After many years of fighting against racial profiling, the Department of Justice is now considering using racial profiling to catch terrorists.

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

I don't like this at all. As someone who just finished a Civil Rights class in law school, I'm disturbed by the possibility of people being investigated simply because their skin looks a certain way or they fit a "profile".

Admit it. You thought twice about the timing of the operation to free the hostages in Colombia. McCain. Trailing in the polls. Goes to speak about Free Trade in Colombia. The week a CNN poll found that 51% of Americans now 'feel threatened by free trade.' As President Bush continues to try to push through a new Free Trade agreement with Colombia before leaving office. The Republican Presidential nominee. And one-time prisoner of war. Is briefed about the rescue operation prior to its execution. The raid is a success. Cable news headlines like "McCain Knew" and "McCain met with Colombians prior to Hostage Rescue" and "Colombian Hostages Free" are read by millions of Americans watching muted TVs in bars, gyms, and noisy households across America. Heading into the Fourth of July weekend. When those Americans will stand around the grill and say, perhaps jokingly, but with the same predictable effect:

This story is as much a matter of the need to correct the media narrative as it is about the facts and policy themselves.

As you will recall, during the Clinton years, Halliburton under Cheney, and with McCain's assistance, were doing business with Iraq under Saddam Hussein in violation of the embargo at the time.

Now it turns out that McCain and some other Republicans have placed their lobbyist-business interests ahead of the Iran embargo and American security, and support for Columbian terrorist paramilitaries on both sides.

Once again, it is the Republicans who are treasonous enablers of terrorism, terrorists, and terrorist states.

When McCain and the other Republicans claim to be stronger against Iran and other terrorist states they are lying, having already sold out national interests to their multinational corporate paymasters. Forget their words, see how they actually vote and follow the money.

Get it?

Today a resident of East Jerusalem plowed a bulldozer into the crowed streets of Jerusalem.  This incident caused 3 deaths and over 30 injuries to bystanders.  

On Saturday we learned that the army’s official historian is about to issue the second volume of its account of the war in Iraq. The army does this sort of thing routinely so they can learn from their experience. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

The first volume covered the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and concluded that, regardless of what one thinks about the war, it went well.

The second volume is about the ugly. How the Bush administration did not have a Plan B beyond they-will-welcome-us-as-liberators-and-immediately-become a-Western-style-democracy.

I think he’s asleep. But still I should keep an eye on him because the other guy, a couple of rows back, is talking more loudly than is usual to his seatmate. A stranger.

The third one, with the Virginia Tech cap, a row ahead, looks like he’s about to nod off. When that happens then maybe I’ll be able to relax.

In those heady (for fans of totalitarianism, anyway) days after 9/11, one of the Homeland Security programs being floated was recruiting postal carriers, utility workers and the like to become citizen snoops, ferreting out activity that could be related to terrorism. It was roundly criticized and was cancelled almost as quickly as it was announced.

Except it wasn't.

Crossposted from The Colorado Independent:

A story on NPR's Morning Edition today held an interesting nugget of information on Colorado's possible role in how a President Barack Obama would respond to the growing humanitarian and legal crisis at the controversial U.S. detention camp on Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Does anyone still doubt that George W. Bush never made capturing Osama bin Laden a priority in this "War on Terror"? If so, you can lay those doubts to rest.

ABC News:

The Pentagon has drafted a secret plan that would send U.S. special forces into the wild tribal regions of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but the White House has balked at giving the mission a green light, The New York Times reported today.
...
Although the special forces attack plan was devised six months ago, infighting among U.S. intelligence agencies and among White House offices have blocked it from being implemented, the Times reported.

Follow me below the fold for more.

"It ain't what you don't know.  It's what you think you know that ain't so that's dangerous."

I was reminded of this pithy little saying last week, when confidence in Barack's lead in a few recent national polls, his turning away from the traditional public campaign financing system, and the uproar over his announcement of support for the latest FISA bill all collided and left me contemplating a few disturbing possibilities.

As someone who is deeply concerned about his FISA position, I toyed with the idea of withholding a contribution this month to express my displeasure.  But a little investigation convinced me that withholding a contribution could be more damaging than I expected, that strengthening  his coalition of supporters is more essential now than ever to winning in November, and that his FISA turn may have more to do with specific weaknesses in his polling than anything about the Fourth Amendment.

Sy Hersh’s New Yorker piece has been diaried.  Nothing new.  Yawn.  So what if the Gang of Eight is in bipartisan pursuit of further war crimes.  Should they ever find their way to the gallows, I will not object in the least.  My general objections to the death penalty would be puny standing next to their colossal crimes.  Money for covert terrorist operations against Iran was essentially appropriated last year by the following reprehensible, two-faced colossally stupid maggots on the Gang of Eight:

Frank Rich's column this week takes on John McCain adviser Charlie Black's comments that a terrorist attack would be a "big advantage" for the Republican candidate's campaign.  While much has been said about how Black's comments mirror ones McCain made last year (even though McCain repudiated Black's statement this week), Rich goes further to show how the McCain campaign's dependence on the fear of a terrorist attack is a structural part of the Republican campaign.  In this sense, Rich argues, McCain is relying (like all Republicans this century) upon the ideas and tactics of Karl Rove.

For nearly two decades, there was a nonviolent army, an army of satyagrahis, organized along military lines.  It was made up of Pashtun people of the then Northwest Frontier of the British Empire, now Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same places where the Taliban remain active today.  They were called Khudai Khidmatgars, Servants of God, or Red Shirts because of the color of their uniforms, and were established by Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Badshah Khan, an associate of Gandhi's.

Badshah Khan started building schools for his people, girls as well as boys, in 1910 and by 1930 there were enough graduates to make up the Khudai Khitmatgars.  The organization lasted until 1947 when it was outlawed and disbanded by the Pakistani government.  

Nonviolent Soldier of Islam:  Badshah Khan, a Man to Match His Mountains by Eknath Easwaran
Tomales, CA:  Nilgiri Press, 1984/1999
ISBN 1-888314-01-x

I mentioned this yesterday but at the time I assumed that it would get some attention.  Now it appears to have gone down the memory hole.  The government of Afghanistan, through an official spokesman, says it has incontrovertible proof that Pakistani intelligence tried to murder Afghan President Hamid Kharzai. This is a very serious matter.

We saw this in 2004, and there are conspiracy theories abound, but it's never been this disgustingly transparent. Now, George W. Bush is saying that there just might be a terrorist attack if John McCain does not win the presidency.

h/t to RSN for the story:

Bush: McCain Best for January Terrorist Attack

President Bush dipped his toe in electoral waters in a speech in Annapolis on Thursday, voicing his confidence in presumptive Republican nominee John McCain’s ability to handle any terrorist attacks that may or may not occur throughout the country late this coming January.

Pressed by reporters for more details, Bush named ten states as particularly at-risk targets, though he was quick to point out that "it wasn’t a total definite." The President added that, while he could not be sure of the dates these attacks just may occur on, it would probably be somewhere between January 21st and 23rd.

Spend a few days in freeperlandia, if you have any doubts on the topic. The freepers may not be representative of Middle America, the current undecideds and unsures, but a few obsessive days of tv broadcasts of smoke and rubble in the Heartland is going to skew a lot of opinions in their direction. Bush hit what, %90 support after 911? I even had some empathy for the mf'er, in the days immediately thereafter, right up until he started ranting about evil, and getting Bin Laden, dead or alive.

McCain campaign adviser Charlie Black is getting ripped for suggesting that a terrorist attack would bode well for the GOP nominee. Black quickly apologized for it, John McCain just as quickly distanced himself from it, so I have no desire to make hay with it here. My questions is rather, is it even true?

It's safe to assume that through 2004 it probably would have helped the Bush administration and thus the Republicans. But what about now, in 2008? Well, hard to say. And much of the eventual reaction might be a function of how bad an attack we're talking about here. If it were a London style train bombing vs an apocalyptic event topping the original 9-11 attacks, would that make a difference?

I don't think it's all clear that a terror attack would indisputably help the GOP at this point. It might even hurt them terribly. In stark contrast to the years immediately following September 2001, President Bush is about as popular as a yeast infection, the GOP hasn't been trusted on terrorism significantly more than democrats for a couple of years. Moreover, the neocons and related media and PR mouthpieces have been whining and promising for years now that everything from Iraq to suspension of the Bill of Rights is necessary because it will protect us from another terror attack, and they've done so at the myopic exclusion of virtually every other issue on the political playing field. What happens if and when that rationale is laid to waste?

Here is a recap of last night's episode of The Daily with Jon Stewart. It was a particularly good episode so while I haven't done one of these recaps in a while I feel this one is worthy.

It starts off with Jon reacting to Charlie Black's statement that a terrorist attack would help John McCain rebound in the polls. Jon then explains to the audience why terrorism helps Republicans by writing a complex formula on a chalk board. I'm not going to spoil the ending but its pretty good.

Jon also goes after Barack Obama and MoveOn.org's ads for pandering and making even people that agree it cringe. He also goes after John Cornyn's absurd "Big Bad John" commercial in Texas and they even do their own parody with "Big Jew", an elitist Jew who drinks lattes and plays chess for fun.

The interview is James Harding, the editor from the Times of London. Weigh in with thoughts, comments and opinion below: