I Don't Think They Are From Around Here...

25 Indicted In Meth Trafficking Case

KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Prosecutors said 25 people were indicted in connection with an investigation into methamphetamine trafficking in the Kansas City area.

Prosecutors said the drug ring was running a more pure form of meth known as ice, the kind that is imported from Mexico.

Charged in the indictment are:
Baltazar Quiroz, 27, Kansas City, Mo.
Uriel Lopez-Montejano, 41, Whitfield, Neb.
Hector Eduardo Garcia-Gallardo, 38, Las Vegas, Nev.
Araceli Lozano-Miranda, 29, Kansas City, Mo.
Luis Lozano-Miranda, 21, Kansas City, Kan.
Francisco Armando Lopez-Montejano, 28, South Sioux City, Neb.
Jorge Carrillo-Chavez, 33, Wakefield, Neb.
Javier Dozal, 28, Kansas City, Kan.
Secundino Arias-Garcia, 29, Kansas City, Mo.
Hugo Chavez-Cadenas, 39, Grand Prairie, Texas
Jose Jimenez-Alvarez, 44, Kansas City, Kan.
Maricela Naranjo, 34, Independence, Mo.
Guadalupe Ruiz, 42, Kansas City, Kan.
Marisela Ruiz, 21, Kansas City, Kan.
Francisco Javier Ruiz-Najera, 38, Kansas City, Kan.
Steven Luttrell, 49, Kansas City, Kan.
Vincent Ray Marez, 24, Ottawa, Kan.
Betty Sue Marcos, 36, Kansas City, Kan.
Servgio Mosqueda-Hernandez, 34, Kansas City, Mo.
Baynard Jack Sitlington, 45, Ottawa, Kan.
Kurtis Wall, 34, Richmond, Kan.
Robynn Woods, 36, Ottawa, Kan.
Jesus Monoz, 18, Kansas City, Kan.
Fabiola Uribe, 28, Kansas City, Kan.
Carlos Dozal-Alvarez, 29, Kansas City, Kan.

Thirty Years

Made with Morpheus Photo Morpher

CLICO bailed out by T&T Government

Wuhloss. News out of Trinidad is that powerhouse CL Financial is near collapse, and the Government has to come to its aid. Check out the story here.

Meanwhile, Chairman of Clico Holdings here in Barbados, Leroy Parris, is assuring everyone that all is well locally. All I want to know is Duprey boy, wuh happen?


Photo: www.caribimpact.net

Rihanna does Super Bowl + Congrats to Oscar nominees

Rihanna performed last night at the pre-Super Bowl Pepsi Smash concert in Tampa, Florida and based on the pics, her S&M bondage theme is still going strong in 2009.

During her set, she performed Rehab, Disturbia, Shut Up and Drive and Breaking Dishes.





Well, at least she didn't have a wardrobe malfunction like a certain person did a few years back....

Congratulations to Oscar nominees Viola Davis and Taraji P. Henson, who were nominated in the category of Best Supporting Actress for their roles in Doubt and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button respectively.


Taraji P. Henson


Viola Davis

Viola Davis is new to me, but I remember Taraji P. from her role in the Oscar-nominated Hustle and Flow in 2007, when her co-star Terrence Howard was nominated for an Oscar.

Hmmm. First Denzel and Halle broke the long Oscar drought in 2002, then along came Jamie Foxx in 2005 and Jennifer Hudson in 2007. Could this be another year of African American glory at the Oscars? We'll find out on February 29.

Photos: www.theybf.com

Parental Promises vs. Parental Ethics

Back in September of last year I wrote about my daughter's desire to get her lip pierced and the Great Compromise.

In a nutshell, I said NO to any facial piercings or any tattoos until she turned 18 and didn't need my permission. In exchange I reversed my position on her previous request to get her belly button pierced.

I specifically remember asking her what her mother said about this arrangement and her reply was "As long as you are willing to take me and sign the permission slip it's OK with her, but she won't do it."

I remember thinking that seemed a bit strange. Either she agrees or doesn't agree...what difference does it make which one of us takes her and signs the paper?

Well. Got a voice mail from the 2nd ex tonight. GTO desperately wants to get her lip pierced for her birthday on Sunday. Told her mom she promised not to wear it around me.

I called the ex back and explained the Great Compromise. Turns out GTO's version of her mother's position wasn't exactly accurate. The ex was dead set against the belly button piercing or any other piercings. Period!

In fact, GTO used that as an example of something that I was willing to do in spite of her mother's objections, therefore, her mother should be willing to do this over my objections.

Yeah, we ain't playing that shit.

Her mother and I have reached an agreement that neither one of us will agree to or authorize any more piercings for GTO. Not no where, not no how, not no way.

Which means, I will be forced to go back on My Word. Something I've never done before.

But I'm mostly OK with it for a couple of reasons.

As our marriage was crumbling and we were going through a painful divorce, we agreed to always put GTO first, to always present a united front, and to never, ever, let her "play" us.

And that is exactly what GTO tried to do. She tried to play me by misrepresenting her mother's position, and she tried to play her mother by throwing me under the bus!

That doesn't make her a bad person. It makes her a 15 year old girl who wants something.

But I feel like my promise to allow her to get her belly button pierced was obtained under false premises and that voids My Word.

So, because I value the input from my friends and readers, what do you think?

Is a promise a promise? Should I have kept My Word regardless?

Or is it more important for both parents (no matter how much I may despise the crazy bitch) pull together and present a united front when it comes to what's best for the child?

Discuss.

For Some Of My Friends

Some of my female friends are having a rough time. So here are some tunes for them.



Amy Rigby "Cynically Yours"

Harry Nilsson "You're Breaking My Heart"

Das Boot

Jurgen Prochnow is one hell of an actor, but that doesn't change the fact that I have some fucked up feet!

I have my dad's feet.

I remember growing up watching him take a safety razor to the thick calluses on the balls of his feet.

PROBLEM

SOLUTION

Oops! Wrong photo! Sorry!

SOLUTION REDUX

So of course, I treated my calluses the same way. On more than one occasion I have had to seek medical treatment because I trimmed a little to deep. Got me some pink (and not the good kind). Once, I even drew blood. That was stupid.

Of course, I don't inflict that graphic shit on my readers. Unlike SOME people.



DAYum! That's some fucked up shit, emaw!

Anyway, about 25-30 years ago I had a surgical procedure where they go in through the top of the foot, lift up the joint between the metatarsel and the phalange.


This reduces the pressure on the ball of the foot and mostly keeps the calluses from forming.

This was mostly successful for many years.

Then, about a year ago, as I was trying to start some aerobic walking to lose some of the weight gain I experienced after quitting smoking, I started having sharp pains in the arch of my left foot.

I went to my doctor, he couldn't find anything wrong, so he said "Let's start with the foot wear."

He sent me to a specialist shoe place who diagnosed the problem as Plantar Fasciitis. They sold me some obscenely expensive walking shoes, some arch supporting orthotic inserts and a wedge for my left heel.

That mostly solved the problem on those depressingly rare occasions when I actually engaged in aerobic walking.

Mostly I just stuck the orthotic devices in my cheap-ass, WalMart work shoes which helped greatly with my decidedly non-aerobic casual strolls downtown, feasting on the lunch time eye candy.

In recent weeks, I started experiencing a lot of pain in the top of my left foot.

I blamed it on my cheap-ass, WalMart shoes. Fucking WalMart!

It finally got to the point that my foot was swelling up and I could no longer accomodate my swollen foot and my orthotic inserts in the same shoe. So I took the inserts out. Which caused my Plantar Fasciitis to flare up and cause pain in my arches. So like a porn star, my foot was getting it from both directions.

Last Thursday, I finally went to my doctor and got a referall to a podiatrist and made an appointment for this afternoon.

Diagnosis - In addition to my HAWESOME Plantar Fasciitis, I now have a stress fracture in my middle toe. This is the source of the swelling and the pain when the podiatrist drilled his fucking thumb into the Ground Zero of my foot.

TREATMENT: Boot Cast and 500mg Naproxen tabs.

The Naproxen is no big deal. I've taken it before.

But the Boot Cast I have to wear for the next 3-4 weeks is The Bomb.


It's all High Tech! It even has Velcro and other Space Aged Materials.

Back when I had my first foot surgery, I had an oak plank strapped to my foot with some hemp rope. If you stepped on a pebble you had a 3 dimensional see-saw for a shoe.

But this thing is kinda cool! I don't mind wearing it because it actually stops the pain by completely immobilizing the foot and ankle.

But it's not very stylish.

Maybe I can pimp it up!

It looks a little like the Apollo 11 moon boot.


Maybe I can slap a NASA logo on the side.


But it's also kinda like Iron Man's repulsor boot.


Maybe I could slap a Stark Industries logo on the boots.



I'm open to suggestions.

How can I pimp-up this prosthetic device in order to keep me getting laid for the next 4-6 weeks?

Hep Me! Hep Me!

Obama's Cabinet picks

Obama might be the focus of attention in the White House, but he'll need a few good men and women to help him run the affairs of the state. Click here to see a rundown of his confirmed and selected Cabinet picks so far.


Of course in our part of the world we're waiting to see if nominee Eric Holder, whose parents are Bajan, will become the USA's first black Attorney General. Hey, right now the sky's the limit. Yes He Can!

The Provenance of a Delicious Injustice

So, after sleeping in a bit this morning, I'm trying to decide whether I should go downstairs and make some breakfast or just jump in the shower and go to the Outlaw Cigar event where I can get free beer and free BBQ for my first meal of the day.

If you've never started your day off eating FREE BBQ and washed it down with FREE BEER with some bikini clad eye candy for desert, well, you're probably married.

Poor, dumb bastard.

Been there, done that!

TWICE!

Like all of my life's important decisions, I threw it open to the twitterverse to let my close friends, passing acquaintances and perfect cyber-strangers decide what I should do.

It's my favorite way of avoiding accountability these days.

One of my blogger/twitter buddies suggested I make something called "bacon & egg cups".

Given the fact that this particular blogger ain't hooked up right, in his head...


...I was immediately suspicious having been previously burned on his recommendation of 2 Girls, 1 Cup.

But further due diligence on my part revealed "bacon & egg cups" to be the following.

Take a muffin pan, line the sides of the cups with slices of bacon, crack an egg into each cup and stick it in the oven at 350 for 20 minutes.

That's it. Could anything be simpler?


They were fucking awesome! I don't think I will ever eat bacon & eggs any other way.

Can you imagine having a house full of guests (or a special overnight guest...oh, wait, I forgot, you're married...never mind) wanting breakfast? You can crank out bacon and eggs with culinary military precision!

I like to sprinkle the top with some salt, pepper and a little bit of shredded cheese. This morning I had some biscuits and grape jelly, and a tall glass of cold milk to go with. Fucking awesome!

You may be saying to yourself,

"I can clearly see where the 'delicious' part of the post title applies, but what's all this about some 'injustice'? What gives, XO?"

Well, I'll tell ya, It all has to do with the provenance of the whole concept of bacon & egg cups.

As I said, the concept first came to my attention through a tweet from a seriously fucked up human/chimpanzee hybrid of dubious credibility who somehow managed to marry way above his station in life and successfully reproduce.

Science run amok. The only explanation.

But apparently he first found out about them from a tweet by "The D"


I think I know what the "D" stands for (doofus).

The D in turn found the dish on the blog of the person who first introduced it to our somewhat inbred little group of local KC bloggers.

Finally, it appears that Pensive Girl acquired the recipe from Dine & Dish.

So, we have a very simple and delicious breakfast with a complicated and convoluted history.

But wherever it came from, it's fucking awesome and I'm having it again tomorrow.

Who's in?

Shontelle's 'Battle Cry' video

I don't know 'bout you all but I'm still in Obama celebration mode. I've posted up the video of Shontelle's inspirational anthem 'Battle Cry', which was part of the wonderful album released last year to highlight the significance of then Senator Obama's campaign. Enjoy.

President Obama's first day in office

Well, after all the pomp and pageantry of yesterday's inauguration, it was all business today as President Barack Obama spent his first day in the Oval Office. According to the blog Young, Black and Fabulous, Obama worked on Guantanamo Bay legislation, White House salaries and conducted an Open House.





Do your thing, then, Mr. President.

Photos: www.ybf.com

Rihanna performs at the Inaugural Ball

Home girl Rihanna performed at the Recording Industry Associaiton of America Feeding America Inaugural Ball at D.C.’s Ibiza nightclub.



Hmmm. Is that yet another tattoo I spy?

Inaugural Balls and more

Hey, peoples! Hope you all had as good a night as I did. Thank God it's a holiday here in Bim today, 'cause I'm exhausted from watching the inaugural parade and all those balls. I don't know how President Obama and the First Lady managed to attend all 10 balls 'cause I was just tired watching them proceed from event to event.

Oh, what a night. The Prez and First Lady Michelle looked hot and their dancing skills weren't half bad either. For those of you who missed their dance at the Neighbourhood Ball to Etta James' 'At Last', sung by Beyonce, here it is:



Pure sweetness.

I also came across an interesting morphing slideshow of all 44 Presidents, from George Washington to Barack Obama, which you can check out below.

US Presidents - George Washington to Barack Obama

Celebrities galore turned out to the inaugural balls, and you can check them all out over at Young, Black and Fabulous. Enjoy.

Finally! A Real One!

This isn't from some bogus Nigerian diplomat.

This is from an honest (if a bit repetitious and ungrammatical) woman who has correctly identified me as a "God fearing person that will use this fund to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons."

Oh yeah, babe! My regular readers will vouch for me. I'm all about fearing the God and succoring the poor. I do that shit all the fucking time! Those long lags between blog posts? It's because I've been out poor succoring.

Can't get enough of indigent folk. Bring 'em on! My house is full of 'em. I can't walk from the kitchen to the patio to grill a rib eye without stepping over 3 or 4 indigents.

*****

God have laid in my heart to donate part of my late
husband wealth to any God fearing person that will use this fund
to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons.

kindly contact me,The spirit of God have laid in my heart to donate part of my late
husband wealth to any God fearing person that will use this fund
to provide succor to the poor and indigent persons.

Send your reply to this
E-mail address:diannewalter01@hotmail.com

sincerely,
Dianne Walter(Mrs)

*****

See, I can tell this isn't some Nigerian scam because it comes from (Mrs) Dianne Walter. That's an American name. Clearly not Nigerian.

I am so emailing this poor widow. Maybe I'll even get laid out of the deal.

Ahhhh. That's Better!

The Official George W. Bush
"Days Left In Office"
Countdown:

0 DAYS
0 Hrs 0 Min 00.0 Sec

Click Here To See BackwardsBush.com

The era of Michelle O

I'm sure you all know about the iconic style of the late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, or Jackie O as she was affectionately known.

Well, there's a new First Lady in the White House and her name is Michelle O. Here's a pictorial of the sartorial elegance of Mrs. Obama. The photos were taken over the past three years and are provided courtesy of www.chicagotribune.

Barack Obama sworn in

In my 36 years, I've seen the Berlin Wall fall and Nelson Mandela released from prison. Now, I'm proud to say that I've lived to see an African American become the 44th President of the United States.

To say it was an emotional moment to see President Obama take the oath of office would be an understatement. I'm just sorry that my grandparents aren't alive to witness what they would deem unimaginable.

Below you'll find a transcript of the President's inaugural address delivered an hour ago at the U.S. Capitol.


My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Photos: www.cnn.com

The Lasting Legacy of George W. Bush

Yes, I know those are pictures of Augusto Pinochet and not President Bush. But these are the images that encapsulate what will be President Bush's most lasting legacy.

"PINOCHET CASE BACKGROUND

General Augusto Pinochet led a 1973 military coup that overthrew democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende. According to a national truth and reconciliation commission, at least 3,196 people were killed or forcibly disappeared during Pinochet's subsequent 17-year dictatorship. Thousands more were tortured or exiled.

On October 16, 1998, British authorities detained Augusto Pinochet in London on an arrest warrant issued by Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzón. Garzón had charged Pinochet with genocide, terrorism, and torture committed during the Chilean dictatorship.

Although Garzón's complaint included several Spanish victims, the majority were Chilean citizens who had been killed or tortured in Chile. Garzón's case was therefore largely founded on the principle of universal jurisdiction-that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world.

In November 1998, a panel of British law lords ruled that Pinochet did not enjoy immunity from prosecution as a former head of state and could be extradited to Spain. This decision, based largely on customary international law, was set aside, however, when one of the judges who heard the appeal was found to have ties to Amnesty International. A larger panel of law lords heard the appeal again in March 1999, and in a 6-1 decision, reaffirmed that Pinochet could be extradited. This time, however, the majority based their decision primarily on British domestic law and limited Pinochet's extraditable crimes to acts of torture committed after the UK ratified and incorporated the UN Convention Against Torture into domestic legislation in 1988."

The last sentence in that article refers to the United Nations "Convention Against Terrorism and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"

The United States is a signatory to this international treaty.

ARTICLE 1.1
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Incoming Attorney General Eric Holder has testified before Congress that water boarding, an interrogation technique that the United States has admitted to employing, is in fact, torture.

In 2002, members of the Bush Administration, public officials and other persons acting in an official capacity, authorized the use of torture.

"On January 18, 2002, President George Bush (the decision is referenced1 in the Gonzales Memo of 25 January, 2002) made a presidential decision that captured members of Al Quaeda and the Taliban were unprotected by the Geneva POW Convention. That decision was preceded by a Memorandum dated January 9, 2002, submitted to William J Haynes II, General Counsel to the Department of Defense, by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (which provides legal counsel to the White House and other executive branch agencies) and written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert J. Delahunty.

The Yoo Delahunty Memorandum of January 9, 2002

The Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum provided the analytical basis for all which followed regarding blanket rejection of applicability of the Third Geneva Convention to captured members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Its validity is, accordingly, analyzed in some detail at the end of this discussion.


The Rumsfeld Order January 19, 2002

In a Memorandum dated 19 January, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to inform combat commanders that "Al Quaeda and Taliban individuals...are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." He ordered that "commanders should "...treat them humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, consistent with the Geneva Conventions of 1949." That order thus gives commanders permission to depart, where they deem it appropriate and a military necessity, from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.


The Bybee Memorandum of 22 January, 2002

The Bybee Memo, Memorandum of 22 January, 2002 from Jay Bybee, Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President and William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees , follows the same structural pattern as the Yoo/Delahunty Memo, but with additional analysis of certain international law/ law of war issues. Parts of it are also discussed below in some detail.

The Alberto Gonzales Memo January 25, 2002

On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a Memorandum to President Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White House has issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below) that captured members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW Convention ("GPW"), to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He advised that "there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does not apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that grounds for the determination might include:

1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or

2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."

Mr. Gonzales then identified what he believed were the ramifications of Mr. Bush's determination. On a positive note he felt they preserved flexibility stating that:

"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." He also believed the determination "...eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status." The determination, Mr. Gonzales said, also reduced the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). His expressed concern was that certain GPW language such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" are "undefined' and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be "...difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." He believed that a determination of inapplicability of the GPW would insulate against prosecution by future "prosecutors and independent counsels."


Mr. Gonzales then identified the counter arguments from the Secretary of State (See, Colin Powell Memo of January 26, 2002 pages 1,2,3,4,5) which included:

Past adherence by the United States to the GPW;

Possible limitations on invocation by the U.S. of the GPW in Afghanistan;

Likely widespread condemnation by allied nations;

Encouragement of potential enemies to find "loopholes" to not apply the GPW;

Discouraging turn-over of terrorists by other nations;

Undermining of U.S. military culture "which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat..."

In response, Mr. Gonzales says, inter alia, "...even if the GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges against anyone who mistreats U.S. personnel." He adds that, "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you have directed them to do." (Emphasis added). In light of subsequent events, that last sentence is of particular interest.


The Bush Order February 7, 2002

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an Order, (pdf copy) accepting the reasoning of the Yoo and Gonzales memos, and validating the order issued by Secretary Rumsfeld on January, 19, 2002.

From the sequence of events, and discussion by White House Counsel, it appears fairly clear that the decision by Mr. Bush, and the subsequent orders from Mssr.s Bush and Rumsfeld, were based on the Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum of 9 January, 2002. A close analysis of that document is accordingly appropriate.

The Yoo/Delahunty Memo January 9, 2002

This Memorandum is written in four parts. The first examines the 18 U.S.C. Section 2441, the War Crimes Act, and some of the treaties it implicates. The second part examines whether members al Qaeda can claim protection of the Geneva Conventions and concludes they can not. The third portion examines application of those treaties to members of the Taliban. It concludes nonapplicability because 1) it says "the Taliban was not a government and Afghanistan was not...a functioning State", 2) "the President has the constitutional authority to suspend our treaties with Afghanistan pending restoration of a legitimate government", and 3) "it appears...that the Taliban militia may have been ...intertwined with Al Qaeda" and thus on the same legal footing. Finally, the fourth part concludes that customary international law does not bind the President or restrict the actions of the United States military [under a constitutional analysis].

Although the Memorandum is questionable on many grounds, both factual and legal, a close analysis is for this casebook, both too extensive and unnecessary. An article more closely analyzing the international law/law of war aspects of the Memorandum is forthcoming. For the present the reader should note the following:

1) As long as there is a genuine issue of fact or law regarding the status of captured individual combatants who are members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 must apply, until properly otherwise determined. Article 5 of that Convention provides, in part, that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." (Emphasis added).

2) The key to whether there exists any genuine issue of fact or law resides in the Yoo/Delahunty Memo which is the authoritative basis for all the actions which follows. Leaving aside the American constitutional arguments which present no bar to a delict in international law (see,e.g. the Dostler Case) 2, the argument for nonapplicability of Geneva III rests on the argument that as a matter of fact and law the Taliban did not constitute a de facto government. The short answer is that while the position is certainly arguable, it is also very reasonably arguable that the Taliban were the de facto government. They controlled a substantial geographic territory and population, enacted and enforced laws and mandates, carried on relatively complex military operations, appointed persons to governmental posts and received diplomatic recognition from several nations. The core validity of that point is admitted, albeit inadvertently, in the following quote from the 22 January, 2002, Memorandum from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes:

Whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the detention and trial of members of the Taliban presents a more difficult legal question. Afghanistan has been a party to all four Geneva Conventions since September, 1956. Some might argue that this requires application of the Geneva Conventions to the present conflict with respect to the Taliban militia...Nevertheless, we conclude that the President has more than ample grounds to find that our treaty obligations under Geneva III toward Afghanistan were suspended during the period of the conflict... the weight of informed opinion indicates that, for the period in question, Afghanistan was a "failed state" whose territory had been held by a violent militia or faction rather than by a government....Second, there appears to be developing evidence that the Taliban leadership had become closely intertwined with, if not utterly dependent upon, al Qaeda. This would have rendered the Taliban more akin to a terrorist organization.

Memorandum of 22 January, 2002 from Jay Bybee, Office of legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President and William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees at pp 10-11. (Emphasis added).

We want to make clear that this Office does not have access to all of the facts related to the activities of the Taliban militia and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the available facts in the public record would support the conclusion that Afghanistan was a failed state...Indeed, there are good reasons to doubt whether any of the conditions were met.

Ib at 16.

What is of particular interest in this analysis is the emphasized language. It is that of argument, not fact, and what it seems to effectively admit is that there is indeed some doubt as to the status of the Taliban detainees. That, of course, triggers the requirements of Geneva Convention Article 5 for a competent tribunal to determine status, and mandates treatment as a POW until the tribunal is held. Indeed, Judge Bybee later discusses Article 5. See also, the references by Justice O'Connor in the plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004), to "the Taliban regime" and "the Taliban government," 124 S.Ct at 2635-2636, and her statement that "active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan," id. at 2642, as well as Justice Souter's concurrence in which he points to the Government's Brief saying "the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees." Id at 2658.


"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act, and having fallen into the hands of the enemy," article 5 of Geneva III requires that these individuals "enjoy the protections" of the Convention until a tribunal has determined their status. As we understand it, as a matter of practice prisoners are presumed to have article 4 POW status until a tribunal determines otherwise. Although these provisions seem to contemplate a case-by-case determination of an individual detainee's status the President could determine categorically that all Taliban prisoners fall outside article 4. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President posesses the power to interpret treaties on behalf of the Nation.He could interpret Geneva III, in light of the known facts concerning the operation of the Taliban...to find that all of the Taliban forces do not fall within the legal definition of prisoners of war as defined by article 4. A presidential determination of this nature would eliminate any legal "doubt" as to the prisoners' status, as a matter of domestic law, and would therefore obviate the need for article 5 tribunals.

Ib at 30-31.

This argument presents an interesting question of domestic law as to whether a Commander in Chief can order a violation of international law by making a factual finding unsupported by independent evidence. Could one charged under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) assert as a defense that as a matter of domestic law there was no grave breach, even though it was clearly a violation of international law? The answer to that proposition is beyond the scope of this discussion, although it appears questionable. What the argument does not do, however, for the same Dostler Case) reasons above discussed, is present any defense to charges by any other Geneva III signatory charged to prosecute perpetrators of grave breaches wherever they may be found.


3) No Article 5 tribunal (see, Army Regulation 190-8, Section 1-6) has been convened or held regarding any captured member of Al Qaeda3 or the Taliban.

4) Accordingly, any such persons are protected by the Third Geneva Convention until a competent tribunal determines otherwise. It appears quite certain that such a determination if it did occur, would not operate retroactively to validate actions by captors which were otherwise violations of the rights of protected persons.

5) That protection is not merely procedural. As long as the Convention protects an individual, grave breaches of its provisions constitute a breach of both U.S. and international law.

6) Article 130 of the Convention provides that grave breaches include "... any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention."

Thus, the Bush Orders of January and February, 2002, denying Geneva Convention protection to captured members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda appears inherently flawed. Acts carried out in furtherance of those orders, if themselves violations, might, accordingly, constitute war crimes.

_____________________________________

1: "On January 18, I advised you that the department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPWIII) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised that the DOJ’s opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and accordingly that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW." Gonzaelz Memo, 25 January, 2002.

2: Those arguments present a startling analogy to the arguments raised by defendants at the post World War II Nuremburg trials, and elsewhere, that, because they were required by national law to obey superior orders, they had an absolute defense against war crimes committed in carrying out those orders. That so called Nuremburg defense was, and has been since, roundly rejected. The point is, of course, that whatever their validity under U.S. national law, they present no defense to an otherwise valid charge of a war crime under international law.

3: The status of an al Qaeda detainee is, of course, problematical and fact driven. Often, it appears most closely analogous to pirates or common criminals. The problem arises if captured persons functioned, as alleged in the Yoo/Delahunty Memo, as an intertwined part of al Qaeda. Given the amorphous nature of al Qaeda, on any given day the individual's status might be as a Taliban fighter, an irregular militia supporter, a Taliban agent, a terrorist or a common criminal."

In a nutshell, the position of the Bush administration has been "The United States does not engage in torture. Therefore nothing that the United States does, no matter how cruel or extreme can be defined as torture. None of this legal shucking and jiving protects members of the administration from being subject to the terms of the treaty.

"ARTICLE 2

...

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

So none of legal manueverings of the Bush adminstration's Justice Department can exempt it from the prohibition on torture.

Furthermore,

"ARTICLE 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by ant person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature"

This means that the United States, as a signatory to this treaty, is obligated to prosecute and punish anyone that we find to have engaged in torture as defined by this treaty.

"ARTICLE 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offense referred to in Article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. ..."

2. Such State shall immediately make a inquiry into the facts.

...

ARTICLE 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in Article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in Article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to it's competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in Article 5, Paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in Artice 5, Paragraph 1."

The longest legacy of the Bush administration will be the impact of their willingness to violate international law and torture prisoners and the legal repercussions this will gave on the cabinet level officials of the Bush Justice Department, State Department and Defense Department.

A lot of former high ranking officials (Rumsfeld, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo, Delahunty) are going to have to lawyer-up and prepare for years of court battles around the world.

They will be forever confined to the borders of the United States and dependant upon the grace and protection of future administrations. Knowing that they could be thrown under the bus at any time in exchange for some short term political capital.

If they so much as go on a ski trip to Switzerland, they could be detained, tried and prosecuted under international law for complicity in torture.

Remember that even in 2009, there are still investigations and prosecutions ongoing against members of Hitler's Third Reich. No amount of time, no international borders can provide refuge against international outrage and justice.

The Bush legacy will reverberate in international courts of law for decades.

Don't let the door of the White House hit you in the ass on your way out, Dubya.

Obama feted at the Lincoln Memorial

The Presidential inaugural festivities kicked off yesterday with the 'We are One' celebration at the Lincoln Memorial.



With the imposing statue of Abraham Lincoln serving as a backdrop, musicians paid tribute to the man who will be the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. Mary J. Blige, Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, John Legend, Bono, Cheryl Crow and others performed at the stirring ceremony to a massive crowd of appreciative, if chilled supporters.



Of course the cute First Kids, Sasha and Malia, were there to support their Daddy.



You can watch the video of Obama's speech at the Lincoln Memorial below.



Tomorrow's the big day, peoples! Where will you be at 12 noon?

Photos: www.ybf.com