Insurgents say they’ll end attacks if U.S. goes
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD - Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks if the U.S. agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials said yesterday.

Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups, which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting in the country has been to the west, those provinces are increasingly violent and attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.

Read the rest of this article…

Why is it that I just don’t believe that the terrorists will live up to their word on this one?

Sadly, I’m sure there are plenty of people on the left who would jump at this offer as an opportunity to negociate with the terrorists.

[Discuss over at 4 the Little Guy]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I sort of just sat back and sniggered when the Presbyterian Church (USA),after first attacking Jews decided next to go after men. How else to explain the new doctrine the Church has put into effect:

The divine Trinity - “Father, Son and Holy Spirit‘’ - could also be known as “Mother, Child and Womb‘’ or “Rock, Redeemer, Friend’’ at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church’s national assembly.

Delegates to the meeting voted to “receive’’ a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won’t be required to use them.

“This does not alter the church’s theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,’’ legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday’s debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.

A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek “fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God’’ to “expand the church’s vocabulary of praise and wonder.’’

One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son “has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women,’’ the panel said.

Apparently those of us be who believe that religion stands for eternal truths, not polling items, are just hopelessly naive.

[Read more and discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Step a-side, global warming! There’s a new panic in town that tells us that we will all die horrible deaths long before the polar ice caps melt and flood New York City. US Surgeon General Richard Carmona (long-time anti-smoking advocate) declared, in a long-winded and bloated report, that second-hand smoke is the new evil crisis facing America.

What the report comes down to, it seems, is that we more or less have to bulldoze any building that people have ever smoked in. According to Newsday, “even brief exposure, doctors say, can cause immediate harm.” A press release from Nymox states that the Surgeon General’s report “notes that even a brief exposure to second-hand smoke has immediate adverse effects on a person’s cardiovascular system.”

I’m getting the impression that non-smokers out there might be better off just smoking!

[Visit Otto to discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Now that the Supreme Court has thrown the Gitmo detainees into the US Judicial system I thought that any out of work lawyers out there might want to stop by the Washington Post. The staff at the post has teamed up with Alasra and CagePrisoners to publish a list of names and nationalities of the known detainees being held at the much maligned military facility.

From 2002 to May 2006, Washington Post researchers compiled the names and countries of origin of detainees in Guantanamo from unofficial, public sources: news accounts, legal documents (such as habeas corpus petitions and from the CSRT tribunals), interviews with attorneys and relatives, and information from detainee support sites on the Web. The Post printed only names that it had verified from a single reputable source or multiple sources. Some names were transliterated from Arabic or had alternative spellings. The collection was the largest list of names made public at that point, encompassing: more than 550.

Many names came from two Web sites that monitor the status of Guantanamo detainees: the Arabic-language Alasra and the Britain-based CagePrisoners. The two sites, which advocate the release of the detainees, have published lists of names, photographs and documents provided by families. Alasra is registered to an unknown individual in Saudi Arabia, and CagePrisoners is registered to a group of Muslim computer programmers based in Britain. [emphasis mine]

It is good to know that the New York Times and The Washington Post are there to help keep terrorists informed. Without such help I am sure that the terrorists would have to do their own research and spend their own money; and who would think of such a thing?

Thanks to the Times we can be assured that the money will go through different channels so there is no worry from the defense on that one.

Speaking of legal defense, the feds are seeking a secret jury in the Bridgeview Illinois terror case.

“The nature of the charges and the evidence supporting the charges are such to place jurors in reasonable apprehension for their safety,” prosecutors wrote. “The international reach and operation of the Hamas organization suggests that it has the capacity to harm jurors.”

The defense will argue that there is no threat by identifying the jury. However the feds claim otherwise.

in previous court filings, prosecutors have claimed there was at one point last year a campaign to intimidate a government informant who worshipped alongside Salah and his family at the Bridgeview mosque — an alleged indication of the possibility of jury tampering at trial.

I mention this because we will undoubtedly be facing the same issue with any Guantanamo detainees who make their way into the U.S. legal system. At that time we should look for the ACLU to request the identification of the jurors and the MSM to print the lists with addresses and nationalities.

Some things you hope will never come true, but…

Other News:
Don’t miss Michelle MalkinsProtest the New York Times Article (Protest on July 10th)

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Regular listeners to the Teri O’Brien Show know that ever since I went on the air at WLS in 2002, there have been two issues that we have considered more important than any of the hundreds of issues we discuss. No, not Celebrity Fit Club, or “Snakes on a Plane,” although as usual, we were way ahead of this whole “Snakes on a Plane” thing. We discussed it on the show on April 16, 2006, so much like the whole Connie Chung chanteuse routine, you heard it here first, and now you’ll hear it everywhere else.

The two issues that I consider absolutely crucial to the future of our country, and the ones we discuss so often that some of your may get sick of hearing me blather on about them, are the appointment of federal judges and the war against the head-chopping, bomb-exploding, dirty-rag-wearing, backward murderous thugs who are determined to plunge the world into darkness. Today the two issues have converged in the form of Hamdan decision. I haven’t read the whole opinion yet. It’s nearly 100 pages long, but I did note one interesting little gem from Justice Steven “if I can’t find anything in the Constitution to justify the desired result, I’ll check out the statutes in Zimbabwe” Breyer. First, Justice Breyer sniffs that “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check,’ Breyer wrote. “Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.” In other words, let’s make the administration jump through a pointless, silly hoop during a time of war. Then, as the WaPo reports, [h]e argued that far from weakening “our nation’s ability to deal with danger,” judicial insistence upon consultation with Congress “strengthens the nation’s ability to determine — through democratic means — how best to do so.” Since when is this lib so concerned about “democratic means?” You mean as in Roe v. Wade, Judge?

As we like to say on the show, the rationale of this opinion is as phony as a Chappaquiddick neckbrace. Consultation with Congress? Congress has been involved all along, beginning with the resolution passed September 14, 2001 and with the Detainee Treatment Act, passed in December, and which stripped the courts of any jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions or “other actions against any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” who is in custody and who has been determined to be an enemy combatant under procedures established by the Department of Defense.

[Read more and discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (1 Comment)

In today’s short press conference given by President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi, the American press corps demonstrated once again how pathetically predictable and disrespectful they truly are. As we watched the two leaders give their opening statements about the long list of issues they discussed, my wife and I commented to each other that the first question from the press would still be, “Are you gonna close Gitmo now?” Unfortunately, we hit the nail right on the head.

While the Japanese reporters respectfully asked questions of both President Bush and PM Koizumi, the American reporters zeroed in solely on asking questions that would serve their political agenda. Obviously, the Supreme Court decision that was handed down today is a big deal but there will be plenty of opportunities to ask questions about that. For the American press to act as if PM Koizumi wasn’t even in the room this morning, especially considering the important topics he is here to discuss, was a total disgrace.

[Read more and discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Don’t you hate people who say “I told you so”? I do, unless I’m the one saying it. This time, I’m saying it regarding the Israeli troops massed on the Gaza border. But let me back up a bit….

Last night, Mr. Bookworm, who reads only the NY Times, asked me “What the heck are the Israelis doing?” He was not pleased. My response was that the kidnapping served only as an excuse to do what the Israelis intended to do ever since Sharon withdrew the settlers and gave the Palestinians a state: they’re attacking a sovereign state. The “I told you so” in all of this is that, last year, when Sharon began the disengagement, I said (and wrote) that disengagement was a good idea because it gave Israel a sovereign state against which to act. Before, Israel had been waging war on her own territories and the world had castigated her for attacking the victims of her own imperialism. By withdrawing, Israel created a nice, bright line. The Palestinians are now governing themselves and, like any government, must abide by the consequences of their actions.

That Israel was right in the withdrawal (and that she was correct in her assessment that it made military actions easier, not harder) is evidenced, I think, by the surprising fact that the NY Times has actually blamed the Palestinians, not the Israelis, for the looming military action:

The Palestinians who futilely threw up sand berms on Gaza’s main roads to deflect Israeli troop movements were building their defenses in the wrong direction. The responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas, whose military wing tunneled into Israel on Sunday, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another. This was a follow-up to a declaration earlier this month by Hamas’s political leadership that the group’s 16-month intermittent cease-fire would no longer be observed. [Emphasis mine.]

As Clarice Feldman, writing at the American Thinker, says, “Maybe Pinch and Keller are both on vacation.”

[Discuss these insights with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Justice Thomas demonstrates why we need clear thinking Justices on the bench. Three Republican appointees sided with the left activists. Thomas’s dissent is important because it contradicts the liberal contention that this isn’t a war on terror but rather a criminal action that should be tried in court.

The plurality’s willingness to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous. - Justice Thomas in Dissent

The Court did recognize that detainees need to be held until the war is over.

Excerpt from Justice Thomas’s dissent

Moreover, the President’s determination that the present conflict dates at least to 1996 is supported by overwhelming evidence. According to the State Department, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. See Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998); Dept. of State Fact Sheet: The Charges against International Terrorist Usama Bin Laden (Dec. 20, 2000); cf. Prize Cases, 2 Black, at 668 (recognizing that a state of war exists even if “the declaration of it be unilateral” (emphasis in original)).

In February 1998, al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. See Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement 2 (Feb. 23, 1998), in Y. Alexander & M. Swetnam, Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network, App. 1B (2001) (“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”). This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. See id., at 1. In response to these incidents, the United States “attack[ed] facilities belonging to Usama bin Ladin’s network” as early as 1998. Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998).

Based on the foregoing, the President’s judgment—that the present conflict substantially predates the AUMF, extending at least as far back as al Qaeda’s 1996 declaration of war on our Nation, and that the theater of war extends at least as far as the localities of al Qaeda’s principal bases of operations—is beyond judicial reproach. And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreign affairs judgments. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 585 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, 333 U. S., at 111).

Others Blogging:

Protein Wisdom :

“But if things shake out as Lederman sees them—and after Kelo and Raich and McCain-Feingold, I’m not even sure the Constitution much matters anymore.”

Captain Ed: Bush Loses On Hamdan

Congress needs to correct this issue immedately. The mischief that this enables will not only hamstring this war on terror, but any future war we may be forced to wage.

Assorted Babble: U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Gitmo War Crimes Trials

Michelle Malkin : ‘SCOTUS WATCH: BRACING FOR HAMDAN’

Stop the ACLU: Supreme Court Rules 5-3: No Military Tribunals, Bush Overstepped Authority

| Trackback URL | Comments (3 Comments)

Update II : Good rundown at HotAir: Held: Bush overstepped authority; Geneva Conventions apply

Update: SCOTUSblog Summary: The Court appears to have held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies to the conflict against Al Qaeda.

—- END UPDATE —-

The Supreme Court invalidated Guantanamo Bay military tribunals today. This is unquestionably a blow against the war on terror.

We will have to wait for the full impact. I hear that Justice Bryers cited international law (no surprise).

The vote was 5-3 because Chief Justice Roberts recused himself due to a previous ruling he had on a related case. Anthony Kennedy and Souter voted in line with the liberals on the court.

This decision will give the terrorists due process rights that they didn’t previously have. This is a sure victory for the left who want the war prosecuted in the courts.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Congress did not take away the Court’s authority to rule on the military commissions’ validity, and then went ahead to rule that President Bush did not have authority to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the “military commissions” illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The vote was 5-3, with the Chief Justice not taking part.

The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government’s power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan “for the duration of active hostilities” to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, “in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.” - SCOTUSblog

Andrew McCarthy wrote the following pre-mortem before the decision:

For pre-mortem, though, I’ve been poking around, and it seems like there’s a prevailing view that if — as expected — the decision comes out in favor of Hamdan, the theory will be that al Qaeda does have Geneva Convention protections.

Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance. (Compare this.) The Constitution consigns treaty-making to the political branches, not the courts, but a conclusion that Geneva protects Hamdan (and, by extension, his fellow savages) would ominously mean that the courts, under the conveniently malleable guise of “customary international law” can rewrite treaties to mean whatever they like them to mean.

More at The Corner

Michelle Malkin : ‘SCOTUS WATCH: BRACING FOR HAMDAN’

Stop the ACLU: Supreme Court Rules 5-3: No Military Tribunals, Bush Overstepped Authority

| Trackback URL | Comments (1 Comment)

Via Reuters:

GAZA (Reuters) - A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

“The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead” at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

Why aren’t the television news networks showing any sincere interest in this story? They are spending a twice as much time reporting on the flooding on the east coast as they are on this extremely volatile situation in Israel.

I understand that the flooding is causing a tremendous amount of damage for the people who live there; however, the potential impact of the Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip is far greater. More often than not, the statements coming from the terrorists are full of crap. But if they are being honest about launching a chemical warhead into Israel, it will drastically alter any future efforts towards Middle East peace.

[Read more and discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)