little to worry about. No one in the press seems to bother to compare any of his conflicting statements in order to corner him into an admission of his disingenuous behavior.

I am not even going to comment as to the advisability of shutting down Gitmo in the first 100 days– neither this nor his behavior toward Iran is the point. As we have all been proclaiming from the highest hill for the past year, the point is he is simply politics as usual – exactly the opposite of everything he pretended to be. With each news conference, each interview and each new action, he proclaims that loud and clear.

So if he had but a paper thin resume and is not the “new kind of politics” but just inside the beltway business as usual – what exactly does he have to bring to the table? Why did anyone need to vote for him in the first place?

Apart from the wisdom to hire if not all, at least some, incredibly savvy people to cover his butt for him, why couldn’t we have elected genuine leadership instead of a “brand” or puppet king? Surely Hillary would know how to make great cabinet appointments – and be a caring, ultra capable and prepared leader to boot. It would also be great to have a President possessed of toughness, real decision making capabilities and deep, nuanced knowledge of the issues. Hillary has this. He does not. What happens if Obama’s 300 advisors are not available at the moment? What about if part of the team is skiing in Gstaad? How about if he does not have frat-boy Favreau available to write a pretty speech for him? As the saying goes, “Life comes at you fast.”

Senator Clinton always ran as the general election candidate and told the truth about her policies and stance on the issues, both foreign and domestic, from the beginning. She would require none of the betrayals and shocking about faces that Obama seems to be so comfortable with – whether on Gitmo, Iran, the economy or any other issue. Can you imagine Greenwald’s or Martin’s reaction if Hillary had done what Obama is now doing – their rhetoric would have been far more heated, I can assure you. J’accuse!!!! Bet on it.

Thank heavens she will be Secretary of State. Mr. Hopey Changey is going to need all the help he can get. And I think he’s beginning to figure that out.

Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality – oh, wait a minute – yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really – to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate – by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point – he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud – from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow – where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barrack Obama/June 2008

Yup, the Democratic National Committee has outdone themselves with their preparations for their upcoming National Convention in a few weeks. They thought of everything… balloons, barbed wire cages, confetti, stun guns, and those funny hats we all love to see! The Convention will also have lot of speeches extolling the lofty visions of civil rights and personal liberties the Democratic party is so fond of protecting, you know, liberties like free speech, the right to protest, that kind warm and fuzzy democracy stuff. My heart just swells with pride when I read this stuff on their blog:
& lt;h3>The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Civil Rights

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

The Party Platform

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.

Wait…did someone say something about stun guns and cages? No, that can’t be…not the party of freedom and liberty!

The problem is, old Howie didn’t think this through…he didn’t think that rounding up hundreds or thousands of protesters and throwing them in a barbed wire cage in a warehouse on the outskirts of town might not be the message they want to send to those wanting to donate to their party . Not to mention, it goes against all those so-called principals and “visions” of theirs. He also didn’t think his dirty little secret about these cages would be made public.

Damned reporters! Damned free speech!

Not to worry, Howard Dean has this all figured out, he’ll let the Denver Police handle this. They will be passing out flyer’s to all the protesters so they can be told of their rights. So, there ya go! The pretty little piece of paper says we DO have rights to protest! Ain’t America great?

YOUR RIGHTS TO DEMONSTRATE AND PROTEST

Can my free speech rights be restricted
because of what I want to say – even if it’s
controversial ?

No. The First Amendment prohibits
restrictions based on the content of speech.
Police and government officials are allowed
to place non-discriminatory and narrowly
drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions
on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are
constitutionally protected in traditional
“public forums” such as public sidewalks
and parks. Public streets can be used for
marches subject to compliance with the
City’s permitting process.

Where can you engage in free speech activity? Anywhere you want as long as you freely state that you are going to vote for Obama, otherwise…get in the cage until you’re ready to act like an American, dammit!

Let’s see what other rights the demonstrators will have….

What other types of free speech activity are
constitutionally protected?

The First Amendment can, under certain
circumstances, protect communication such
as theater, music, film and dance. Symbolic
acts and civil disobedience that involve
illegal conduct may be outside the realm of
constitutional protection and may lead to
0Acitation and/or arrest. This may include, but
is not limited to, blocking streets, sidewalks
or parades or disrupting public assemblies.

Hmmm…so it sounds like a large group of people protesting could not be on the streets or the sidewalks or they can given a citation/and or arrest. So, they have two choices. They can either levitate so they’re not on the streets or sidewalks, or come wearing costumes and tell the cops they’re doing street theater.

Can I be cited or arrested during a

demonstration?

Yes, if you engage in unlawful behavior
including, but not limited to, such as
blocking streets, sidewalks or parades,
disrupting public assemblies or ignoring
lawful orders to disperse.

Okey-Dokey, so unlawful behavior is defined as blocking streets…check, sidewalks or parades…check, disrupting public assemblies…check, or ignoring lawful order to disperse…check. I’ve got it now. Let’s not forget the vague text that arrest is not limited to just that, they can also arrest you if you look like you aren’t “unified” with the DNC. In other words, you have no civil liberties in the eyes of the Denver Police or in the eyes of Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, Donna Brazille, or Nancy Pelosi. Check and double check.

The American Civil Liberties Union seemed to be a bit dismayed. They want to know where the bathrooms are, will the “prisoners” have something to eat or drink (they were not told how long they will hold the protesters in these barbed wire cages), will they have access to their lawyers, and will they have telephones? Details….details, who needs details when you have flyer’s, police in riot gear, and barbed wire cages?

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!”-The Untouchables/1987

NOTES ABOUT THE DNC: It seems that after Obama took over the DNC and got his hands on their mailing list, he sent out an e-mail telling Democrats to give to his campaign and not the DNC. Well, since he decided that he didn’t want their public funding, they are now virtually broke. The money they have will barely cover the payroll and a few field advisor’s. There will not be enough cash to be able to fund thousands of field offices, like they have in the past. Ooops! Larry Johnson has a post that tells you all about it.

More bad news for the DNC….

Sen. John McCain has so much spare cash on hand — he collected a record $27 million in July — that the Republican candidate plans to run campaign ads during the networks’ coverage of the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Because Mr. McCain has agreed to accept $84 million in public financing for the general election, the presumptive presidential nominee has only until Sept. 4, when he accepts his party’s nomination, to spend the more than $21 million he has on hand.

“We continue to have record months of fundraising. This is now the fifth month in a row that we have exceeded the month before,” said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. The candidate’s advertising budget for August is expected to exceed $20 million, he said, and, by the Republican convention, Mr. McCain is on track to spend some $60 million on TV advertising during the whole primary campaign.

Hat tip to Pat Racimora of No Quarter for the info on the Denver Police flyer.

Another hat tip to Uppity Woman who also wrote about Gitmo on the Platte, her blog is always chock full of up to the moment news about this election.

(NOTE: I’m sorry, but due to a family emergency, I will not be here to respond to your comments, please forgive my absence and thank you for reading my post!)

First off, many hearty congratulations to Sidney Blumenthal on being part of an Oscar-winning team. Mazel tov from your admirers and well-wishers.

With those sunny words out of the way, on to the meat of the matter.

What a powerful, sickening, maddening, and thoroughly disturbing experience this film is. As a journalist, I’m amazed at the access Alex Gibney and his people were given to interview subjects — how the hell did he convince those soldiers to talk?? — and to the footage from the groteque gulags otherwise known as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Most of all, however, this is a film that induces not only anger and disgust but profound shame – shame that we live in a country whose leaders could condone such activity, shame that so few were willing to stand up and say “no more”; shame that “American justice” is now synonymous with suspension of habeas corpus, torture, homicide by interrogation; shame that the press has been so slow to shine a light on who these prisoners, labeled “the worst of the worst” so often that the public swallows this propaganda like mother’s milk, actually are…the list goes on and on.

But perhaps one of the most bitterly ironic images in the film is that of a young John McCain, his body so broken and ravaged by torture that he was barely able to speak. Fast forward 30 years and look at where we are as a country, using techniques that were perfected during the Spanish Inquisition on men who were, for the most part, in the wrong place at the wrong time, sold into captivity by warlords and corrupt soldiers and other crooks to the Americans for money.

Which means America has become a party to one of the grimmest human trafficking rings on the planet.

Watch this film. Get angry. And then do something. Anything.

Anyway, let’s say that this alien wanted to get the lowdown on the presidential race so far. Let’s also say that it (the alien) isn’t satisfied with the “change” slogan. Remember, this species is clever. The alien doesn’t understand why it’s necessary to repeat the word “change” over and over again when it stands to reason that when one President leaves office and another takes his/her place that constitutes “change”. So forget change.<>

The alien would like someone to provide five simple bullet points summarizing Obama’s platform, and perhaps a few words on how the Senator plans to achieve his goals (i.e., tax cuts, tax increases, troop withdrawal timetable, Guantanamo closure timetable). Remember, the Zortonian wants to know solely about Barack Obama, and it wants specifics. So please help our friend from Zorton. And hey, if you’re an Obama supporter trying to trawl for converts, maybe you’ll accomplish that as well. You never know.

The comment section is open and ready for your input.

UPDATED COMMENT FROM LARRY JOHNSON:  Man, DCMedia Girl, you rock.  What a funny but insightful piece.  Kudos to jacek and grannyhelen for making serious efforts to have a substantive policy discussion.  Worth reading what both had to say.  Bad on Banquos Ghost.  Dude, seriously, calm down and simply answer DCMedia Girl’s challenge.  It is very simple and reasonable.  Your refusal to accept the challenge suggests that you don’t know what to say or that there is really no substance on the part of Obama.  Thanks to jacek, at least some substance can be attributed to Obama.

Finally, the truth is seeping out. Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily—if inadvertently—admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors “enduring”) military bases.

He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law’s prohibition against expending funds:

“(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or

“(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

But, if you have been asleep for the past five years, you may ask, what about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its ties to al-Qaeda? A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that Bush made 260 false claims about these in the two years following 9/11. He was followed closely by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell with 254. Nor can they any longer pretend they were deceived by faulty intelligence, since hard evidence that continues to accumulate shows they knew exactly what they were doing.

Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that the “surge” of 30,000 troops into Iraq was aimed—pure and simple—at staving off definitive defeat until Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are safely out of office. Some, but not all, of those 30,000 troops are slated for withdrawal, but those who still expect more sizable withdrawals have not been reading the tea leaves. It is altogether likely there will still be 150,000 U.S. troops, and even more than that number of contractors, in Iraq a year from now.

In the administration’s view, the oil-and-bases prize is well worth the indignity of refereeing a civil war and additional troop casualties. That view was reflected recently in the words of a well-heeled suburbanite, who suggested to me, “You must concede that a few GIs killed every week is a small price to pay for the oil we need. Many more died in Vietnam, and there wasn’t even any oil there.”

That person was unusually blunt, but I believe his thinking may be widely shared, at least subconsciously, by those Americans who are not directly affected by the war—which is to say he vast majority. It is easier to assimilate and parrot the administration’s dishonesty than to confront the reality that these are consequential lies. They bring untold death and destruction—and not only in Iraq, where several hundred thousand civilians are dead and one out of six families have been displaced—but to thousands of our fellow citizens as well.

The Human Cost

Not only have almost 4,000 American troops been killed, but another 30,000 have been wounded in action. Veterans Administration documents obtained by Veterans for Common Sense show that nearly 264,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans already have been treated at VA hospitals, including more than 100,000 for mental health conditions.

According to a Harvard University report, the VA is projected to spend up to $700 billion over the next 40 years for medical care and disability payments for veterans of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add the billions sunk every week into the quagmire of Iraq—it is madness.

We are approaching a trillion-dollar war, while our Treasury is bankrupt, our economy is in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbles. The only things on an upward swing are the profits of oil companies…and suicides in the military.

For a fraction of the money wasted on an un-winnable occupation-cum-armed-referee-duty in Iraq, premium health care could be provided to every American, including veterans, whom we owe big time, and the almost 50 million of our brothers and sisters who lack health insurance.

The iniquities of war have widened the inequities in our society, stretching the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is not right for me, one of the haves, to have so disproportionate a share of the nation’s wealth and opportunity. Nowhere is this more obvious than the access to excellent health care to which privilege has “entitled” me. A recently discovered challenge to my health brought this home to me like a ton of bricks.

Why Me?

The doctors said they needed more tissue from what they called the “mass” in my lower abdomen, so they could determine what kind of cancer had set up shop there. There was some sense of urgency, so just days later a surgeon made room for me at the end of a very busy New Year’s Eve.

The cutting was over; the stitches were in; the pain was slight; and there I was, wide awake in a comfortable hospital room, welcoming 2008 with painful questions.

For the hundredth time I found myself asking, Why me?

But wait—it may not be what you’re thinking.

The troubling question was why was I privileged to have prompt access to the best in medical care, when such is not available to most of our veterans and some 50 million other Americans. We are called to be concerned about our brothers and sisters. It did not seem fair.

Why was it that I could expect excellent doctors to plan a therapy regime that would probably shrink the grapefruit-sized cancerous “mass” and add still more years to my 68? What about the others? Without access to good doctors and advanced medical technology, is it likely that they would not become of their “mass” until it was the size of a melon—and perhaps too late?

Waking Up

The anesthesia had worn off, and the only real discomfort came from the dangling questions. December had brought surprise and new awareness. I needed some quiet time to process it all, and the turn of the year seemed appropriate. So I turned off the TV and scribbled what follows.

To hear I had been invaded by cancer was a bummer. But from the very start that unwelcome surprise was softened by awareness that I was one of the lucky ones. No, not “lucky”—privileged.

A health insurance card lay in the white knapsack full of privilege that I carry around with me, usually without much awareness on my part. The voice of conscience was whispering that it is not right to be unaware. One out of six Americans have no insurance card in their knapsack or in the plastic bag that serves as their chest of drawers. Is that the America of which we were once so proud?

It started with my swollen right leg. No big deal, I thought; I had simply sprained that ankle too many times playing basketball. And besides, varicose veins run in my family. Small wonder my blood was having trouble circulating down that way.

But at my annual physical my doctor saw it differently. We needed to find out what was causing the swelling. Sclerotherapy, a sophisticated, expensive procedure seemed indicated, but would my insurance cover it? It would, so we went ahead.

But the swelling got worse, suggesting some kind of blockage higher up. Enter the world of multimillion-dollar technology—CT-scan, PET-scan, and pinpointing of the mass, followed quickly by a needle biopsy. All covered by insurance.

It looked like lymphoma. But the oncologist wanted to be sure of exactly what variety of lymphoma it was before he decided what the optimum treatment regime might be. Hence, the New Year’s Eve surgery and extraction of tissue immediately dispatched to the Mayo Clinic for a thorough pathology report. See what I mean about privileged?

Stress Tests…

My thoughts went back to the thallium stress test before the surgery. The nurses injected some dye and measured my heart on an accelerating treadmill to induce stress. They encouraged me, and stood ready to catch me if I fell off. I found myself thinking of less benign ways to induce stress—stress positions, sensory deprivation, and what President Bush calls “an alternative set of procedures.” And my thoughts went to Guantanamo and the hundreds of prisoners flown there in shackles with no assurance they would survive the kind of deliberately induced stress they would encounter there.

And then they strapped me onto a narrow gurney where I had to remain still for twenty minutes while another million-dollar machine hovered low over my chest and took pictures. There were two technicians and nurses there to ensure my comfort and allay my concerns. And I thought of the gurneys of Guantanamo and the strapped-in prisoners surrounded by other kinds of folks, including physicians and psychologists who, in a mockery of the Hippocratic oath, do their best to inflict, not alleviate pain.

…and Suicide

I also thought of the two dozen Guantanamo detainees who tried to starve themselves to death two and a half years ago. They, too, were strapped onto gurneys, while thick plastic tubes were forced through their noses to force-feed enough nourishment to keep them alive, lest the Bush administration be embarrassed. On June 10, 2006 three detainees did succeed in hanging themselves, the first successful suicides after 41attempts by some 25 individual detainees.

Those detainees’ hope was for the release that comes with death; I could hope for healing.

The three who killed themselves incurred the wrath of Guantanamo commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., who announced that the suicides were “not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare against us.” In similar spirit, Colleen Graffy, deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC that the suicides “certainly (are) a good PR move to draw attention.”

I wonder how Graffy would describe the actions of those U.S. veterans experiencing such suffering that they, too, commit suicide. A CBS study showed that in 2005 alone, 6,256 veterans of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan took their own lives, many of them after experiencing very long waiting lines for medical treatment. That is an average of 17 suicides a day. Shame on us!

As for those on active duty, “Soldier Suicide at Record Level,” a report by the Washington Post’s Dana Priest on Jan. 31, shows that in 2007 suicides among active duty soldiers reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980.

Army 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, 25, made the most recent known suicide attempt. On Monday evening, as the president gave his State-of-the-Union address, Whiteside swallowed dozens of antidepressants and other pills, after leaving a note expressing the hope that “this will help other soldiers.” Thanks to a Good Samaritan neighbor, who quickly called Walter Reed Army Medical Center authorities, Whiteside’s survived. She has now been transferred from the intensive care unit to the psychiatric ward.

Lt. Whiteside is a high achieving graduate of the University of Virginia and had been given high ratings by her Army superiors. She decided to talk to Dana Priest late last year, after a soldier Whiteside had befriended at the psychiatric ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center hanged herself after being discharged without benefits.

Blame

Many U.S. servicemen and women can blame their cancer on contamination from the depleted uranium used in artillery and other shells and toxic chemicals that have saturated regions of Iraq, including populated areas, leading to a spurt of cancer illnesses.

Against this background, I reflected on how fortunate I was that the cause of the cancer that had invaded me would probably remain a mystery. I wondered how it would feel to be able to trace a fatal disease to the instruments of war; how it would feel to be an Iraqi parent watching a child die of cancer, or living in fear that a new child might be born with serious birth defects.

No, I cannot blame my illness on someone’s negligence, or cavalier disregard of the consequences of highly toxic weaponry. But thousands of Iraqis can. And so, too, can those U.S. troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq—including in the virtually “casualty-less” Gulf War in 1991. How many Americans are aware that, of the almost 700,000 deployed to theater during the 1991 Gulf War, roughly one in three has sought medical care from the VA?

You didn’t know that? Please ask yourself why.

Higher Powers and Favorite Philosophers

President Bush has recently taken to talking again about his “higher power” and redemption.

The higher power with whom I try to stay in touch is concerned first and foremost with justice and then (only then) peace. In the biblical sense, peace is no more nor less than the experience of justice.

I would guess the Bush’s higher power was appalled at the Coliseum-type spectacle Monday evening, as the President of the United States played cheerleader for Team America killing still more people—to standing ovations from his supporters in Congress.

Nor would the person President Bush has called his “favorite political philosopher,” Jesus of Nazareth, be likely to endorse the spectacle, much less join in. He had a pretty clear take on all this.

As we reflect on the growing inequality in this country, manifested so clearly in whether or not one has access to quality health care, we might remind the president of what his favorite philosopher had to say about goats—not as in “My Pet Goat,” but goats portrayed as lining up for a serious, long-term “alternative set of procedures.”

And the goats will turn and ask: ‘Lord, when did we see you…ill…and not attend to your needs?’
And he will answer: ‘As often as you neglected to do it for the least of these, you neglected to do it for me.’ (Matthew 25)
————————————————
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the Sixties and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. In Jan. 2003, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

A shorter version of this article was posted Thursday on Consortiumnews.com.

EVENING UPDATES:

     (1) “[T]he Senate-House Intelligence Conference voted today to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all detainee issues in interrogation and detention methods — or ‘the law of the land’ as my source told me. That means for the CIA and all branches of the national security, military, and intelligence establishment.” – Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
     (2) Tomorrow, Steve Clemons will write about “the powerful and disturbing film Taxi to the Dark Side and the discussion we had this evening with director Alex Gibney, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, former Abu Ghraib and Bergram* military intelligence interrogator Damian Corsetti, and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.” (I remember the story of the horrific, incalculably cruel torture and murder of the hapless, innocent Afghan taxi driver, but didn’t know a documentary has been filmed, with interviews of several military personnel.) The documentary’s creator also did Enron.
     The author of Salon’s review, “Beyond the Multiplex,” notes that the documentary’s creator hoped that showing how the “[Bush] administration has eviscerated the Constitution, and abandoned basic tenets of human rights and human dignity, [would provoke] some constructive rage. But right there on the sidewalk, my rage was not constructive. I wanted to get stinking drunk in some dead-end bar. …” U.S. premiere dates via IMDB: 11 January 2008 (New York City, New York) and 18 January 2008 (Los Angeles, California).
     [*Susan's Note: I think Steve meant to type Bagram, the base in Afghanistan where the taxi driver was beaten for days before he died.]

ORIGINAL: The Supreme Court, and the number FIVE. Here are the ages of the current nine justices:

What was it that reminded me that the next president will very likely appoint one, perhaps two, new justices? Last night, I watched BBC World News America’s and PBS Newshour’s coverage of the court’s hearing of arguments yesterday on “whether terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in court.”

I listened to the commentary of Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. Professor Katyai “successfully argued the 2006 Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the Bush administration’s military tribunals system.” About yesterday’s arguments, Prof. Katyai observed:

NEAL KATYAL, Professor, Georgetown University: Yes, I think that the Supreme Court took this case to answer the big meta-question, which is, does the Constitution give any rights to the people at Guantanamo Bay?

The Bush administration for years has said no. That’s, after all, why they put them there. They put them there because they thought that Guantanamo was a Constitution-free zone.

The Supreme Court has been pushing back at that incrementally for years, but I think today’s hearing, despite all the arcane, technical acronyms and so on, is about that basic, fundamental question: Can the government do whatever its wants to these 300 or so detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or does the Constitution protect them?

Here’s where Prof. Katyai mentioned the critical number FIVE:

[W]hat I understood the Supreme Court to basically be saying today through their questioning was that there are five justices who believe that big question — “Does the Constitution apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, at least its fundamental guarantees?” — the answer to that is yes.

And then the question becomes, what should the court do then? Should they then settle some of the detainees’ claims themselves, or should they send it back to the lower court for further proceedings?

But my sense is that’s really where the debate is going to lie and not where the Bush administration would like it to be, which is to say Guantanamo is a Constitution-free zone. …

We can quibble and bemoan the various records and traits of the presidential candidates.

But, come November 2008, please think of the number FIVE when you vote for president.

All of us who have followed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the African embassy bombings know that the U.S. justice system — even with all of its protections for defendants and its guarantee that the accused may face their accusers — worked. It worked.

All of us know that there is no logical or security-related reason for extra-Constitutional treatment of detainees.

And all of us know that the mere existence of Guantanamo stains the reputation and standing of the United States around the world, and denies all that our Founding Fathers created and envisioned for this country.

:::::::::::::::::::::

P.S. If you choose not to vote, or to vote for some third-party candidate, you may be handing the presidency to a candidate who promises to appoint another Scalia or Thomas. Such a candidate would be, say, Mitt Romney who today decried the “religion” of secularism. Here’s that table again:

NOTE that the two justices that Pres. George W. Bush has appointed are both in their 50s. They’re going to be kickin’ around for probably another 20 to 30 years.