Happy Holidays!

Stevie Wonder – One Little Christmas Tree

The Fir Tree -A Christmas Story by Hans Christian Anderson

Out in the woods stood a nice little Fir-tree. The place he had was a very good one; the sun shone on him; as to fresh air, there was enough of that, and round him grew many large-sized comrades, pines as well as firs. But the little Fir wanted so very much to be a grown-up tree.

He did not think of the warm sun and of the fresh air; he did not care for the little cottage children that ran about and prattled when they were in the woods looking for wild strawberries. The children often came with a whole pitcher full of berries, or a long row of them threaded on a straw, and sat down near the young tree and said, “Oh, how pretty he is! what a nice little fir!” But this was what the Tree could not bear to hear.

At the end of a year he had shot up a good deal, and after another year he was another long bit taller; for with fir-trees one can always tell by the shoots how many years old they are.

“Oh, were I but such a high tree as the others are!” sighed he. “Then I should be able to spread out my branches, and with the tops to look into the wide world! Then would the birds build nests among my branches; and when there was a breeze, I could bend with as much stateliness as the others!”

Neither the sunbeams, nor the birds, nor the red clouds, which morning and evening sailed above them, gave the little Tree any pleasure.

Read Full Post »

Cheney: Bush Administration Stayed Loyal To The Constitution (VIDEO)

Cheney: If president does it during wartime, it’s legal

Raw Story- Andrew McLemore
Published: Sunday December 21, 2008

UPDATE: Cheney not sure if bin Laden is alive.

UPDATE: Cheney says problems with auto industry fall to Obama.

All of President Bush’s actions during his years as a wartime leader were done with full legal authority, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News Sunday.

Asked by Chris Wallace if it’s legal when the president makes a decision to help the country when it’s fighting a war, Cheney said, “As a general proposition, I’d say yes.”

“You need to be more specific than that, but clearly when you take the oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, there’s no question about what your responsibilities are in that regard,” Cheney said.

The Vice President acknowledged that there are arguments about how Bush exercised his powers, but remained adamant that his administration stayed loyal to the Constitution.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Will Bush Officials Face War Crimes Trials? Few Expect It

Sudhan @16:45 CET

by Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers, Dec 19, 2008

WASHINGTON – Emboldened by a Democratic win of the White House, civil libertarians and human rights groups want the incoming Obama administration to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes. They don’t just want low-level CIA interrogators, either. They want President George W. Bush on down.

CONFESSED WAR CRIMINAL DICK CHENEY “It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened,” said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. “It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard pressed to see any other outcome.”

In the past eight years, administration critics have demanded that top officials be held accountable for a host of expansive assertions of executive powers from eavesdropping without warrants to detaining suspected enemy combatants indefinitely at the Guantanamo Bay military prison. A recent bipartisan Senate report on how Bush policies led to the abuse of detainees has fueled calls for a criminal investigation.

But even some who believe top officials broke the law don’t favor criminal prosecutions. The charges would be too difficult legally and politically to succeed.

Without wider support, the campaign to haul top administration officials before an American court is likely to stall.

In the end, Bush administration critics might have more success by digging out the truth about what happened and who was responsible, rather than assigning criminal liability, and letting the court of public opinion issue the verdicts, many say.

“It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened,” said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. “It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard pressed to see any other outcome.”

Robert Turner, a former Reagan White House lawyer who supported several of the Bush administration’s assertions of executive powers, but not the use of harsh interrogation techniques, said that war crimes “may well have been committed,” given reports by human-rights organizations that some prisoners may have been beaten to death.

Turner was outraged when Bush signed an executive order in 2007 that he believes permitted highly abusive treatment, so long as the “purpose” was to acquire intelligence to stop future terrorist attacks, rather than just to humiliate or degrade the detainee.

He recalls telling senior Justice Department officials during a conference call prior to the public release of the order: “Do you people understand that you are setting up the president of the United States to be tried as a war criminal?” The conference call, he said, quickly came to an end.

Turner, who co-founded the University of Virginia’s Center for National Security Law in 1981, rebuts the administration’s defense that waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning, isn’t torture and therefore is legal.

He also challenges the administration’s argument that Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibiting inhumane treatment of detainees, isn’t binding. “The standard is not torture. It’s humane treatment. That’s a much higher standard,” he said, noting that after World War II, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding on American troops.

Continued >>

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Truth was first US casualty in Iraq war: study
• Imperial presidency declared null and void
• Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now

Read Full Post »