The Woolwich murderer, says Ian Welsh, is "a bad man," but "not as bad as the men we put in office"

"When Tony Blair and George W. Bush are put in front of war crimes trials, along with Rumsfeld and many others, we can talk. Till then, our 'justice' isn’t, it’s just tribalism dressed up in the name of justice, because it picks and chooses amongst murderers, letting the greatest of them, the ones with the most blood on their hands, walk free."

-- Ian Welsh, in a new post,
"The Moral Calculus of the Woolwich Murder"

by Ken

I don't say that our friend Ian Welsh doesn't mean exactly what he says, that "on the scale of bad, immoral things," the murder of that soldier in London by hacking his head off "ranks very low," in that "the murderer took the time to kill someone in the military" and "did not target civilians," which "makes him superior, morally, to the Boston bombers" also "to Obama, who routinely murders civilians, knowingly, but hitting weddings and funerals," and to Tony Blair and George W. Bush, "who launched a war based on lies against a country which was no threat to Britain or to America."

Ian further suggests:

You should read a transcript of the Woolwich murderer’s reasons. It seems that he was offended by the fact that other Muslim civilians were routinely being murdered. Having been taught, by the state, that murdering is acceptable, he proceeded to do so.

Now, as I say, I don't doubt that Ian means just what he says. But it's also possible to consider his position as intentionally provocative: challenging anyone who disagree to show how it's not the case that the Woolwich murderer "is a bad man, to be sure, but he's not as bad a man as the men we put in office." Or to find some way in which it's not true, despite "all the hysterical hand-wringing and the rush to moral condemnation" (which "bores and tires" Ian) that:

It is a fact that America and Britain killed, deliberately, tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in a war which was not even pre-emptive. The Iraq war was exactly the same type of war-crime for which Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. Exactly.

I don't see any obvious way to deny this "fact," or the rest of Ian's proposition regarding the people we place in high office. If you think you do, perhaps you should read the whole piece. first.

IAN WELSH

The Moral Calculus of the Woolwich Murder
Posted: 27 May 2013 06:00 AM PDT

So, a man killed a soldier in Woolwich London by hacking his head off.

That’s bad.

But on the scale of bad, immoral things, it ranks very low.

The murderer took the time to kill someone in the military. He did not target civilians.

This makes him superior, morally, to the Boston bombers. It also makes him superior, morally, to Obama, who routinely murders civilians, knowingly, by hitting weddings and funerals. It makes him morally superior to the British ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and to George W. Bush, who launched a war based on lies against a country which was no threat to Britain or to America.

All the hysterical hand-wringing and the rush to moral condemnation bores and tires me. It is a fact that America and Britain killed, deliberately, tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in a war which was not even pre-emptive. The Iraq war was exactly the same type of war-crime for which Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. Exactly.

You should read a transcript of the Woolwich murderer’s reasons. It seems that he was offended by the fact that other Muslim civilians were routinely being murdered. Having been taught, by the state, that murdering is acceptable, he proceeded to do so.

He, however, proved himself superior to the contemporary American and British States by murder a military man and not a civilian. He took far more care in choosing his victim than Obama does his.

So spare me the hand-wringing and condemnation. He’s a bad man, to be sure, but he’s not as bad a man as the men we put in office.

When Tony Blair and George W. Bush are put in front of war crimes trials, along with Rumsfeld and many others, we can talk. Till then, our 'justice' isn’t, it’s just tribalism dressed up in the name of justice, because it picks and chooses amongst murderers, letting the greatest of them, the ones with the most blood on their hands, walk free.

on edit: oh yes, and there are calls to censor the internet more. The net result of these attacks is to reduce your freedom. And no, censoring the internet more won’t make you more safe.

Which leaves one last question, in the event that we can't contradict the logic: What is the significance of our conclusion?

#

Read More

Buck McKeon's Family Opens A Defense Industry Lobbying Firm To Enrich Itself At Taxpayers' Expense

The other day it was revealed that three stooges named Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon & Joe McKeon opened up a new shoppe-- a war industries lobbying shop. Joe is Buck's failed businessman brother who's gone bankrupt at everything he's tried. Steve and Daniel are Buck's nephews. Buck himself was appointed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee by Boehner and, despite, a serious national security breach connected to McKeon's overt corruption, has refused to make him give up the chair, despite demands from other Republican committee members. And, keep in the back of your mind that Buck McKeon has taken in more in legalistic bribes from war industries than anyone else in Congress-- more than Boehner, more than Cantor, more than any senator. He started the Congressional Drone Caucus-- officially, the Unmanned Vehicle Caucus-- and he got the legislation carefully crafted by the drone manufacturers through Congress. Buck insists he'll be scrupulous in making sure there are no conflicts of interest with the family firm and the taxpayers money, although his history would indicate that the entire enterprise was planned out as one giant conflict of interest.

Roll Call, in their Moneyline column-- "Inside the flow of money in politics"-- points out the obvious: "More than likely the McKeon name will help business." For his whole shady career, McKeon gas taken in an astronomical $1,396,400 in legalistic bribes from arms manufacturers and related war-oriented firms. In way of comparison, McCain has only gotten $1,230,052 from these same galoots. Lindsey Graham, another demented war-monger has only taken in $354,966 and John Boehner and Eric Cantor only got, respectively $385,100 and $430,750. In the 2012 cycle, McKeon topped everyone else again-- both Houses of Congress. Last year alone, he took in more than the second and third biggest recipients combined:

The drone manufacturers have been particularly generous to him. His family firm, Golden Oak Consulting of Santa Clarita started last May as bribes from the arms manufacturers were gushing into McKeon coffers to the maximum extent allowed by the very lax laws. He needed to figure out a way to get even more-- and that's where ne're-do-well brother Joe and his kids came in. Their first arms manufacturing client was  Threat Deterrence of Alexandria, Va., a computer software firm dealing with defending against various kinds of threats.

The company website states, “we have worked inside some of the most capable threat mitigation agencies in the world. These agencies include the United States Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, national Security Agency, US Joint Special Operations Command, US Congress and many other threat support organizations.”

Golden Oak Consulting also registered on May 21 to lobby for GoPro of San Mateo, Calif., which makes waterproof and shockproof cameras. In 2011 the company launched a military helmet mount for its camera. A press release stated “We developed our NVG Mount to make it simple for them to attach their GoPro cameras to the helmets they’re already using every day. The men and women serving in the military and civil services are out there every day, working in some of the most extreme conditions on earth. We are hopeful that our products can help them with their work…”

The managing partners of Golden Oak Consulting are Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon and Joe McKeon. These are the first two federal lobbying clients for the firm.

Golden Oak Consulting is also working with another company, DuraSeal Coatings, a nanotechnology company, in Kansas City, Mo. A Golden Oak Consulting press release stated, “Golden Oak is looking forward to enhancing DuraSeal Coating’s current value position and is committed to building DuraSeal Coating’s position in the new Government market.” DuraSeal Coatings wants to sell products to the Department of Defense. In September of 2012, another firm, J. M. Burkman & Associates registered to lobby on behalf of DuraSeal Coatings in the Defense area, and specifically the “sale of coatings products to DOD.”

Folks in the Santa Clarita area are used to seeing scams perpetrated on innocent families by vicious predators who all happen to be named McKeon. This is a news account of one of the "scrupulous" McCain clans forays into what anyone would call "bad behavior," especially since it always seems to involve Mormons taking advantage of non-Mormons.

The largest creditor of a defunct retail clothing chain co-owned by U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon has accused the company-- and most of its owners-- of fraud and misrepresentation.

The accusations are part of a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday by Coast Business Credit, a division of Southern Pacific Bank. Coast claims McKeon's four brothers, all part-owners of Howard and Phil's Western Wear, owe it about $4 million.

Under a preliminary sale agreement, expected to be finalized today, Coast will receive roughly $550,000 for the remaining assets of the broken company. But that is just a fraction of the money Coast says it is owed, and in its suit it seeks to foreclose on homes owned by the four brothers to cover part of the shortfall.

In its suit, Coast says Howard and Phil's "deliberately overstated the value and/or amount of the finished goods inventory... with the intent to deceive Coast" into giving it large cash advances.

The suit says Joseph B. McKeon, John D. McKeon, Monte B. McKeon and Timothy McKeon "participated and conspired in the submission of false reports to Coast."

Yeah... real scrupulous. It's hard to understand why even a crook like Boehner won't cut McKeon lose as the chairman of such an important and sensitive committee.

Read More

Sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa Challenges Progressive Hawai'i Senator Brian Schatz

Lately I've been bombarded with e-mails from sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa, who's giving up her House seat to challenge progressive Senate incumbent Brian Schatz. Thursday it was "Today, Colleen will make a very important announcement about the future of Hawaii and we wanted you to be the first to know." Yesterday it was "After months of careful consideration, meeting with my friends and family to talk story and listening to people from across Hawai'i, I was proud to share with you a few days ago that I am beginning my campaign for the United States Senate... But before I can have the honor of serving you in the Senate, I must ask for your support now."

Oh, sure! Schatz's lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 94.12, a sterling record. Hanabusa's score is a blah 81.99. What does that mean in the real world? Here's an example: Schatz has been a vocal opponent of CISPA.

Hanabusa, who never strays far from a line laid out by her Big Business supporters, voted with the Republicans-- both in 2012 and again this year-- in favor of CISPA.

Sure, she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality) but when it comes to roll calls where she smells money... that's when we see the kind of Democrat Hawai'i doesn't need. This is how bad she is: Colleen Hanabusa was one of the only Democrats in Congress to vote with the GOP against the Environmental Protection Agency and to actually join Buck McKeon's sickeningly corrupt Drone Caucus, along with a freak show of some of Congress' most crooked and extremist Members, like McKeon himself, as well as Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC), and Mo Brooks (R-AL). No one assigned her this; she chose to associate herself with this group of misanthropes in the hope of ingratiating herself with the arms industry and getting some cash for her ambitious politician plans. And that's worked out well for her-- and for the drone manufacturers. She pushes their agenda inside the Democratic caucus and they keep a steady stream of legalistic bribes flowing in her direction.

All of the big drone manufacturers give to pro-war politicians in both parties but all of them give way more to Republicans than to Democrats. Hanabusa has been one of their favorite Democrats and the arms manufacturers are helping finance her challenge to Schatz. Of the half dozen biggest drone makers, all 6 gave money to Hanabusa last year.

• Northrop Grumman's 2 PACs- $20,000
• BAE Systems- $10,000
• Honeywell International- $7,500
• General Atomics- $$1,000
• Raytheon- $6,000
• Lockheed Martin- $7,000

Very few Republicans-- otherside of McKeon himself, of course-- have collected as much cash from the drone makers as Hanabusa. All of these companies are traditional honeypots for right-wing Republicans. She's very comfortable in those circles.

UPDATE

If you'd like to help make sure Brian stays in the Senate... we have a new addition.

Read More

Lindsey Graham, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Drones, Constitutional Guarantees

Lindsey Graham seems to think the U.S. Constitution begins and ends with a very crimped interpretation of the Second Amendment. In his view it mandates that anyone can, willy-nilly buy any weapon he wants without any kind of government regulation. Most people not in thrall to the NRA do not interpret the Second Amendment that way. And to Graham, the rest of the Constitution just doesn't seem all that important. Friday, for example, he let loose with the above tweet. If the authorities fail to read the suspect, no matter how heinous the crimes he's accused of, his Miranda Rights-- the right to remain silent until he can consult an attorney-- it violates the 5th and 6th Amendments, two apparently not in the same league as the 2nd-- and could jeopardize the whole case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Graham is an attorney and he should know better.

No sense in getting all flustered and working up into a tizzy and violating the constitutional rights of an American citizen, as Tsarnaev is, on American soil, even if it appears he is a criminal. Worse yet, Graham was commiserating with the Washington Post's sniveling right-wing hack Jennifer Rubin yesterday that there should be more drones spying on American citizens. “This is Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield," he told Rubin on the phone... before launching into an attack on Rand Paul.

Recalling Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster, Graham noted that he took to the Senate floor specifically to object to Rand’s notion that “America is not the battlefield.” Graham said to me, “It’s a battlefield because the terrorists think it is.” Referring to Boston, he observed, “Here is what we’re up against,” and added, “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.”

Apparently, the Obama Administration decided to go with Graham's interpretation of the Constitution and the FBI did not read the kid his Miranda Rights, invoking a bogus, extra-Constitutional public safety exception that, according to the FBI website "permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence... Police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights."

Last night, writing for Slate, Emily Bazelon explained why we should all be outraged Tsamaev wasn't read his Miranda rights. As she says, "When the law gets bent out of shape for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us."

Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power.

The New York Times published the Justice Department’s memo in March 2011. The Supreme Court has yet to consider this hole the Obama administration has torn in Miranda. In fact, no court has, as far as I can tell.

And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” Couldn’t that be just about anything about Tsarnaev’s life, or his family, given that his alleged accomplice was his older brother (killed in a shootout with police)? There won’t be a public uproar. Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

This morning, while 3 Stooges Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain were loudly calling for Tsarnaev to not be afforded a trial, Glenn Greenwald asked much the same question at The Guardian that Bazelon had. And answered-- and castigated both Lindsey Graham and the Obama Administration for trampling on constitutional guarantees.

Graham's tweets quickly created a firestorm of outrage among various Democrats, progressives, liberals and the like. They insisted that such actions would be radical and menacing, a serious threat to core Constitutional protections. I certainly shared those sentiments: the general concept that long-standing rights should be eroded in the name of Terrorism is indeed odious, and the specific attempt to abridge core constitutional liberties on US soil under that banner is self-evidently dangerous.

...[T]he Obama administration has already rolled back Miranda rights for terrorism suspects captured on US soil. It did so two years ago with almost no controversy or even notice, including from many of those who so vocally condemned Graham's Miranda tweets yesterday. In May, 2010, the New York Times' Charlie Savage-- under the headline "Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects"-- reported that "the Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights." Instead of going to Congress, the Obama DOJ, in March 2011, simply adopted their own rules that vested themselves with this power.

...Democrats reacted with horror and outrage to Graham's suggestion that "the last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to 'remain silent.'" But that's already Obama DOJ policy, enacted with little controversy. And last night's announcement makes clear that the Obama DOJ intends, as Bazelon says, to question him about a wide range of topics far beyond matters of imminent threats to public safety without first Mirandizing him.

But there's another reason why I found Democratic outrage over Graham's statements to be confounding. The theory on which Graham's arguments are based is one that the Obama administration has vigorously embraced with the full-throated endorsement of most of its supporters: namely, that the US is "at war", and that anyone who takes up arms against the country or tries to kill Americans is not entitled to basic rights-- even if they're American citizens. As Graham told the Washington Post, his view that Tsarnaev is not entitled to these rights is grounded in his belief that the US is fighting a global war and those who fight in it against the US are "enemy combatants."

It is bizarre indeed to watch Democrats act as though Graham's theories are exotic or repellent. This is, after all, the same faction that insists that Obama has the power to target even US citizens for execution without charges, lawyers, or any due process, on the ground that anyone the president accuses of Terrorism forfeits those rights. The only way one can believe this is by embracing the same theory that Lindsey Graham is espousing: namely, that accused Terrorists are enemy combatants, not criminals, and thus entitled to no due process and other guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Once you adopt this "entire-globe-is-a-battlefield" war paradigm-- as supporters of Obama's assassination powers must do and have explicitly done-- then it's impossible to scorn Graham's views about what should be done with Tsarnaev. Indeed, one is necessarily endorsing the theory in which Graham's beliefs are grounded.

...[A]s extremist as Graham's tweets may have seemed to some, it was already done in the US with little backlash. That demonstrates how easily and insidiously extremist rights assaults become normalized if they are not vehemently resisted in the first instance, regardless of one's views of the individual target.

Haters need to hate-- Good morning, America!

And Constitutional slippery slopes don't just happen in Washington and they're not the sole domain of right-wing Republicans. Right-wing Democrats, like California freshman Assemblyman Steve Fox, can he just as dangerous to the Constitution as Lindsey Graham. Fox represents the Antelope Valley in Buck McKeon's congressional district. McKeon, who has worked harder than anyone in Congress to guarantee that tens of thousands of domestic spy drones would have access to American skies, has been working the federal angles. Fox is handling it from Sacramento.

Assemblyman Steve Fox (D-Palmdale) achieved a significant legislative victory with the passage in the state Assembly of AB737, which would take steps to designate California as a test site for unmanned aviation systems, or drones.

By a wide margin, members of the state Assembly voted this week to approve the bill that would require California to apply to the FAA for designation as a site for drone testing. Fox was the sponsor of the bill. The bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration.

According to the wording of the bill, the FAA has already announced the designation of six national drone test sites. Since California is home to much of the aerospace industry and defense industry, a federal test site would ensure the continued growth of the industry and its importance to the state economy.

Read More