May 15, 2009
Well the folks who got caught improperly accessing Nadya Suleman’s medical records were punished back in March. Now it’s the hospital’s turn. Kaiser Permanente’s Bellflower was fined $250K for failure to safeguarding patient confidentiality. Nadya was asked if she was going to sue Kaiser and she said, Why? She thinks they were looking for the name of the sperm donor, which she says is not written down anywhere. She said she made her doctor “shred his records”.
May 17, 2009
Imagine if Boehner made a joke about barry’s skin color and then could barely stop laughing and finished with a mocking, wazzup, barry?
Never happen, right? Until skin color and stereotype jokes go both ways the Double Standard will remain alive and well.
So it started at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last week barry tried standup…and failed. He was truly laughing AT people – making fun of skin color, being pissed on (Geithner), laughing about Larry Summers’ bedtime and sexism, Joe Biden on a leash, Hillary if you can’t beat em join em and he apologized to those terrorized by the flyover by laughing that his daughter’s did it.
Here’s what barry said about Boehner [CNN video]:
My partisan outreach will be so successful that even John Boehner will consider becoming a Democrat. After all we have a lot in common – he is a person of color – although not a color that appears in the natural world. [Laughs the most out of all his jokes.] Wazzup, John?
But Bohner was a good sport, like bring it on, barry. He said Sunday to JOHN KING on CNN’s State of the Union.
As I tell my friends, you only tease the ones you love.
To explain the skin color (does some have to do with a certain imbibed beverage or class of beverage?) he said he likes to spend time outside golfing, walking and gardening.
Yeah, I enjoy being outside.
He laughed,
I’d rather be heckled than ignored.
Source: CNN Boehner (video)
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-16)
May 17, 2009
Peterson will be in court tomorrow for his arraignment. Brodsky wants to see if he can get his bond reduced. I they’re going to let him out then the stipulation should be absolutely no press. If his bail is never lowered it’s conceivable he could never see daylight again.
From Peterson’s publicist Glenn Selig:
The following is a media advisory from The Publicity Agency, the PR firm representing Drew Peterson and his legal team:
Immediately following Drew Peterson’s arraignment at the Will County Courthouse on Monday, May 18th, his legal team led by Joel Brodsky will hold a news conference outside the front entrance to the building. Per request of the Chief Judge’s office, please set-up in courtyard away from sidewalks leading into the building.
The hearing is currently scheduled for 9:00 AM local time in Courtroom 405.
May 15, 2009
Arrest #2
Side by side video: barry/Fr Weslin
The hood of honor vs the humiliation of handcuffs
Fr Weslin/Fr Jenkins/Notre Dame posts
Updated
In Denver, for the Democratic Convention, they had a warehouse full of cages ready. Actual cages – meant for American humans who dared to speak out against barry – were lined up one after the another with razor wire on top (indoor), locks and warnings that Tasers would be used. Video of cages.
I wonder if they have something like that set up in South Bend and if Father Weslin ended up in it, and whether he was encaged after his arrest in Denver.
On Friday (15th), 19 people were arrested on the campus of the once Catholic University, Notre Dame, including 78 y/o Father Norman Weslin, founder of The Lambs of Christ, a non-violent Catholic pro-life organization. They protest by praying outside abortion facilities. They don’t throw bloody entrails at scared teenagers or plot abortion clinic bombings or attempt to mastermind assassinations of abortion doctors and nurses. They believe in the sacred Teachings of the Church, the sanctity of life being the most precious.
Fr Weslin took a sacred vow to defend those Teachings and that’s what he and his “Lambs” were doing. Praying the Rosary and singing in protest of a Catholic University’s awarding an honor to a man, who not only believes abortion is legal, but voted against providing medical treatment for a fetus that somehow managed to survive the attempt on its life. A vote that man still lies about.
What type of Catholic priest would Fr Weslin be if he said nothing?
A Notre Dame faculty member, perhaps?
The President of the University, who sold his soul for an honorary award and photo op?
Leading off the protest was the ever-vocal ALAN KEYES, who has made no secret of his disdain for barry. The first arrested, his parting words:
I call on all Christian people to bear witness this betrayal of our faith.
Then came something I hope I never see again as long as I live. A nonviolent Catholic priest, on the grounds of a Catholic University, protesting the most sacred tenet of the Catholic Church, dressed in full habit, was taken to the ground, had his hands forcibly handcuffed behind his back and then was humiliatingly laid out on a blue fabric “stretcher” and hauled away like a piece of meat.
It is the most shocking thing I have witnessed directly related to barry’s actions.
Watch the video yourself.
No matter your views on abortion, embryonic stem cells, religion, politics or barry himself, ask yourself, honestly, if this makes you proud of your president and whether it makes you proud as an American. And then ask yourself if any award is worth what was done to this priest. His dignity stripped as he was taken to the ground with no regard for his habit, his hands pulled behind his back and then carried off like a lamb to slaughter.
Answer to your own conscience.
And then realize it isn’t quite 4 months into barry’s term.
ptsalt
Father Norman Weslin is being assisted by someone and appears unsteady on his feet. He truly cannot understand why they are arresting him even though he has been arrested many (>50) times, resulting in serious injury. This time, though, he is on what should be home territory – the campus of Notre Dame University.
I understand his incredulity.
Why should a Catholic priest have to protest against a Catholic University to uphold the Teachings of the Catholic Church?
It boggles the mind. Worse is the papal silence (until today – another post) and lack of outrage among Catholic Bishops and Cardinals.
(0:26) Father is told he is being arrested.
Bystander: God be with you, Father.
Bystander: Bless you Father.
Bystander 1: Bless you Father, in the name of Jesus. It’s a shame for Notre Dame today.
Father begins to sing and bystanders join in.
Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing,
You reign now in Splendor with Jesus your King.
(1:00) Father drops to the ground and four policemen surround him. He is not resisting – just trying to sing – and he is winded by the manhandling.
Disgusted bystander 1 repeats: Shame! Shame on Father Jenkins! [President of Notre Dame]
Father continues to sing:
Ave, Ave, Ave Maria,
Ave, Ave, Ave Maria.
He doesn’t pull his hand away while Policeman A slips a piece of rope over his wrist and pulls his hand behind his back – the other already behind him. They don’t have the decency to speak with him – he is manhandled and treated like a Saturday night drunk: impersonally and hear we go again.
Father continues to sing:
In Heaven, the Blessed, Your glory proclaim…
His hands are so high behind his back he has to bend forward.
Bystander 1 says something about Obama and it’s a Catholic University and ain’t nobody saying anything.
Except for her.
Father is still bent forward with his knees on the bare ground with three full-sized men and a woman trying to tie him up. He is not resisting – he continues to sing:
...On earth, your children invoke your sweet name…
Bystander 1 berates someone and repeats: Shame! Shame! Shame!
It is reassuring that one human being acknowledged what she was witnessing and made her thoughts known. Halfway through the arrest, after she begins to cry, her voice is no longer heard. One wonders what was done to her and by whom?
Father continues his singing:
....Ave, Ave, Ave Maria.
The policemen are still trying to bind his hands behind his back. The cameramen and photographers and reporters say nothing as they hover like pirahnas.
Maybe it look different through their lenses.
Father Weslin was not treated with respect and he was not given the simple deference a Man of God deserves. There was absolutely no need to handcuff his hands in the back. They could have handcuffed him in front so he could still hold his rosary and retain his dignity – something that should go unsaid.
It speaks volumes of all present, especially Policeman A, who appears to be in charge.
Father continues singing to Jesus’ mother:
Immaculate Mary, Your praises we sing,
Bystander 1 is crying.
Father starts to tip – with his hands secured behind his back, he is unable to balance himself. It’s remarkable how supple he is with his legs bunched under him.
He speaks:
Notre Dame…
Slapped on the shoulders and upper arms by Policeman A.
…is putting a priest–
Policeman A then puts both hands tight across Father Weslin’s shoulders, causing Father to grimace in pain. Freeze at (2:22) and ask yourself how it makes you feel. Ask yourself if you would feel differently if it were your relative, or a Holy Man of any other ethnicity, race or religion. And if so, why?
Father continues:
Notre Dame is arresting the police. We don’t need the people out there to correct us.
Policeman A grips down on Father’s shoulders, pinning him in place on the hard cement pavement.
Imagine for a minute if this was a 80 y/o black priest and four white policemen were videotaped doing the same. Would there be outrage?
What if it were an Imam outside a mosque?
Father looks into one of the cameras, incredulous:
We-we-we’re Catholic priests. Why are you arresting a Catholic priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? Use your mind. What are you doing that for? Why are you arresting a priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? You’ve got it all backwards. They’re trying to hurt the policemen so they shut up. That’s what you do. That’s why you’ve got this whole problem.
He seems confused. I don’t quite get what he means about the police. Policeman A puts a tag on a piece of rope around Father’s neck – like he’s a prize head of beef that needs identifying. Like his collar no longer identifies him.
And now you’re putting one around my neck!
Male bystander: His arms are already hurt.
Policeman A: I understand that.
Policeman off camera: Just drag him.
Policeman A, who understands that Father’s arms are already hurt, continues to yank Father by his arm to lay him down so they can haul him away. He knows and doesn’t have the humanity to untie them.
Ask yourself if the level of violence by the police matched the benign, justifiable nature of the protest and the protester’s non-resistance.
What is your threshold for police brutality?
Policeman A and Female Officer roughly drag Father back and roll him over on his left side on a thin blue stretcher with his hands still bound tightly behind his back. After he is given a final shove and knee by Policeman A, (3:20) Father says :
Land of Freedom!
Poignant words coming from an ex-Army man who defended this Land of Freedom with his own life for 2o years.
Bystander or cameraman: Wow. I can’t believe I am seeing this.
What do you hear in his voice?
I choose to believe he is uttering it in disbelief and disgust, rather than vicarious entertainment. And I, too, cannot believe what I am seeing: people standing by and doing nothing to help a 78 y/o non-violent Man of God.
What was going on inside the bystanders’ and officers’ heads? Inside their consciences?
Bystander 1 can no longer be heard.
Male bystander: His arms were broken by the last police officer.
Said loud enough for all to hear, and yet Father is left on his side having to hold up his head with his hands bound behind him. He is not resisting. And as the bystanders start to sing, Policeman B holds the blue stretcher material right up to Father’s face, who clearly cannot move it away himself. He can’t move because Policeman A has his boot on the blue material and his leg and knee tight against Father’s lower back, like he’s propping open a door.
Look around. Look at all the cameramen and regular folks talking pictures as a 78 y/o Catholic priest lays in full habit on the ground with his hands bound behind him, the blue edge of the stretcher material in his face and a leg pinning his back.
What are you feeling as you watch this?
Imagine if that were your father or grandfather.
What would be your feelings if Father was instead wearing his Army uniform?
Father begins to sing – never once complaining about his position or his humiliation or the fact that no one has come to his aid. Not even another Man of God, Pastor Rick Scarborough (who Father knows is right there), who chose to speak only when they were about to haul Father away.
Immaculate Mary, Your praise we sing,
You reign now in Splendor–
And then there’s quiet (4:06) except for the click of the camera – which even stops – as Father lays with not a single person offering to support his head. Not a single person asks him if he’s in pain. Not a single word from the four policemen who surround him. No apologies to a man who is twice their age, who served his country before they were born. No embarrassment with what they are doing to a harmless Man of God. No: I’m sorry, Father, it’s my job.
This is really hard to watch. Especially over and over to transcribe it. Each time overcome with a profound bewilderment mixed with something unnameable that my fellow Americans can do this to a Catholic priest who is doing exactly what he is supposed to.
The words I feel about the man who brought this about are untranslatable.
A full minute Father lays on the ground on his side with his hands bound behind him and Policeman A’s leg propping him up from the back and Policeman B & C holding up the blue material in front of him. He is being restrained like a common drunk – like he is about to get up and flee or become combative.
Finally, they lift him up and struggle as they haul him away. Father, still not uttering a word of protest or complaint.
This was not a big group. There were no agitators. Bystander 1, the vocal protester with a conscience, was somehow silenced. Police and security were there waiting and yet it took four full minutes to arrest 78 y/o man who was not fighting them.
Now recall how Policeman A said he knew about Father’s injuries. That means he knew who he was and was expecting him. So why not a simple wheelchair?
If nothing else, why not hoist Father Indian style between two policemen with another in front and back?
They could have removed him from the scene in a minute – the time he laid on the ground helpless and defenseless while bystanders and professionals took pictures and videos like he was an exhibit at the zoo.
Would you want to be laid out like that?
Would you like to witness your parent or spouse laid out like that, helpless with a pack of silent humans surrounding them?
Why the need for the complete humiliation of a peaceful Man of God, who was not in any way resisting?
And why is it a Catholic priest can’t walk freely onto the campus of a Catholic school to peacefully proclaim his faith and stand up for what he believes?
The absolute sanctity of life is what all Catholics should believe in, including the President of Notre Dame, Father Jenkins, who knew Father Weslin was going to be arrested, and yet, as evidenced, made no special provision that Father Weslin be treated with dignity.
Why were there no Notre Dame priests or nuns protesting Father Weslin’s manhandling?
Why were there no Catholic students sympathetic to the cause protesting on campus legally?
And the biggest mystery of all?
Why was a Catholic priest arrested for protesting abortion on the campus of a Catholic University, which has a Catholic priest as president?
May 17, 2009
May 17, 2009
Nice up-to-date article on Popeater.
Here is his new single “Seven Mile Breakdown” from his second CD “The Distance” over which he had complete creative control.
Best advice Simon Cowell gave him:
“He told me, ‘Keep working and keep trying.’ He told me that I didn’t win American Idol for nothing, and I have a bright future ahead of me.”
Fr Weslin/Fr Jenkins/Notre Dame posts
Arrest #1
Comparison video of POTUS & Fr Weslin respective welcomings
May 16, 2009
Same principles, same priest, a new day, another arrest.
However this time it takes 30 seconds — not 4 humiliating minutes - to arrest and remove Father from the scene. It is done discretely, respectfully and without violence. Without yanking on Father’s previously broken arms, without twisting them behind his back, without handcuffing him, without manhandling him to the ground, without placing a demeaning tag around his neck, without rolling him over on the hard ground – his wrists still tightly bound behind him – and pinning him between the leg and boot of one policeman and the edge of the blanket-type stretcher held by two other, and without making him lay exposed and defenseless, while cameramen, photographers and unfazed bystanders, film, shoot and gawk like they’re at the zoo.
(0:28) Fr says he is not leaving. Police say they need to arrest him for trespassing, call for a blanket, gently put him onto it and leave. (1:oo)
Where is Father resisting?
He was arrested for Trespass and Resisting arrest.
Video and description courtesy of TheEveningPrayer
Norma McCorvey (formerly Roe of Roe v. Wade) is stopped and turned away Notre Dame University during peaceful pro-life demonstration. 18 PEOPLE JAILED with Pro-life Father Norman Weslin (a Catholic priest), arrested the second time this week by the Catholic (but pro-abortion) Father Jenkins at NDU who plans to honor President Obama.
May 15, 2009
He doesn’t use the word torture but does use terrorist.
From the WH website. Bullets and emphasis added.
Statement of President Barack Obama on Military Commissions
Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts. In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.
Today, the Department of Defense will be seeking additional continuances in several pending military commission proceedings. We will seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process. The Secretary of Defense will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions.
The rule changes will ensure that:
These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-16)
May 16, 2009
Here is Gloria Allred’s statement about her new role representing spokesperson for Drew Peterson’s fiancee, Christina Raines.
Who do you think made the call? And if Drew ever gets out what are the odds Allred will let Raines move back in?
Today, I can confirm that I will be representing Chrissy Raines as a spokesperson in the case of People v. Drew Peterson.
Chrissy, age 24, has known Mr. Peterson for many years. This year they became romantically involved and she lived on and off with him for part of this year. She cares for him and believes that he cares for her. They did have plans to marry once the divorce from Stacy Peterson became final.
Chrissy was shocked when Drew was arrested on a charge that he killed Kathleen Savio (his third wife). She takes no position on whether or not he is guilty of that crime or whether or not he had anything to do with the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy Peterson. That is for the jury to decide. However, her heart goes out to both families who have suffered such a terrible loss.
Chrissy may be a witness in this case. If called as a witness Chrissy plans to tell the truth.
I am in the process of applying to the Illinois Court for permission to represent her in this matter. It will be within the discretion of the Court as to whether or not to admit me for this purpose.
Chrissy has no plans to do any interviews at this time. She wishes to maintain her privacy both at work and at home. Chrissy asks that the press not contact her, since she will not be making any comment, and will simply refer everyone to me. Any such contact with Chrissy will be viewed by me as attempted harassment of a potential witness.
I look forward to working with Chrissy Raines and protecting her rights in this very challenging, emotionally tumultuous, high profile case.
Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing
Chrissy Raines
May 15, 2008
Updated: Drew Peterson posts
Gloria Allred statement re: Christina Raines
May 15, 2009
I can’t find out anything about Christina Raines and Gloria Allred. Her website takes a week to get currentIt does appear that Allred will be working as spokesman and that there is a possibility her client Christina Raines may have to testify – but that is clearly way down the road. And how much does “Chrissy” have to say?
On Chicago Breaking News, STEVEN SCHMADEKE writes that Allred will be “representing…as a spokesperson”. She has released a statement but he doesn’t source it so I can’t find a copy of it. [Follow link above for Allred's statement.]
On NBC they have a video running that that has no sound.
Chrissy was shocked when Drew was arrested on a charge that he killed Kathleen Savio (his third wife). She takes no position on whether or not he is guilty of that crime or whether or not he had anything to do with the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy Peterson. That is for the jury to decide. However, her heart goes out to both families who have suffered such a terrible loss.
Looks like it comes down to publicity.
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-15)
May 15, 2009
A view inside Drew Peterson’s new dwelling. He is being held in protective custody in the medical unit of the Will County Adult Detention facility in Joliet.
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-14)
May 15, 2009
See this post on our blogger site for the Video and transcript together. NBC videos don’t embed here.
Matt starts out by mentioning that Peterson was arrested in the same jurisdiction as he worked as a police sergeant.
Lauer asks if he was surprised by arrest? Listen to his lame excuse for trying to flee.
I wasn’t really that surprised. The news crews were outside and all of a sudden the news crews moved to the side of the street, which indicated to me that they were getting ready for something. So I was trying to get to the bank to make a deposit so my family would have some money in the bank account. And all of a sudden I was swooped down on.
Investigation going on for 18 months – why arrested now?
I believe that was the last day of the grand jury and I believe they had to do something. The state’s attorney, I believe, was under a lot of pressure from both tje media the and the Savio family to do something.
LAUER: Do you have idea what the state’s evidence is against you?
No idea. And the grand jury system seriously needs to be revised. I truly believe that if they wanted to they could have indicted you for this incident.
LAUER: Why do you say that?
What you have is a bunch of lay people that are in there and they’ve been sitting there for 18 months, and they are uneducated on the points of law, rules of evidence, and things like that.
LAUER: Do you have any evidence that you and your attorney can offer that can prove your innocence?
There’s all kinds of evidence available. We’ll get discovery and we’ll basically piece-by-piece take apart their case.
LAUER: What is the strongest piece of evidence that you have to prove that you’re not guilty in this crime?
Oh, that’s something you’ll have to get from Mr Brodsky. [He doesn't have anything.] I’m not at liberty to say.
He asks about Peterson’s flippant remarks. His “I guess I should have returned those library books” statement upon his arrest and his crazy comments to reporters on his way into his hearing.
LAUER: This kind of sense of humor of yours is the way you react to stress, but do you understand how it can tend to make you a very unsympathetic character in the eyes of the public?
Well, again, there’s no book written on the way I’m supposed to act. Would it be better if I hid my head down and tried to hide my face, and hunched over and have tears in my eyes? No, that’s just not me. Like i said before, I deal with stressful situations with humor. It’s worked for me in the past.
Recall that he originally covered up his face with a bandana.
Reminds Peterson that everything he does – stress relieving or not – is viewed by prospective jurors.
LAUER: What message do you think you are sending them?
I’m not trying to send anybody any type of message. It’s basically just what’s coming out.
Lauer asks him about the “Drew Peterson Law” that allows for hearsay type testimony of the deceased to be entered into evidence. Like Kathleen Savio’s letters and comments to her family – Stacy Peterson’s admission to her Pastor that she knew Drew killed Kathleen and that she had given him an alibi.
Peterson says the legislators are re-thinking the law – which was just used successfully. Have to post that.
That Lauer brings up the mixed polygraph results of a polygraph he took for Derek Armstrong’s book. Peterson passed the questions relevant to Katheen Savio but was deceptive on 3/6 questions about Stacy.
All of the questions about Kathleen I passed with no question.
Peterson says the deceptive questions were about ‘did I know where she was’ and ‘where she is now’ and did I remove her er….and then there’s a pause. He says he’s says he’s not sure what they were but that he passed the questions about did he remove her from the house or hurt her in any way with the answer that he did not.
LAUER: You did not really participate in any search for her – why?
Well, they were searching in weeds and bushes and I don’t believe she’s in weeds and bushes. I believe she’s out there somewhere living her life away probably from the State of Illinois.
What is life like in prison?
I’m being treated pretty exceptional. This is a brand new facility — the Will County Jail in Joliet….The staff’s very courteous and professional. And the facility is very new.
LAUER: What kind of cell are you in?
I’m in a cell where I’m pretty much isolated from everybody. Kind of tsolation. The only contact I have with people are the guards and the people who bring me my food.
LAUER: You’ve had no visitors?
I’ve had one visitor (his fiancee). I get two visitors a week and there’s no contact–it’s over a video machine.
Who’s taking care of his children? Savio children boys 16 & 14. Stacy’s children 5 & 4.
My older son is taking care of them and I have phone contact with them daily, and they’re doing very well.
LAUER: How have you explained this to them?
Well, the older two, they know what’s going on. They’re aware of what’s happening. And the younger two — I’m just, uh, with the police right now, helping them.
LAUER: You told them you’re actually out helping the police trying to find their mom?
I didn’t say I was trying to find her, but I just said I was helping the police. And I believe that is what my son has told them.
Any chance he can come up with $2M to get out on bond?
No. But they’re working on a bond reduction hearing, which I believe is scheduled for Monday the 18th.
LAUER: Have you given consideration, Drew, to the possibility that you may never be free again? That you may be held until trial and found guilty at trial?
Right. I’m also thinking I may be released on bond and you know probably be found innocent.
No one is ever found innocent – just guilty or not guilty.
Is there anything he want’s to say to potential jurors?
He almost made it the whole way without letting his arrogance take over. But insults the potential jury pool instead. It seems no one in Illinois is qualified to judge him because they are all just uneducated lay people. He thinks there should be legislation passed to educate jurors on the rules of evidence before they are seated. Thing is he already has a law named after him..
Lauer brings up the fact that Drew had always expected he would be arrested in regards to Stacy but what about Kathleen Savio?
No I never really expected to be arrested in either case. I’d hoped that it hadn’t happened. Now that it’s happened, we’ll have to move forward and defend it.
Thanks…
Matt, have a good day.
Having a tough day?
Brenden Foster, an 11 y/o boy with terminal leukemia and two weeks to live, had two final wishes: to help feed the homeless and to save the bees by spread wildflower seeds. He asked that the sandwiches be half ham and cheese and half peanut butter and jelly in case someone was allergic to peanuts. A retired pilot heard about Brenden and asked his pilot and flight attendant friends to sprinkle wildflower seeds around the world on Brenden’s behalf. Several days before he died, Brenden got out of bed, off the oxygen, and went to buy a video game. I don’t know if he got to play it or if it was in fact for him. To help Brenden and his mom, The Seattle Seahawks’ players paid for his funeral.
I compiled quotes I found in other videos. This video is from November 7, 2008. The interviewer Elisa Jaffe (KOMO 4 TV) Bothell, Washington. He died November 21, 2008.
CNN video via TheSexyPatriot
BRENDEN, after seeing a homeless camp:
I was getting back from one of my clinic appointments and I saw this big thing in the middle full of homeless people. And then I thought, I should just get them something. They’re probably starving, so, give them a chance.
That the country, even the world responded:
I think that is great. You think that’s great?
JAFFE: What are the best things about life?
Just having one.
About death:
I should be gone in a week or so.
It happens. It’s natural.
I had a great time.
And until it’s time–my time comes, I’m going to keep having a great time.
His one question for God about his death:
Why at so young an age? I could have done more.
But if it has to be now, it has to be now.
JAFFE: What’s your message to the children, sweetheart?
Live life to the fullest.
JAFFE: What gets you sad?
[Tears flowing quietly] When someone gives up.
Grandmother, Patricia McMorrow:
He has had the joy of seeing all the beautiful response to his last wish. It gives him great peace. He knows that his life has meaning.
He doesn’t have much time….24, 48 hours. Course we never know. That’s up to God.
He’s ready. He’s told us that the angels have come three times and he’s ready to go with them.
Mother, Wendy Foster:
He’s always thought about the better of others – wanting to help. He’s never complained about having to got through this. Never.
He’s left a legacy and he’s only eleven. He’s done more than most people ever even dream of doing just by making a wish.
I have been so blessed to have this child – a mother couldn’t ask for a better son.
It’s devastating. But I find great peace in knowing we’ve had our time together and that we sill see each other again.
Every night after he was diagnosed he and his mother thought of three good things that happened during the day and they had to laugh.
A chuckle will do. But a fake laugh is not a laugh.
He died in his mother’s arms, amazed a young boy could make such a difference. His last wish? To become an angel and accomplish more in heaven than he did on earth. His final message:
Follow your dreams.
Don’t let anything stop you.
Brenden “B-man” Foster
October 4, 1997 – November 21, 2008
May 15, 2009
Well, the showdown is set and it’s just what every Hawk fan wanted. Defending Stanley Cup champs Detroit Redwings will take on the young and fearless Blackhawks to decide the Western Conference.
Here’s the schedule. Good luck getting tickets.
Kudos to John McDonough for surpassing the 1M mark.
GAME 1: Sunday, May 17 at Detroit, 2:00 p.m. NBC
GAME 2: Tuesday, May 19 at Detroit, 6:30 p.m. VERSUS
GAME 3: Friday, May 22 at Chicago, 7:00 p.m. VERSUS
GAME 4: Sunday, May 24 at Chicago, 2:00 p.m. NBC
If necessary:
GAME 5: Wednesday, May 27 at Detroit, 6:30 p.m. VERSUS
GAME 6: Saturday, May 30 at Chicago, 7:00 p.m. VERSUS
GAME 7: Monday, June 1 at Detroit, 6:30 p.m. VERSUS
May 13, 2009
Anderson Cooper discusses barry’s reversal on the release of the torture photos. With him are Ms Amrit Singh of the ACLU and GOP strategist Kevin Madden. I’ve watched and read this several times and have come to my own conclusions. I’ve also read Ms Singh’s initial argument from her Huffington Post entry from March discussed here.
Do you think Ms Singh ever makes her case?
Is there anything else than “the public needs to know”?
The very same public that has been polled with the majority saying they did not want a torture investigation. I don’t know if they have been polled directly on whether they think the photos should be released. I’ll have to check.
Do you think Ms Singh has an ulterior motive?
If so, what you think it is?
VOTERSTHINKdotORG
CNN TRANSCRIPT (Starts at 3;55)
COOPER: Nevertheless the president at the very least hopes to delay their release, saying that making them public now would cause harm to U.S. troops. Joining me now is Amrit Singh of the ACLU, who you saw in Ed Henry’s report. Also Republican strategist Kevin Madden. Amrit, what is wrong with the president trying to protect American troops and tamp down any anti-American sentiment?
SINGH: It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can know the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that took place in its name. President Obama’s decision today really does make a mockery of his promise of transparency and accountability.
COOPER: But why are these photos are so essential? If it’s already known what happened? If there’s already been reporting about it, why the photos so essential?
SINGH: Because they convey information that has not been conveyed before about what the abuse actually was. It’s important for the public to see for itself exactly what was done to these victims of abuse. It is only through public airing of these photographs that individuals who authorized torture and prisoner abuse can really be held accountable for what’s depicted in these photos. If they’re suppressed, how will the public know what was done in its name?
[Goes from essential to important. No explanation of how the photos are going to lead to accountability.]
COOPER: Kevin, everyone wants to protect American troops. What about transparency? What about the truth? Doesn’t that matter?
KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I disagree entirely with the argument that showing these photos would be essential. I think what’s essential here and the argument that President Obama has made is national security indications, implications of releasing them and the fury of propaganda that would be unleashed against U.S. forces overseas.
I think — I don’t have to see a body to know there’s been a murder, but I think if the police were to present enough evidence, we could make that argument. I think what has happened here is that we have seen punishment of these people who have engaged in detainee abuse. That’s what’s most important and moving forward and understanding the national security implications of not releasing these photos.
COOPER: Kevin, is knowing what happened in Abu Ghraib the same as seeing the photos in Abu Ghraib? You could have had a report about well some detainees were abused in the Abu Ghraib prison, but to actually see what happened to them, didn’t that open it up in a way that the truth wouldn’t have been known before?
[The photos from Abu Gharib are released. They are out there for folks to see. Yes, it opened up the truth in a shocking and visceral way that memos could not. And the president said that the photos in questions are not comparable to Abu Gharib. There is no argument there.]
MADDEN: Well, I think what’s important to remember, Anderson, on that point is that a photo is in of itself an event, it is not a pattern. And what we saw with those photos were events of detainee abuse and events that were eventually investigated and then punished. I think what the left is doing, the anti-war left is trying to use this event, trying to use these photos to make an argument — to use them as a vendetta against the Bush administration. And in that process, what they’re doing is essentially smearing the country as a country that condones detainee abuse and condones the torture, when in fact we don’t.
[Bingo. Though they have started to realize that Nancy Pelosi's fate also hangs in the balance and she didn't do herself or the rest of the Democrats any favors yesterday. And they know that barry's fate is intertwined with Pelosi's. He sat in the Senate at some point - even though he made sure to mention that all this took place before he took office.
How often and how vehemently did he protest waterboarding before it became a campaign issue? And are there still folks among you who belief he is actually going to close Gitmo in a year? Have you read the fine print in his executive order? If you needed a hint the military tribunals he was going to abolish are set to resume. With the caveat that none of the information gained through torture is admissible. barry at his most expedient best.]
COOPER: Let me ask Amrit about that because don’t we actually now know that these are not just isolated incidents, that there is actually a pattern from policies that were made by the Bush administration to things that were done in Guantanamo and then were done in Bagram Air Base and then were done at Abu Ghraib. There is a connection.
[If they are already connected he discounts his argument that the photos would be new information.]
SINGH: Absolutely. And that photograph that you just showed of Lynndie England dragging a prisoner on a leash on the ground is a reflection of policies that were put in place by Secretary Rumsfeld at Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed Al Kahtani was subjected to the same techniques at Guantanamo Bay. He was led around on a leash naked and what you see in those Abu Ghraib photos is a direct link to what was authorized by the highest levels of officials.
[She is making an argument about another - separate - lawsuit, which I do believe has come in to play with this issue. From her face and the tone of her words she finds Lynndie England disgusting and she has great anger toward Rumsfeld. Take careful note of what stirs the most "outrage" in her. This tops the list as does her last statements. What do you see and hear?]
COOPER: Kevin, we know at least 100 people died in U.S. custody, at least 20 of those were investigated as homicides. Do you really believe that everybody who went too far, who committed abuses has already been brought to justice? You think we already know all there is to know?
MADDEN: Well, I think that we can only go based on the evidence we have, and I think the military has in place –
COOPER: But the evidence we have are those photographs, we’re not going off those.
MADDEN: Well I think we have enough evidence within the military and procedures put in place to investigate these detainee abuses and make sure that those that do engage in detainee abuse are then punished. I think that what happens with these photos is that they would sensationalize actual events that have taken place and make it seem that it was not just a pattern, but a widespread pattern, when in fact that’s not the case.
[What was the point of the photographs in the first place?]
COOPER: Amrit, to the point about protecting American troops, particularly at a time when the war in Afghanistan is at a critical juncture, as if frankly the war in Iraq, there is a strong argument though that this inflame anti-American passions and potentially harm U.S. troops.
SINGH: But what is the limit of that argument? If gross human rights violations have been committed, do you sweep them under the rug because they will cause outrage? In a democracy, it is essential to air this information. President Obama –
[Back to the academic "essential" and abstract "in a democracy". They have not been swept under the rug. They have been documented and the people responsible are being sanctioned. The photos - no matter how much she wants to believe - will not make the gross human rights violations any more or less heinous.
Torture is absolute.
Showing photos is not going to change that. Ever. What was done to those men is done. It cannot be taken back or undone. Torture should not - in an circumstance - be used. But handing those photos to America's enemies would directly lead to violence and torture of Americans. An absolute undeniable fact - whether or not one chooses denial or willing disregard.
The very fact that Ms Singh uses the term "outrage" demonstrates she has not taken into account the fact that the US is at war. Our enemies do not deal in "outrage". They deal in blind hate toward any and all Americans and even those loyal to our cause. They deal in beheadings, genital mutilations, rape, child marriages, acid and poison gas attacks on little girls wanting simply to educate themselves. They encourage their own relatives to blow themselves up to further their own fame. They bomb their own innocent civilians to blame it on the US. They use violence for violence sake, which she herself says.
One wonders what is blocking her sight?
And the limit is one American. Allowing those photos to get out would directly lead to the generation of more evil. The evil depicted in the photos begetting more evil.
No matter how she couches it with "the public needs to know" - no good can, or will ever, come from those pictures. Never. That is undeniable fact that she has chosen to subjugate to her own motivation.]
COOPER: No matter the implications?
SINGH: Well, look, we live in a dangerous world, but the terrorists have no dearth of pretext at their disposal to conduct violence. That’s a fact. I mean, they can generate false information. They can conduct all the violence they want without the release of these photographs.
[Precisely. They already hate. They already murder and torture indiscriminately. They are evil incarnate. They don't need propaganda. And supplying it to them would give them a false sense of justification. Evil never justifies the propagation of more evil.]
SINGH: So to pick on these photographs as the cause of violence I think is a grave mistake. There were people who suffered immensely, the victims of torture depicted in these photographs. It’s for their sake and for the sake of future victims of torture that these photographs must be aired.
[Her argument does not follow. There is absolutely no cause and effect. And, again, she completely glosses over the effect the photos will have in a time of war - even after admitting herself that our enemies engage in unprovoked attacks. So why provoke? Which, undeniably, is what the photos will do and it is all they are capable of doing. The photos inherently will not bring about accountability or prevent future torture and she knows that.
She laid out the argument against their release and didn’t even realize it – because her argument is based on emotion. She has a personal stake in the matter. What, I don’t know. And the mere fact she does not acknowledge it and instead uses “the public needs to know” says a great deal about her own character.
Read and listen. Her own words make clear she doesn’t care about what happens after they are released. That she is interested only that they be released. That she cares only about those already tortured, who, again, cannot be untortured. And though she pays lip service in the last sentence to “future victims” she does not have the simple integrity to acknowledge that the “future victims of torture” will be Americans and that it will be directly because of the photos.
Who does she think she is fooling?
There is no doubt that what was done to them was unconscionable and never should have happened.
There is no doubt that the violation of their human rights needs to be documented and acknowledged and those responsible held accountable – all of which is being done and all of which can be accomplished independent of the photos release. Release of the photos will not lead to accountability because they already have been held accountable or will be. That’s a fact.
Whatever evil was perpetrated on those men does not IN ANY WAY justify the use of that evil to promote more. And that is what will happen if those photos are released. And that is what she knows will happen and she demonstrates no concern. She comes from a mindset that I would like to know more about. It is a mindset of vengeance and an eye for an eye. She is not concerned with the use of evil already perpetrated to promote fresh evil and justifies it by saying their evil already exists. This for her is personal and she does not have the integrity to admit to it – illegitimizing every one of her arguments.
I wonder if she is aware how naked her motivation is?
She doesn’t in the least bit care about “the public”. Airing those photos will make the tortured in those photos martyrs and she knows it. And the line about it’s for their sake and the sake of future victims is as disingenuous as it gets.
What she is admitting is that she does not trust barry to keep his promise of not torturing. Because if she did – if she actually listened and heard what he had to say – she would realize how utterly foolish that last statement is. And by saying it – she makes clear that she doesn’t care what happens to American servicemembers. That she is 100% willing to put her own selfish motives ahead of their safety and security.
One has to wonder on what side of the pond her loyalties lie.
———
ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release
May 14, 2009
This is what Amrit Singh, counsel in ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense lawsuit wrote in her March 8, 2009 Huffington Post entry as the primary supporting argument for why more torture photos should be released.
Can anyone find in her words the justification for putting American servicemembers’ lives at risk? Or find evidence that she ever even considered it?
SINGH: The public value of these images is considerable. As visual records, they convey what words could not possibly communicate. As evidence of abuse at locations other than Abu Ghraib, they undermine the Bush administration’s claim that abuse was aberrational. The disclosure of these images is critical to help the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as the extent to which such abuse was caused by policy decisions. Disclosure is also crucial for assessing official responsibility for the abuse.
This is a generic legal argument that has no personality or understanding of the propaganda nature of the photos and what their release would mean to actual human beings – American human beings in a time of war. She has variably said they are essential, important and considerable – all three very different. They are either necessary or not.
There is not a single word as to who would directly benefit from their release – just the nebulous “public” – the majority of whom said they do not want to see an investigation, even though they say what was done was torture and unacceptable. “The public” has thought it through and concluded that the consequences are unacceptable.
Undermining the previous Administration’s past claim is not worth the present and potential risk to American servicemen and women.
The disclosure of the images is not critical to anyone or anything – including the assessment of official responsibility. And present decisions are not dictated by policies that were in place when the photos were taken.
And here is why Ms Singh believes barry should do it. She, a lawyer, actually believes barry’s claim of transparency, despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary during his campaign and in his first 100 days.
SINGH: Indeed, withholding the prisoner abuse images would seriously undermine President Obama’s recent directives on government openness. One of those directives expressly prohibits the government from “keep[ing] information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”
She is equating the release of pure propaganda that would lead – with 100% certainty – to the torture and harm of Americans with “embarrassment” and “speculative or abstract fears”. Suit her up in a uniform and put her at the front of the line and then ask her if it is an “speculative” or “abstract” fear.
It seems Ms Singh doesn’t fully grasp that the US is at war and that what she is demanding would directly aid the enemy. Or that there is true meaning behind the phrase “in the interest of National security”, which in this case would be the security of the Nation’s citizens aka “the public”. Including the military, the innocents living their lives like those in the twin towers and Americans traveling abroad like those in Mumbai where any old American served their purpose.
Ms Singh correctly asserts that “Congress enacted FOIA precisely to ensure government accountability”. But she doesn’t prove the causality because none exists. The release of more photos is not going to affect in any way the previous Administration’s accountability. The first act of torture was wrong. Period. End of story. Releasing 1 or 1000 more photos is not going to make the first act any more or less heinous.
The Freedom of Information Act was meant to empower The American People.
In this case, the power would be placed directly in the hands of the enemy and no where in her argument does Ms Singh acknowledge this.
=======
ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-15)
May 15, 2009
The Grand Jury heard testimony of several key witnesses today in regards to Stacy Peterson.
I thought Grand Juries were supposed to secret but evidently not.
JOEL BRODSKY: He [Carcerano] kind of told me some of the areas they went into and nothing there caused me any concern.
I don’t think that it necessarily indicates there’s gonna be an indictment. It could be simply because the grand jury’s wrapping up and they want to get all these testimonies on the record.
Recall that on April 29th on the Mancow & Cassidy Show, Brodsky said that as regards Kathleen Savio there would never be an indictment. Period. End of story. A week later his client is getting his post-indictment welcome to jail mugshot and cavity search.
Although Glasgow and Stacy’s family would like it if they handed down an indictment – it’s not a done deal if they don’t. Another Grand Jury can be convened or Stacy’s case can be added to one that is already impaneled.
May 15, 2009
May 14, 2009
barry’s prepared comments concerning his reversal on the release of the torture photos. He never says the word torture. He refers to it as conduct that didn’t conform with the Army manual.
How much did Dick Cheney have to do with it? It being past 100 days? The Generals? Nancy Pelosi? Or simple reality? The kind of reality he will eventually arrive at with Guantanamo Bay.
NewsPoliticsNews
Now, let me also say a few words about an issue that I know you asked Robert Gibbs about quite a bit today, and that’s my decision to argue against the release of additional detainee photos. Understand, these photos are associated with closed investigations of the alleged abuse of detainees in our ongoing war effort.
Operative words: war effort. Something folks seem to forget.
And I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib, but they do represent conduct that did not conform with the Army Manual. That’s precisely why they were investigated — and, I might add, investigated long before I took office – and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied.
That caveat is attached to every decision he makes. How long before it no longer applies.
In other words, this is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken.
Meaning everything that is going to be done has been done. The photos, if released, will change nothing.
It’s therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.
Honestly – why does that even need to be said out loud?
Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse. And obviously the thing that is most important in my mind is making sure that we are abiding by the Army Manual and that we are swiftly investigating any instances in which individuals have not acted appropriately, and that they are appropriately sanctioned. That’s my aim and I do not believe that the release of these photos at this time would further that goal.
Those deeds are done. The photos are not going to change that. Any and all future instances will be dealt with start to finish.
Now, let me be clear: I am concerned about how the release of these photos would be — would impact on the safety of our troops. I have made it very clear to all who are within the chain of command, however, of the United States Armed Forces that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated. I have repeated that since I’ve been in office, Secretary Gates understands that, Admiral Mullen understands that, and that has been communicated across the chain of command.
Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values. It endangers our security. It will not be tolerated.
All right. Thank you very much, everybody.
Did not take any questions.
For the first time ever I actually agree with barry. Believing he did it out of personal conviction is another matter.
ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release
May 14, 2009
Updated: Drew Peterson posts
Gloria Allred to act as Christina Raines’ spokesperson
Gloria Allred statement re: Christina Raines
Not sure why but Christina Raines – Drew Peterson’s fiancee – has retained Gloria Allred. Nadya must be pleased.
Does Raines know something about Stacy the way Stacy knew about Kathleen Savio? It would certainly fit the sociopath’s MO. Or is it for her protection? Publicity? Money? It can’t have anything to do with Peterson’s kids.
Allred will be holding a press conference tomorrow. Don’t know the specifics.
Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-14)
Drew Peterson calls Matt Lauer, collect, to chat (5-15)
May 15, 2009
Peterson has broken his silence. He talked to Matt Lauer via telephone and it will air tomorrow. Here’s a couple of questions.
This is in reference to his “I guess I should have returned those library books” statement upon his arrest and his crazy comments to reporters on his way into his hearing.
MATT LAUER:
This kind of sense of humor of yours is the way you react to stress, but do you understand how it can tend to make you a very unsympathetic character in the eyes of the public?
DREW PETERSON:
Well, you know, there’s no book written on the way I’m supposed to act. Would it be better if I hid my head down and tried to hide my face, and hunched over and have tears in my eyes? No, that’s just not me.
LAUER:
You did not really participate in any search for her – why?
PETERSON:
Well, they were searching in weeds and bushes and I don’t believe she’s in weeds and bushes. I believe she’s out there somewhere living her life.
One can only hope. It’s more likely that he knows she will never be found.
May 14, 2009
Mrs McCain’s video/comments
Rush Limbaugh’s response
Here’s Keith Olbermann’s response to Mrs McCain’s comments on Jay Leno. Jay asked her which commentators on the left bothered her. She didn’t hesitate and said “Olbermann”, prompting laughter. Jay asked why. She said she couldn’t understand someone who seemed to get pleasure from humiliating and denigrating others and that she thanked God that she didn’t have to be around people like him.
He had initially planned to use his closing rant to rebut Mrs McCain but he instead took exception to someone’s post about why he missed some days in April as if it is remotely relevant to anyone but him. He said it was because his mother died and then he got sick.
Why does he get so upset when someone does to him what he makes a living doing to others?
And how often does he google himself to find them?
Anyway this is what he had to say:
Tonight’s “WTF!?! moment” which was going to be about John McCain’s mother’s appearance on the Tonight Show. Ok. I’ll say what should have been my first thought: Good for you Roberta, defend your son.
Then he launched into a rant that is going to drive up the poster’s traffic and encourage others. When he finally took a breath, he admits hos absurdity.
I was going to do this segment on John McCain’s mother’s comments about Limbaugh and Michael Steel and me, but as this nonsense broke arouns me this afternoon, it struck me just how absurd that idea was. She was just a mother sticking up for her son. My mom would have appreciated that.
May 14, 2009
You knew he wouldn’t let it go. No way was he going to be put in his place by a woman – let a alone a feisty woman of class. Especially when he is none too fond of her son and granddaughter, who he said should leave the GOP with Arlen Specter.
Mrs McCain’s video and comments are here. She basically said she doesn’t understand who Limbaugh is or what he talks about and that he doesn’t belong to the same Republican Party as she.
From his broadcast:
McCain’s mother is dumping on me.
She’s right. She’s absolutely right. The Republican Party she belongs to get shellacked election after election after election.
Man, send McCain’s mother out to dump on me? (laughing) No, I love it. I love it. Her son said the same thing. (impersonating McCain) “He’s just an entertainer, he’s just an entertainer, got it, got it? He’s just an entertainer, he-he, he-he, he-he. He’s a clown, good clown, circus, that’s it. He-he, he-he. You got it?” I don’t know what the man means; I don’t know what the man means.
His rebuttal words speak for themselves.
May 13, 2009
Why, and for what purposes, do you need more photos released?
As an indictment of the Bush legacy? To inflame and already inflamed public? Or just to get your own 15 seconds?
We all know that torture took place. The entire world knows torture took place. The President came out and said it was torture and that it would not happen on his watch. And the already released memos, photos and videos are ample proof of what took place.
So why the need for more?
What is the ACLU really after?
Not the safety of American servicemembers or Americans traveling abroad or civilian contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The photos you are demanding be released will be plastered all over the Muslim caves and hate factories as living color incentive to kill innocent Americans – any Americans – not just the torturers.
The Muslim savages do not kill selectively. They have made that abundantly clear with their acts to date. They made it clear on 9-11. They made it clear in Mumbai. And they make it clear each time they lie and goad their family members into blowing themselves for the sake of a “Holy War” of blind hate.
You want graphic pictures?
Then call the savages what they are: hate-filled human detonators who pray to Allah to help them kill as many innocent people as they can in the name of Islam. And make clear what they do: rape and “marry” little girls, poison them with gas, disfigure them with acid and sell them to settle a gambling debt or opium habit.
You want graphic photos?
How about photos of young Muslim girls’ mutilated genitals, sliced into and hacked off while they were awake and screaming to that very same Allah to make it stop.
You want graphic photos?
How about photos of raped little girls’ genital and anal regions taken the morning after the “consummation” of their Islam-sanctioned “marriage”.
That is the torture the world needs to see. The torture of innocent newborns, toddlers, precious little girls, teenagers and women. The torture of the mothers, grandmothers, wives, sisters and daughters sanctioned and perhaps already carried out by the adult men in those photos.
What are you doing to bring those torturers to justice?
You seek to release proof of their mistreatment and yet ignore the mistreatment they willingly and with forethought and malice inflict.
They chose to get involved. They chose their path to hate, fully aware of the consequences, including possible capture and torture. The women and children they torture have done nothing but be born. And the ACLU-provided propaganda will be used directly to further the photographed’s cause, which includes the continued torture and oppression of innocent women and children.
Are you okay with that?
If so, you need to document it.
If not, you need to drop your demands.
Torture – any torture – is wrong.
There are degrees of mental, psychological and physical torture, but it is all wrong.
The first act is wrong, as is the second, third and all thereafter.
So why the need for more inflammatory photos?
How do you think they will be used to “improve our standing in the world”?
How will they contribute to the safety of your own daughters?
What do you think will happen to the brave American volunteers who are putting their sanity, lives and limbs on the line to keep your daughters safe?
How do you plan on safeguarding their civil liberties, when the photos you are demanding have no inherent benefit and will serve only to incite more hate, which will be taken out on them?
Where is your own hate being directed?
What is it you really want?
There must be something because no rational American cognizant of the consequences of the photos’ release would demand what you are demanding. Consequences that cannot be denied.
You need to explain to The American People, in precise detail, the exact function you think those photos will play. Saying they will “provide visual proof” that the torture was more widespread than thought is not reason enough.
The men in the photographs have already been tortured. Sad, and wrong, but true. Circulating additional photos will not undo what was done to them or prevent what happened in the very last photo. But they will, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, lead to more torture that you will have had a hand in.
You.
The ACLU.
Your own selfish demands will have lead directly to more torture – only this time it will be the torture of Americans. Americans who had nothing to do with what happened in those photos.
Is that your goal?
If not, you need to make clear to The American People – before the photos are released – why your needs take precedence over a single American servicemember’s safety.
You need to list the benefits of releasing those photos – before they are released – so that The American People can be perfectly clear of your motivation when they view the first “visual proof” beheading video of a non-torturing American.
And you need to document, in detail, the absolute necessity of those photos – before they are released – so that the orphans of Americans tortured and murdered as a result of your demands can take comfort in reading that justification when they bring wrongful death lawsuits against you.
Freedom of Information in this case comes with a very clear danger, which you need to document your understanding of, on paper, before the photos are released.
You need to document that you understand we are at war and that what you are demanding will be used as anti-American propaganda to directly further the efforts of our enemies.
And you need to articulate, on camera, that you understand the consequences of your demands and have deemed them secondary to your own motives.
This is not enough.
ACLU’s AMRIT SINGH:
These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib.
Any sane reasoning human being knows that. There is no need for further proof. The threshold was met with one photo. The Bush Administration is gone and the present one has sworn not to torture. Providing further photographs to the world is not going to change the past and the future has already been decided upon.
Realize, that if you continue on with your demands, it will be you – the ACLU – not the torturers – who will have endangered our troops. That it will have been ACLU-demanded propaganda that caused harm to Americans who volunteered to protect the Constitution you abstractly quote.
If you continue, be prepared to meet with the parents of brave Americans, who will have been tortured, disfigured, beheaded and killed because of your demands.
If you continue, make sure you have the courage to look them in the eye and explain why you found it necessary to force the release of the very propaganda that led directly to their child’s death and/or torture.
And make sure you can prove, during the wrongful death lawsuits brought on their behalf, that you were acting in the interests of their children’s civil liberties and not those of the avowed terrorists and unrepentant murderers of innocent Americans.
The acts of torture have already been cruelly inflicted and documented. They are not going away. And the additional photos can be viewed by whatever agency needs to see them.
But the general public does not need to see them. And the hate-filled indiscriminate killers of non-torturing Americans most definitely do not need to see them.
Just so there is no lingering confusion:
What you are seeking has no legitimate purpose, which means the release of the photos is 100% unnecessary, since ample evidence of torture already exists and the President of the United States has already stated, publicly, on record, and to the entire world – Muslim and otherwise - that there will be no torture on his watch.
What you are seeking will lead, with 100% certainty, to the torture and murder of honorable American soldiers, who had nothing to do with torture of those men in the photographs.
That means you – the ACLU – will be 100% responsible for any and all violence directly resulting from the release of those photos.
ACLU’s Amrit Singh’s justification for release of photos
To the ACLU re: release of torture photos
POTUS re: release of torture photos
ACLU’s Amrit Singh, Anderson Cooper, Kevin Madden re: photo release
May 14, 2009
Interesting movie for all you OBAMA fans: O.B.A.M. Nude. It portrays an Occidental College freshman named O.B.A.M. Occidental Births a Monster) who makes a deal with the devil. It is supposed to be a satire but I imagine that will lie in the eye of the beholder. Here’s the press release and the trailer. Funny how this got through and Hillary: The Movie did not. How was barry not able to quash this like he did the Occidental College subpoena?
From Glenn Selig:
It is already being called the most controversial movie of the year because of how it portrays President Obama: as a man who made a deal with the devil.
“It is a satirical feature that hits close to home if your home just happens to be the White House,” says producer Kenneth Del Vecchio of Justice For All Productions (http://www.justiceforallproductions.com), who has nearly 50 films under his belt with several major studios.
Following the same career path as President Obama, “O.B.A.M. Nude,” which stands for “Occidental Births a Monster,” is an independent film that tells the story of a freshman named O.B.A.M. at Occidental College in Los Angeles. O.B.A.M. snorts cocaine and smokes marijuana and makes a deal with the devil in exchange for getting into Columbia University. O.B.A.M. becomes a community organizer in Chicago and attends Harvard Law School and ultimately is elected President of the United States.
Del Vecchio says the movie is meant to make people think and stir emotion.
Calling O.B.A.M. A monster, saying he made a deal with the devil – however satirically – and showing him doing drugs will certainly stir up some emotion.
“We wanted to expose Obama as man who is looking to turn our country in a socialist direction. My greatest concern about our president is that he wants government to control people’s lives.”
“O.B.A.M. Nude” premiers at the Hoboken International Film Festival (http://www.hobokeninternationalfilmfestival.com) later this month.
To watch the trailer on NYPost.com, please visit http://www.nypost.com/spsections/hoboken/?id=1458_492710.
About The Hoboken International Film Festival
Now a regional Gold Coast/Hudson River extravaganza in its fourth year, HIFF has been heralded as “one of the top 10 film festivals in the world.” Showcasing the finest work from filmmakers across the globe, HIFF offers several star-filled screenings and events including its Oscar-like Gala Awards Ceremony on June 4 where Cloris Leachman (Academy Award/4-time Golden Globe/19-time Emmy winner and nominee) will accept the 2009 HIFF Lifetime Achievement Award. Advance ticket sales are now available for Special Screenings and Red Carpet Events.
Citizens Against ProObama Media Bias
