Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Just another word for nothing left to lose

I'd love to write about something else, like the early bills filed at the Lege or Houston city charter revisions or something similarly compelling, but no.

“What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation, and the agency was way out of bounds and then they lied about it,” (Dick) Cheney said in a telephone interview with the New York Times on Monday. “I think that’s all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization, and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program.”

That's an admission of guilt to a war crime, as defined by the Geneva Convention accords.

Detainees who were tortured, in turn, provided interrogators with the information they wanted to hear, including fictitious connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which the Bush administration later used to bolster its case for invading Iraq. Those connections proved to be false.

“It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information,” former CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2011, disputing Bush administration claims that torture helped capture bin Laden. “In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.”

Torture did not work, the CIA lied about that, some in the CIA questioned the use of torture and the value of the intelligence it was (not) providing, and were told to shut up and keep doing it.  And the only person in jail at the moment is a former CIA agent who tipped off a reporter about the torturing.

Oh, and the executive director of the ACLU thinks the torturers should all be pardoned.  Which is just the latest, freshest steaming pile of shit for the rest of us to eat, served on a silver platter by the above-and-beyond authorities running things in this so-called free country.

This issue is not separate from the killings by police around the country.  It's just more evidence that America is stuck in a period of lawlessness and brutality that we seem unable to face.  It is endemic in federal agencies, in most if not all law enforcement at Ferguson level right up to 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, and in, of course, Congress -- in Cleveland, West Florissant Avenue, and Staten Island...

Lawlessness is rampant in every level of our justice system, from corrupt local prosecutors to the connection between big money and our highest court.  

Sooo... what do you think the rest of us should do about it?

Monday, December 08, 2014

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance stands with the Garner and Brown families in the quest for equal justice for all as it brings you this week's roundup.

Guest blogger Kris Banks at Off the Kuff provided a visual guide to turnout comparisons in Harris County.

Libby Shaw, writing at Texas Kaos and Daily Kos, believes Greg Abbott's recent lawsuit against the president's action on immigration is not only lame, it is yet one more example of conservative racist disrespect for the duly elected President. Ease up on the hate, please, Governor-elect.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme calls out Republicans for cutting public works while spending money on racist, empty gestures.

Texas atheists are blessed to be able to run for public office in Texas, reports PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at All People Have Value said that he is very white, male, and European. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Texpatriate had some insight into the police abuses in Ferguson, Staten Island, and Jasper, Texas.

Egberto Willies posted the blast NY mayor Bill DeBlasio leveled at Democrats for being spineless.

Texas Leftist had an update on the state's county clerks who are preparing for the eventual gay marriages to be performed in Texas.

======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Grits for Breakfast celebrates a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals that allows for a wider use of Texas's so-called "junk science writ".

The Texas Election Law Blog pushes back on the argument that voter ID laws had little effect in 2014.

Socratic Gadfly sheds no tears for the demise of The New Republic.

The Lunch Tray offers thoughts on a national food policy.

Offcite analyzes the case for a swimming hole in Houston.

Texans Together will take a "Texas way" forward on Medicaid expansion if one is there to be taken.

Alan Bean asks what Jesus would do with the current immigration debate.

Raise Your Hand Texas released a report showing how Texas falls short of best practices with its pre-k program.

Texas Clean Air Matters explains the new ozone standard.

Gray Matters bids farewell to Houston Chronicle employees as they prepare to leave their downtown building for the old Houston Post location.

Friday, December 05, 2014

Ra bless Texas!

I'd like to say 'Hail Satan!' just to piss off some Christians, but of course I don't believe he or Hell exists, either.

Texas atheists, breathe a sigh of relief. While it may not be easy for you to be elected to public office here if you fly the banner of secularism, the state Constitution won’t bar you from running.

The issue of religious preference and who is eligible to run for Texas political office was exhumed – again – this week after Austin City Council candidate Laura Pressley distributed a mailer claiming her opponent Gregorio “Greg” Casar was an atheist and therefore legally barred from holding public office in the Lone Star State.

“As someone who’s on record saying he doesn’t believe in God, Casar can’t legally represent North Austin’s District 4 on the City Council,” the Austin American Statesman reported Dec. 1.

Yep, that's what has always discouraged me from running, that's for sure.

Pressley referenced Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution, which states, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (italics Lauren McGaughey's)

While the article indeed remains on the books in Texas – and several Southern states – it’s been proven time and time again to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“There’s no question is that it is void and unenforceable,” said Keith Werhan, the Ashton Phelps Chair of Constitutional Law at the Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans. University of Houston Professor Brandon Rottinghaus said such provisions provided a “post-reconstruction approach to making sure religion still had a place” in former Confederate states.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution bars such religious litmus for those running for federal office, and the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated such provisions in state Constitutions in 1961. In Texas, the last time the article was discussed in the 1980s between Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a voter, and then-Attorney General Jim Maddox, according to Texas Monthly.

In a federal court agreement, Maddox said the article “is void and of no further effect in that it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Nice to be reminded that if this blogging thing doesn't work out that I can always fall back on a career of public service.

Hail Satan anyway!