[QUOTE=ewmayer;525652]@Bolton firing - that couldn't come soon enough. I wonder if the decisive moment when Trump realized that these true-believer neocons are truly, willing-to-burn-the-whole-world nuts was the attempted runup to a hot war with Iran and the done-shootdown incident that got Trump to blink.[/QUOTE]It seems that [i]Il Duce[/i] was not only going to meet with the Taliban (and Afghanistan's president) at Camp David -- Bolton not having been consulted --but had also planned to meet later in New York with Iran's President Rouhani. Bolton's f:censored:ing head must have practically exploded.

[i]Il Duce[/i] was all set to meet the Taliban, almost on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. He wanted to "look them in the eye." Like Dubya wanted to do with Putin. I'm pretty sure [i]Il Duce[/i] had Jimmy Carter in mind when he planned secret talks at Camp David. Then, one car bomb, one dead US soldier, and he abandons the whole thing.

I never understood why [i]Il Duce[/i], who has often expressed noninterventionist sentiments, wanted to hire a hawk like Bolton in the first place.

I wonder who [i]Il Duce[/i] will turn to next. Richard "the Prince of Darkness" Perle? Paul Wolfowitz? Like Bolton, they were among Dubya's advisors, and led the charge into war with Iraq. Wolfowitz is the one who said the Iraqis would "greet us as liberators." Which, by longstanding custom, they do by throwing shoes at them.

[url=https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/terrorism-watchlist-lawsuit-ruling/]Secret Terrorism Watchlist Found Unconstitutional in Historic Decision[/url] | The Intercept
[quote]In the dark, nearly two-decade long history of America’s war on terror certain initiatives stand out. The rendition and torture of suspected terrorists around the world. Drone warfare. Warrantless surveillance of private citizens. And the creation of watchlists, shadowy and opaque in their construction, with devastating consequences for communities caught in the dragnet.

In the summer of 2014, The Intercept published the secret rulebook behind those lists. The 166-page “Watchlisting Guidance” detailed the process by which the U.S. national security apparatus adds individuals to the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, better known as “the watchlist” from which other lists — such as the no-fly list — are built.

The document revealed a staggeringly due process-free system in which the government was routinely affixing the word “terrorist” to an individual’s name and disseminating that information to a sprawling network of foreign and private partners, with virtually no evidence required to support the claim.

In a post-9/11 world, this murky system disproportionately impacted Muslims, though U.S. lawmakers and infants were also caught in the mix. Armed with the government’s own rulebook, and the firsthand experiences of nearly two dozen plaintiffs, lawyers at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, began a multiyear challenge to the secretive system. On Wednesday, the attorneys were rewarded a historic ruling, with a federal judge finding that the watchlisting process had violated their clients’ rights.

“I’ve literally never been so happy,” Hassan Shibly, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and attorney at CAIR’s Florida office, said at a press conference Thursday. “For the last 15 years, I, and millions of American citizens like me, have been treated like second-class citizens by the government, and yesterday the court vindicated us. The court said what we’ve been saying all along, what I’ve personally been saying to DHS and CBP and the White House and Congress for the last 15 years: that how DHS has been treating Muslim Americans when they travel, it’s unconstitutional. It’s un-American. It’s unjust. It’s oppressive.”
...
Being added to a watchlist can seriously damage a person’s reputation, Trenga went on to write, describing the cascading effects inclusion on such a list can have on an individual’s interactions with important, often powerful, institutions. When a person is placed on the watchlist (typically unknowingly and frequently without suspicion of links to criminal activity), the judge wrote, that information is shared with more than “18,000 state, local, county, city, university and college, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies,” not to mention an additional “533 private entities” and foreign governments.

“These private entities include the police and security forces of private railroads, colleges, universities, hospitals, prisons, as well as animal welfare organizations; information technology, fingerprint databases, and forensic analysis providers, and private probation and pretrial services,” the judge wrote. “The dissemination of an individual’s TSDB status to these entities would reasonably be expected to affect any interaction an individual on the Watchlist has with law enforcement agencies and private entities that use TSDB information to screen individuals they encounter in traffic stops, field interviews, house visits, municipal permit processes, firearm purchases, certain licensing applications, and other scenarios.”

In other words, Trenga wrote, inclusion on such a widely shared, yet secret and potentially consequential list, raised the possibility that the traumatizing experiences the plaintiffs had at the border and the ports — “being surrounded by police, handcuffed in front of their families, and detained for many hours” — could be replicated in the interior of the country as well. “In short,” he wrote, “placement on the TSDB triggers an understandable response by law enforcement in even the most routine encounters with someone on the Watchlist that substantially increases the risk faced by that individual from the encounter.”

Since The Intercept published the government’s watchlisting guidance five years ago, advocacy groups have steadily chipped away at the system, often in proceedings before Trenga, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008. In 2015, Trenga found that the government’s redress system for getting off of its no-fly list — which is almost as opaque as the system for getting on the list — was constitutionally inadequate. Trenga’s ruling on Wednesday built on those proceedings, which had previously found that the government’s watchlisting category of “suspected terrorists” was “based to a large extent on subjective judgments.”[/quote]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;525657][url=https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/terrorism-watchlist-lawsuit-ruling/]Secret Terrorism Watchlist Found Unconstitutional in Historic Decision[/url] | The Intercept[/QUOTE]The Wikipedia page on the judge in this case, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Trenga]Anthony Trenga[/url], has some interesting facts. Nominated by Dubya, confirmed by the Senate, and commissioned in 2008. The "Notable cases" section is interesting.

Makes me wonder if [i]Il Duce[/i] might want to comment on Judge Trenga's latest ruling. :whistle:

Hmm. Summary judgement for Plaintiffs. The Court has [quote]further ORDERED that the parties are to submit any additional briefing as to the outstanding issues to be resolved in this matter within 30 days of the date of this Order, with replies to each other's positions filed within 14 days thereafter.[/quote]I believe the "outstanding issues" are the [i]remedy[/i] that will be imposed by the Court.

Stay tuned...

Some thoughts on 9/11
 

I was reading a "conservative" piece, [url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/afghanistan-airport-security-turn-toward-pre-9-11-mindset/]The Turn Toward a Pre-9/11 Mindset[/url] by Andrew C. McCarthy, who opined[quote]There is wisdom in making national-security decisions political rather than legal. The law strives for rigorous logic, a one-size-fits-all balancing of public-safety concerns against individual rights. Over time, judges reliably expand both the ambit of these rights and the categories of entitled individuals -- to include even non-Americans who bear no responsibilities of citizenship, and even enemies who make war on Americans.[/quote]Dude. In the first place, the Plaintiffs in [i]Elhady v. Kable[/i] are all US citizens. In the second place: Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In particular, the Fifth Amendment, which says [quote]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/quote]That hasn't "expanded over time." It's been there since the founding of the Republic.

What are the first three words? [i][b]No Person shall[/b][/i]. The "due process" clause says that [i][b]No Person shall[/b][/i] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Yes, what constitutes "due process" differs, depending on whether the person is a citizen or not. But that is moot here, since the Plaintiffs in [i]Elhady v. Kable[/i] are all US citizens.

Political decisions on security can not (lawfully) circumvent the Bill of Rights. And judges are bound by the law. Judge Trenga's summary judgement for Plaintiffs means their claims of violation of "due process" rights and also of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were valid, i.e. that the TSDB "watchlist" was structurally Constitutionally insufficient and in violation of the APA [i]as a matter of law[/i].

Mr. McCarthy is saying that, if the political winds are blowing favorably, we can simply disregard the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the law into a nullity.

In that case -- if the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the law must bow to the politics of the currently perceived "threat environment" -- then the terrorists have already won. Without individual liberty and the rule of law, there is no USA left to fight for.

For an alternative interpretation, you might like to read [url=https://www.justsecurity.org/66105/elhady-kable-what-happens-next-why-a-judges-terrorism-watchlist-ruling-is-a-game-changer/]
Why a Judge's Terrorism Watchlist Ruling is a Game Changer: What Happens Next[/url].

Craig Murray has some interesting commentary re. weaponized identity politics by the state in [url=https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/john-boltons-dismissal/]John Bolton's Dismissal[/url]:
[quote]Which brings me to my point on identity politics. I had to push my way into this event through a crowd of angry students who were picketing the event in protest against the appearance of Julian Assange.

Yet the very night before, serial war criminal John Bolton, one of the most evil men of power in the world, had spoken on the very same platform in the Oxford Union and not one single student had demonstrated against him. His reception inside was also on the fawning side. (Remember this is the venue that spawned the careers of David Cameron, Boris Johnson, William Rees-Mogg and others).

That incident is to me is a microcosm of the use of identity politics by the state. Through self-evidently flimsy allegations, the state can mobilise feminists to silence the world’s most important dissident voices, while warmongers are feted. Enough “progressives” favoured Clinton’s faux-feminism to help ditch (aided by some cheating) Bernie Sanders’ bid for a better life for the mass of people. Here in Scotland the energies of the SNP are routinely diverted into gender and trans issues instead of getting on with Independence, while precisely the same tactics are employed against Alex Salmond as against Julian Assange, to take another major threat to the status quo out of the political game.[/quote]

The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52271.htm[/URL]

I hope that this is not a duplicate. If so, apologies.
It is Craig Murray on Julian Assange.

I am a frequent visitor to Murray's site, but chose to link to the post on Information Clearing House. It is a collector of many other non-MSM views, and I recommend it.

Edit: Sorry for the lack of quotation from the article.
[QUOTE]September 15, 2019 "Information Clearing House" - We are now just one week away from the end of Julian Assange’s uniquely lengthy imprisonment for bail violation. He will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continue to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA – a process which could last several years.

At that point, all the excuses for Assange’s imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the “evidence” disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for “jumping bail”. The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publishing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.

In imprisoning Assange for bail violation, the UK was in clear defiance of the judgement of the UN Working Group on arbitrary Detention, which stated

Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge. The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,

In repudiating the UNWGAD the UK has undermined an important pillar of international law, and one it had always supported in hundreds of other decisions. The mainstream media has entirely failed to note that the UNWGAD called for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe – a source of potentially valuable international pressure on Iran which the UK has made worthless by its own refusal to comply with the UN over the Assange case. Iran simply replies “if you do not respect the UNWGAD then why should we?”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;525889][URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52271.htm[/URL]
[quote]At that point, all the excuses for Assange’s imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the “evidence” disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for “jumping bail”. The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publishing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Assange is being held pending his extradition hearing, on the grounds that he is a flight risk.

[QUOTE=kladner;523918]It may eventually end the war, but a lot of blood and oil will be spilled before the end.


[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52119.htm[/URL]
-Moon of Alabama
AP article on the drone strike:

[URL]https://apnews.com/9edb1f71010847f2b321d1951997e797[/URL]
How Iran (probably) Acquired A Stealth Drone

[URL]https://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/12/how-iran-probably-acquired-a-stealth-drone.html[/URL][/QUOTE]The strikes by these drones turned into flying bombs have jumped to prominence in world news. You will almost certainly notice it at the pump...

[url=https://www.apnews.com/d20f80188e3543bfb36d512df7777cd4]Saudi Arabia: Drone attacks knocked out half its oil supply[/url]

[url=https://www.apnews.com/269744b35e16422fa746b0c1504ceb4f]Trump: US locked and loaded for response to attack on Saudis[/url]

Iran almost certainly does [i]not[/i] bear [i]direct[/i] responsibility for the attacks, but it would be IMO completely idiotic to claim they bear [i]no[/i] responsibility for what their proxies do.

One possible bright spot for all concerned. There are reports that some of the attack drones have been captured. If these reports are accurate, it raises the prospect of devising an effective defense. That would IMO beat a full-scale war all to heck...

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525923]I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Assange is being held pending his extradition hearing, on the grounds that he is a flight risk.[/QUOTE]Got it in one.

Let's leave aside that a federal judge has ruled that Wikileaks committed no crime in publishing. The judge based this ruling on the quaint notion of Freedom of the Press, [STRIKE]implicitly[/STRIKE] (or explicitly, not sure) classifying Assange as a journalist.
Oh, here we go:
[URL]https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/us-federal-court-exposes-democratic-party-conspiracy-against-assange-and-wikileaks[/URL]

[QUOTE]The judge labeled WikiLeaks an [U]“international news organization”[/U] and said [U]Assange is a “publisher,”[/U] exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: “In [I]New York Times Co. v. United States[/I], the landmark ‘Pentagon Papers’ case, the Supreme Court upheld the press’s right to publish information of public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525927]The strikes by these drones turned into flying bombs have jumped to prominence in world news. You will almost certainly notice it at the pump...

[url=https://www.apnews.com/d20f80188e3543bfb36d512df7777cd4]Saudi Arabia: Drone attacks knocked out half its oil supply[/url]

[url=https://www.apnews.com/269744b35e16422fa746b0c1504ceb4f]Trump: US locked and loaded for response to attack on Saudis[/url]

Iran almost certainly does [i]not[/i] bear [i]direct[/i] responsibility for the attacks, but it would be IMO completely idiotic to claim they bear [i]no[/i] responsibility for what their proxies do.

One possible bright spot for all concerned. There are reports that some of the attack drones have been captured. If these reports are accurate, it raises the prospect of devising an effective defense. That would IMO beat a full-scale war all to heck...[/QUOTE]
It certainly might be Iran applying "countersanctions by other means" against the U.S., using its Houthi proxies in Yemen - and knocking half of SA's oil production offline for an extended period using a handful of cheap drones and poor-man's cruise missiles was a very cost-effective form of retaliation.

I don't see a strong likelihood of an effective deterrent on the horizon, either - these things are small, low, slow and likely built from low-radar-reflective materials - you can even make large portions from plywood, if you like, much like the old British Mosquito fighter planes of WW2. Basically scaled-up model planes with sophisticated - but cheap to build, once you have mastered the technology (possibly by reverse-engineering a captured U.S. drone, as the Iranians did some years ago) GPS guidance systems: A nightmare for any kind of air defense system, including the latest-greatest. An asymmetric-warfare kind of air force, if you will, in many ways reminiscent of the Japanese kamikazes late in WW2, which of course could not prevent the inevitable defeat but nonetheless did disproportional damage relative to their cost. Modern drone and GPS-tech has amplified the disproportionality, and targeting critical infrastructure of a Saudi state which built said infrastructure in the apparent absence of serious-military-foe considerations was the real hammer. The Saudis are incredibly vulnerable in terms of their dual "life fluids" - oil and water. But they, at the behest of their Clown Prince, started the war against the Yemeni Houthis and have been ruthless in its pursuit, just as Trump et al started the latest ruthless sanctions regime against Iran for no good reason other than the rabid neocons wanted it, so little sympathy from me for either of those two "victims". The Saudis will - sooner or later - be forced to sue for peace and the price will be very high, but the alternative they face is far worse.