Habeas Corpus again

This is a draft I never finished, but I'm gonna publish it anyway without reading it over. There may be a link or piece of info that is interesting.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo14-2009nov14,0,4700402.story

I would like to do something with this text: deconstruct, dissect, analyze, interpret, etc.

The first Sentence is "Setting the stage for a historic criminal trial, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday that the government would prosecute the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and four others in a civilian courthouse just blocks from the scene of their alleged crimes."
The first part of the sentence argues that this is a "historic criminal trial", this is not true with a basic look at verifiable facts. When the law is broken by a person in the United States they are tried for their crimes and the decision of the individuals guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of his or her's peers.

The individuals being tried are not part of a war. I understand that the idea was packaged as a war, but just like the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It seems to just be an effective way to rally political capital, by attaching the significance and all the weight of the word "war". There was no war declared, congress passed the authorization to use military force. The AUMF authorized the executive to send the military anywhere it deemed necessary to find terrorists. OIF and OEF were not wars that were ever declared, there is no actual "war on terror", because war can only take place between two state entities. War cannot take place between two guys standing on the street. When Scarface yells "do you want to go to war?" he does not actually mean hes going to fight a conventional war, because he is not a state entity.

If these individuals have committed a crime they should be tried in a court. This is not historic the United States has prosecuted numerous "terrorist" trials. Even though the word "terrorist" is not a crime, one cannot be charged with one count of terrorism anywhere. If these individuals are responsible for 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and I bet a whole mess of further crimes then bring them to trial and convict them just like we have always done. How is this trial historic? Google FLorence ADX (I think thats what it is) its a supermax prison which is basically the real life arkham asylum. Its got every "terrorist" your friend teevee ever showed you. This trial is not historic.

The other statement I have an issue with is "self-proclaimed architect of the sept. 11 attacks". I'm not a doctor or anything, but I'm preeeeeety sure any human alive would say anyfucking thing in the world in order to stop being tortured. The paper already told you he is guilty. Do you truly believe he is guilty without seeing any of the evidence? I will only believe he is guilty after he is given a trial and I can see the information the jury saw, and decide for myself. Hes already convicted, its a media circus before its even started.

So Holder did good he brought some people to trial, but it really isn't good enough. Everyone who committed crimes in violation of United States law should be tried. But of course if john mccain had won NOBODY would have gotten a trial. So if I conclude that this decision would rest with the executive, and our choice for executive is always limited to two, then isn't this the best possible outcome we could hope for? But its still not everyone, gitmo is still up, they're going to use the archaic death penalty and make everyone a martyr. Things could be better, but at least Holder did a little.

Then the article goes to this guy "...top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration...". oh noo!! they're gonna use counterintelligence!! pew pew, spies and stuff, its like totally super secret. WTF is it, its been 8 years you dumb bastards, is there seriously still shit in there that compromises counterintelligence 8 years later? What kind of crazy deep cover shit are you doing and why does it suck so much fucking ass? What is your counterintelligence worth in balance with the U.S. constitution, fuck your counter-intelligence. Give the information to the public, don't do this bullshit.

top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: They're guilty! But the damning evidence is really super secret!

defense attorney: Secret evidence is awesome! just take his word for it, why would he lie? He doesn't have any type of legal questions surrounding his administration's treatment of prisoners.

top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: Jury, look at that guy, hes clearly a Muslim. And like I said I've got awesome evidence, its like 100% completely conclusive evidence, and I would show it to you I would...but its just this national security. Its counterintelligence, let me just give you a taste of how deep our cover goes, we have an inside man at the top rung of the ladder. I mean Bin Laden is actually our guy hes just spying on whos going to follow him after he did a big attack. That way we'd know who the next bin laden was if we created the first one, I mean thats how deep that cover is. We can't be blowing that type of cover can we?

Defense Attorney: And if we let people know who the snitches are, then nobody will trust us with their snitching needs. Then how are we supposed to tell who to torture until they confess? answer me that mr. big shot jury!


Oh they will spew propaganda!! oh no!!! fuck, grow up. The judge will do what they always do with disruptive defendants.


A few more paragraphs down the article contradicts itself. "The detainees are expected to be held at the same federal prison in New York that housed other suspected Al Qaeda operatives before trials related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa and other terrorist plots. Virtually all of those men were convicted in trials marked by heavy security and now are serving long sentences in federal prisons around the United States."
Well damn that sounds pretty similar to this trial...why the fuck is it historic, why does the text separate this trial with historic

not gonna finish his here are the 5 that aren't getting trials
The other detainees slated to appear before military commissions are Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Omar Khadr, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi and Noor Uthman Muhammed.


the 5 getting trials: ksm
Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali will do the same in civilian court.



I look forward to the information that will be made public by this trial. I look forward to the chance for the United States to re-affirm its values if only in a half assed way.

The New Obama!

This is a quote from the blog I wrote on January 23rd:

"First of all I just want to say that this the first time in my life I've been actually surprised in a good way about a sitting president. I was worried that Obama would be all talk, but instead he dove right in from day one. He set in motion progress on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, ended extraordinary rendition, ended Bush's spending freeze on overseas family planning, stopped legally sanctioned torture, and stated that Gitmo must be closed within a year."


It WAS too good to be true!

HOW YOU GUYS LIKE NEW OBAMA?!?!?
Remember how Obama signed that executive order 2 days in to office holding up his campaign promise?
Do you remember the eloquent language with which he simultaneously brought justice to those in need of it in the form of Habeus Corpus, as well as invoked a stern didactic tone concerning the constitution?
Well thats not Obama.
Thats OLD Obama. There is a new Obama in office, I’m not going to post a link you should all keep up with the news if you’re not a fool. Apparently a trial is too good for certain prisoners. Have you also heard that extraordinary rendition is essentially going on under a different guise? If we are able to store our prisoners overseas we can be assured they are doing so for one or both of the following reasons:
1. protect themselves from legal prosecution
2. to engage in torture
Although the federal government is still engaging in holding prisoners overseas, that is apparently ALSO too damn good for certain people currently locked up in Gitmo.
So lets get down to the info. There are apparently THIRTEEN individuals currently in gitmo who can’t POSSIBLY EVER BE TRIED IN A COURT!!!! Our courts are too weak for terrorism, they don’t have the stomachs!! and the ladies?!??!! and the children?!? how can we protect them from the blasphemy and coarse language of the terrorists????? Obviously the only answer is secret military tribunals. But we’re marketing a fuzzier name, and we're gonna market it with a little more effort than we did for “tribunal”. From here on out these secret military tributnals are “Commissions”. Did you know that the EU has a council of “Commissioners” they make up the most intense concentration of power vested in single individuals in the entire EU system? I mean whats wrong with a little commission? Its like we're all salespeople now, we all get a piece of the commission. Baseball for example is run by a commissioner and thats america's god damn pasttime! There was a show “the comish” or something right? or a movie? Whatevever it was, it was good wholesome fun for the whole family! I mean this secret kangaroo court is like a household name already, so back to american gladiators!

But of these 13 (whom I cannot find all the names of btw), 4 of them are charged with THE CRIMES OF related to THE ATTACKS OF THE TERRORISTS OF FOREIGN LANDS UPON THE HOMELAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEW YORK ON THE DATE OF NINE ELEVEN IN AN EGREGIOUS ACT OF COWARDICE. So seriously, don’t question it.But wait a second, they're not "charged" with anything...they are "involved" or "connected to" (or something along those lines) to NINE ELEVEN in the articles of the mainstream media. Well I'm not a doctor or anything, but if they're so wholly convinced that this individual is complicit with 9/11 shouldn't they have been tried and either acquitted or sentenced by now? Why won't we try to bring some justice to the perpetrators of 9/11? And by that I don't mean lock someone up without a fucking trial! That is an injustice, we cannot move forward if we are constantly reacting to injustice with further injustices. These people that are connected to 9/11 how are they connected? All we have been told is that they knew bin laden or are in al qaeda or some shit. If people are so secure in these individuals' guilt that they imprison them, shouldn't their evidence be good enough to convict the individual?

Of course not. And we all know that no matter where you fall on the political spectrum we all know that if cops, military, or intelligence agencies were allowed to just imprison people they thought were guilty, it would VERY OFTEN be an individual who would not be convicted by a jury of their peers.



But the praises continue to be sung, the veneer of unity and the brand name of being different than bush are still holding up.

The truth is that very little has changed in the substantive issues, and by that I mean issues relating to the constitution, geneva conventions, and military aggression. Maybe the torture won't continue on american soil...wait...bush never even tortured people on american soil(at least not the continental US[gitmo]). So......I ask everyone: what changed?
A sane tax system is good, credit card legislation, etc. but these have very little to do with moving away from the dangerous policies of bush.



The change offered by Obama is superficial at best.



And Obama I had kept my hope low, but you didn’t even live up TO YOUR OWN hope. so fuck you


And What the fuck is the deal with cheney? He actually has influence on Obama, apparently a SHIT TON! Just put cheney on fox news a few hours a day complaining about terrorists being about to attack trying to scare americans and all of a sudden obama doesn’t care about torture, extraordinary rendition, or even habeus corpus, we have not seen an improvement over Bush in the stubstantive issues.
Wait obama scared of cheney’s dire prognostications of terrorism…hmm….I wonder if there is a reason for Obama to be so scared….what do you guys think Cheney is capable of? ;)


Is it truly a radical concept for people to be charged with a crime and given a trial if they are to be imprisoned but are not prisoners of war?

Just charge them with a crime, or do not

First of all I just want to say that this the first time in my life I've been actually surprised in a good way about a sitting president. I was worried that Obama would be all talk, but instead he dove right in from day one. He set in motion progress on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, ended extraordinary rendition, ended Bush's spending freeze on overseas family planning, stopped legally sanctioned torture, and stated that Gitmo must be closed within a year.

The last thing is what I wanted to write a few paragraphs about. Most importantly why the fuck is it that we are just NOW having this debate? When we are finally going to start bandaging this wound, thats when all of a sudden the press makes the public aware of the details.
Here is a quick summary:
-Gitmo stands on a territory that the US never gave back to Cuba after driving the Spanish out in the very late 1800s. They pay a pittance in lease, which is why there can be a US military facility in a country that the US has an embargo on.
-Gitmo was chosen as the camp for captured "enemy combatants"
-Gitmo was chosen because it lay outside of any state, commonwealth, or province of the United sates. This meant that it could be argued that civilian law or even federal courts were outside their jurisdiction to regulate it. (Obviously this is fail, the federal government has jurisdiction over all military bases and BIA reservations, etc. basically everything in between)
-There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant", it is nowhere in the Geneva conventions. It was created so that the captured individuals would not be "prisoners of war" and thusly be protected under the Geneva conventions(that treaty everyone signed to prevent Naziesque atrocities from being committed in the future).
-Can't remember which legal stooge came up with this bullshit (my guess is either gonzalez, thurmond's scion, or the taft scion) but they wanted to ensure they wouldn't be prosecuted for the warcrimes they were going to commit. If these attorneys had come in to a possession of a pair of testicles at any point they could have written the exact opposite and these chickenhawks probably would have never tortured in the first place for fear of punishment. That of course assumes they weren't just told what their legal justification should say. The point is they argue that because Afghanistan is a "failed state" that makes the people captured "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war". Precedent? Fuck precedent!
-A brand new secret military tribunal process was set up to try "enemy combatants" just for the war on terror.

So now that Gitmo is going to be shut down, all of a sudden the media finds it journalism to write about what Gitmo was in the first fucking place. So now the debate is: Where will they go?

The first suggestion comes from Christopher Bond(R-Missouri) to reopen Alcatraz. Ok...so I guess the Republicans aren't still salty about their loss(sarcasm). Ok so apparently the Republicans think that incarceration in a maximum security federal prison is a terrible idea, because the prisons will become magnets for attacks! Firstly it gave me pause that any Republicans would have have concern for the lives of a prisoner. Like there would be planes flying in to supermaxs all over the country. I realized that they could be arguing it would put the guards lives at risk, which I suppose is understandable. The argument though is ridiculous, prisons are made to hold criminals, they act like this is the first time prisons have been used to house criminals. Mcveigh, Unabomber, Moussaoui, Abdel-rahman(the blind sheikh), etc are all in the ADX Florence and they haven't gone through a terrorist attack or a terrorist break out.

How about if you fucking idiots stop making shit up and creating new laws for this and that, new exceptions to why we can't possibly live like we used to, and how the post 9/11 world will destroy us all?

Have a Federal prosecutor's office evaluate the cases and decide whether or not to charge these individuals with crimes. If they have committed a crime then have a trial.

OR

Establish that they are in fact prisoners of war, and go through the maritime/military law.


Where will they go?? They're not fucking superheroes we don't need to build an Arkham Asylum here or a fucking "negative zone", just put them in a cell. Like abdel-rahman already is in a fucking cell, just like binalshibh is already in a fucking cell, and just like every other CRIMINAL that has been convicted is in a cell.

I hope Obama keeps going. This is the kind of shit that Clinton would never do for fear of being labeled liberal. Obama knows what he wants, and how to get it, I just hope that what he wants is what he has been talking about. Most importantly we need an exit strategy immediately. I hate presidents, but honestly I have to say this was good shit the past few days.

Support Our Troops

We have all seen the yellow ribbons on the backs of innumerable automobiles. It is considered such a normative value to “support our troops” that even the 24-hour propaganda disseminators can parrot it without having their objectivity called into question.
“Support The Troops” only works one way. And that way is “Support The Troops” when its good PR. Right now there is a lame duck president with a 29% approval rating embroiled in a war that is three years old. With more combat deaths than any engagement since Vietnam it raises some interesting questions about what “Supporting The Troops” really means.
During the 1990s there was a certain conflict involving Milosevic in which President Clinton used his famous technique to borrow from “conservative” and “liberal” schools of thought throughout his presidency. Many critics argued this was evidence he was actually a “populist”, but I personally think it was just an attempt to be identified as “moderate” just like the vast majority of United Statesians self-identify as. The United States(See NATO ) conflict in Kosovo created a “third way”. Rather than diplomatic moves like shunning/embargoes or overt military moves like an occupation. Clinton embarked on a billion dollar plus bombing campaign. This way only a few troops would be lost, but they could take out infrastructure that Milosevic relied upon. So Clinton did a very good job of “Supporting The Troops”, because he minimized casualties. His true motivation though was to protect his approval ratings, because nobody likes body bags .
So Clinton in the bombing campaign of Kosovo may have killed many civilians, but not so many US soldiers.While say, the first gulf war killed both US soldiers, enemy soldiers, and civilians.
Which brings me to my next question: is a United Statesian soldier’s life more important than a civilian who happens to be living in an enemy’s country? Does one conflict become worse than another when the body count is bigger? When the body count is bigger for “our” side?Should I cheer if less people died today than yesterday?
Well it seems that there are times when normativity dictates not “Supporting The Troops” is ok. Like Thisor This
Don’t get me wrong here. The Habitha massacre and the (people that were caught in pictures) torturing was terrible. So was Dasht-e-Leili, but it is important to take note of what happens during these situations: when it is normatively acceptable for us to turn our backs on the troops.
Ok! Lynndie England is locked up problem solved!Pay no attention to Titan Corp, CIA, Alberto Gonzales, or george bush jr.It is insulting to every United Statesian’s intelligence that we are expected to believe the official line: that a few MPs just decided to up and go a-torturin’.Bullshit.
So you say: “Well they still have to have responsibility for their actions”well…The troops are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they don’t follow “fucked up war crime order #1” they’re getting court-martialed, discharged, and possibly incarcerated.Or.If they do execute “fucked up war crime order #1” , and word of the order reaches the public, the politicans will serve them to the angry mob on a platter. Hell his approval rating might go up for it! The soldier will be lucky if he sees the outside world again. Fucked coming AND going.
Don’t tell me you “Support The Troops” if you simultaneously support scapegoating the grunts to save the politicians’ asses.
Don’t say you “Support The Troops” if you’re not yelling for the head of the person who orginally issued the order for the Habitha Massacre.
Or will it happen the same way with Habitha?The soldiers that even Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity can’t “Support” get scapegoated and the truly culpable walk free?
I am not going to list reasons why the Iraq war should not have been fought.
I simply have a new name for our soldiers which I feel is FAAAAR more accurate than “Troops” or “Soldiers”.*“I.E.D. Catchers”*
We should call them what they are and what they are is I.E.D. Catchers. They have been in hostile country for over 2 years and still don’t even know how to distinguish “the enemy” from the rest of the population. Their ground transportation is plagued by Improvised Explosive Devices which as General John Abizaid wrote to the DoD: “IEDs are the number one killer of American troops”. Their air travel is halted by stingers using a technique taught to the Arab Afghans, by the US, to take down choppers. This is what our “Soldiers” and “Troops” are they are I.E.D. Catchers, Stinger Magnets, and just plain fucking targets.
I’m done worrying about holding the individuals accountable who malevolently deceived us in order to take our troops in to a war that had nothing to do with the “War on Terror”. Notice I did not say “take ‘us’ in to a war”. “We” are not in Iraq the I.E.D. Catchers are in Iraq, we may have been lied to, but “We” are NOT paying for it.
Life here in the states has not changed. We do not even miss our I.E.D. Catchers. Oh, I’m sure people who have family or freinds miss them, but what about the rest of the I.E.D. Catchers? The I.E.D. Catchers you have never met? Do you really give a shit if the newspaper reads “17 marines killed in Iraq” or “2 marines killed in Iraq”?Do you even notice the number every morning?Do you truly “Support The Troops” or do just say such things to ease your conscience?If you’re around someone else do you say something out loud like “awwww thats a shame.” to look compassionate or empathetic?Do you fling your newspaper in a blind rage fueled by knowledge of the inhumanity of war?
Do you cry in to your coffee when you see the numbered dead every morning?
You don’t. And neither do I.
If you truly Support The I.E.D. Catchers bring them home, re-unite them with their families, and for fucks sake stop hiding behind them when it is politically convenient to do so.

Common Sense

The front page of todays NYtimes reads: "Pentagon aims to shift inmates from military base".
I wrote about this situation coming up earlier; as I'm sure many also expected this outcome. The reason inmates were put on the Gitmo base in the first place was that the executive branch of the United States federal government wanted to imprison "Terror suspects"(translation: Muslims) OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of the US federal court system.

The Supreme court did not fall for it and actually decided something right, despite Scalia and Rehnquist still being on the bench. They said that these individual had to get a trial or be released. The conservative media went crazy talking about how this would release terrorists in to the wild and bedlam would pervade. The truth of the matter is if they don't have enough evidence to go to trial on, then the person is most likely not a terrorist. Just like you and I(The average US citizen) we cannot just BE imprisoned, there must be evidence presented at a trial and heard by an objective(in a perfect world haha) judge and jury. That is the standard I feel comfortable with, and NO these individuals are not US citizens, so by law they didn't have the same rights. After that supreme court case though, the precedent has been set, if we take control of a bunch of people that are not POWs(or the bullshit legal fiction they tried to create "enemy combatants") they need a trial. The constitution says PEOPLE not CITIZENS.

But that's in the past what I had surmised is that the executive branch would drag their feet on the Gitmo detainees. It turns out they found an even better solution. This way they will be 100% sure that the federal court system will not ensure that these HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS. They are exporting them to Saudi Arabia and other countries, where they will undoubtedly be tortured. Not only that but the CIA will probably still have access to them so that the US can keep torturing(its hard to quit cold turkey).

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that they are getting away with it. They first put them in Cuba because they thought that the courts couldn't reach them, but federal sovereignty by pure COMMON SENSE(and stare decises) extends to military bases, territories, provinces, native reservations, and embassies. So after the exec is shut down by the supreme court here is the plan:
1. Wait for the PR to cool down, it only takes about a month or two for people to forget whatever was the hot media topic(prisoner torture, tsunami, bush's draft dodging, etc).
2. Slowly at first start moving prisoners to other countries that have close operational relationships with our military and intelligence apparatuses.
3. The mass exodus, move everyone that would get released for lack of evidence to these other countries(like Saudi Arabia). Because of number 2 it will look like the precedent has already been set and because of number 1 your average American will not make the connection between this movement and the court decision.
4. Keep the people you have evidence on in Gitmo give them trials and in foreign countries continue to torture other individuals that are most likely peaceful civilians(because if they weren't the evidence would be there to go to trial on).

So years from now if they start sending American citizens to Saudi Arabia for interrogation by US corporations specializing in torture(like Titan Corp. In Abu Ghraib), we will know how the precedent got set.
What to do now? I don't know
Dissent is now treason and individuals who exercise their right to peaceably assemble are quickly gassed and jailed.
So I end with one of my favorite quotes that I have put up in this blog before, but it still never gets old.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, only make violent revolution inevitable" -JFK

-Jimothy J. Jones-

How did we let this happen?

There is a video of male soldiers of the United States Military raping young boys in the Abu Ghraib prison.
This is a link to a transcript of the Speech given to the ACLU by Seymour Hersh, who is trying to spread the truth:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/post_1.htm

New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh the same individual that brought the truth of the My Lai massacre to the public has let the public know the truth again. The original torture story which had been a story since the red cross recognized the brutal tactics being used, but was not even TALKED about by the mainstream media until the New Yorker broke the story.

This is the most disgusting display of brutishness that we could possibly perpetuate upon innocent children. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY WE ARE ALL GUILTY FOR THE RAPE OF CHILDREN. When shit like this happens we need to step back and think about what THE FUCK WE"RE DOING IN IRAQ!!!!!!!

Think about this: so the CIA gets orders from the pentagon and defense department to obtain intelligence, because the soldiers don't know who the hell they're fighting(because there is no uniform for a guerilla/terrorist insurgency). So soldiers begin interrogation and CIA officers who are known to have been at the scene at Abu Ghraib and are pointed out in photos taken of the toture. Some sick individual somewhere in the chain of command had the idea to rape children for the safety of democracy.

These actions cannot be justified, the hiding behind the flag does not work when tactics such as this are used. The people of the United States will see straight through the red, white, and blue disguise. Anyone who truly believes in our constitution and the theory of democracy itself as the only rational governmental form of the right to self-determination need to step forward. Email your 2 senators and your representative let them know that you are against the raping of children and therefore want our country to leave the sovereign nation of Iraq THE HELL ALONE IMMEDIATELY!!!!

Your government's military raped children and video taped it

Your Leadership of the executive branch is trying to suppress the release of this video.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Powell must be brought to trial for their war crimes. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS OPENLY FLOUTED THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS!
Sorry for the caps. I am just enraged by the fact that I stood by and did nothing as my country raped children, RAPED CHILDREN AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!

No American would vote for the rape of children, WE MUST FIND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE AND MAKE SURE THEY WILL NEVER OBTAIN A POSITION OF POWER IN WHICH THEY CAN PERPETUATE BLATANTLY EVIL ACTIONS SUCH AS THIS.

I am a post-modernist I don't believe in universal truth, but it does not get more obviously evil than the rape of children.

This is not just one child either, THIS IS SYSTEMATIC!!!!  As the military continues to pretend it is doing something to the next ranking officer and as the yes men climb the hierarchy it reaches George Bush Jr. Himself.
The military has to fight against an enemy who does not wear a uniform or fight on a battlefield, this enemy acts and looks exactly the same as the people we are trying to protect.
It would be completely naive to believe that this prison is not populated densely(if they don't' comprise the majority) by innocent Muslims, whose only crime was being born in a different part of the world than you or I.

We can find solace in the fact that the mainstream media cannot ignore this forever. If they do then history books will pick up on it. WE NEED TO MAKE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO MOVE AS A NATION AWAY FROM THE PRECEDENT THE IRAQ WAR HAS SET. 

Public relations disinformation campaigns, intelligence agency group-think, followed by pre-emptive military action, then systematic torture and rape, and finally endless troop presence(that's right Wolfowitz said we could be there until 2010).

I am not a believer in an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, and infinite entity; but for those of you that do, you should start praying for your and your neighbor's soul, because we just sold it for a few dollars saved at the pump and replaced it with anti-Muslim fervor.

YOUR GOVERNMENT'S MILITARY IS SYSTEMATICALLY RAPING CHILDREN IN IRAQ

 
-Jimothy J. Jones

There has to be some good left in our country, please help stop this blatantly evil action.

Probably no one will even read this, but for that one person that does, make sure you tell your friends and family what is being done in our name in Iraq.