The Prez sitting, drinking, breathing, watching, being effortlessly amazing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dee68/dee680f1c47fc26dadf8ba1dd86600eb316aa536" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dbc58/dbc5841bba1955ede37f4c0dab1ce692376fb236" alt=""
Bikini-clad nerdery, rap music, and assorted tomboyisms.
The US defence department has lifted a ban on news organisations showing pictures of the coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defence Secretary Robert Gates said photographs of the flag-draped caskets of US war dead being returned home will be allowed if their families agree.
The move overturns a ban put in place by President George Bush Snr in 1991.
Critics said the ban tried to hide the human cost of the two wars, in which nearly 5,000 US soldiers have died.
"The decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover [Air Force Base] should be made by those most directly affected, on an individual basis, by the families of the fallen," Mr Gates said.
"We ought not presume to make that decision in their place."
Mr Gates ordered the review of the ban at President Barack Obama's request.
The White House welcomed the move, saying it was in line with policy at Arlington cemetery near the US capital where war dead are buried.
Earlier administrations said the ban was in the interests of bereaved families. (Mm hmm)
"Dear President Obama,
I want to tell you hi. Do you work with Santa Claus? Can I meet you in your house? Can I say bye to you after I meet you? And then can I meet you again? And then again after that?
Sergio Magana, age 5, San Francisco"
"Dear President Obama,
I am 10 years old. I am a nice girl and I like to write. I wish you could be the first president of all the world. Obama, when I went trick-or-treating on Halloween, people were giving me candy and telling me to vote for you. Obama, I think it will be better if you tell the people that sell TVs, and all those things, to sell them for a lower price, because my mom and my dad are not working and not getting a lot of money. I want people that are not in a house and don't work to get something for Christmas. Obama, if I were president, I would change a lot of things in this world.
Paulina Rojas, age 10, Los Angeles"
"Dear Barack Obama,
Congrats on becoming the president of the United States and slaughtering John McCain. I think that, unlike W., you should dodge other countries and not shoes. You should not be so quick to go to war and negotiate with terrorists. I like what you said about bringing the troops home from Iraq.
If you like my letter, know that it's from
D'andre "the King" Legrand, age 12, Brooklyn"
"Dear Barack Obama,
You are one of my friends. I cannot believe you are president. In our community, you're the best guy I've ever seen. You rock the whole world. I cannot believe you did such an awesome job.
Love,
Jennifer Navarreto, age 10, Brooklyn"
"First launched in Toronto in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the Palestine solidarity calendar. Last year, more than 25 cities around the world participated in the week's activities, which also commemorated 60 years since the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their homes and land in 1947-1948. IAW 2008 was launched with a live broadcast from the South African township of Soweto by Palestinian leader and former member of the Israeli Knesset, Azmi Bishara.
This year, IAW occurs in the wake of Israel's barbaric assault against the people of Gaza. Lectures, films, and actions will make the point that these latest massacres further confirm the true nature of Israeli Apartheid. IAW 2009 will continue to build and strengthen the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement at a global level."
Obama's problem is that a growing number of Americans are concerned about what the Bush administration did and are eager to press the issue. The extent of public concern has been reflected in several recent public opinion polls, including one in February by USA Today showing that nearly two-thirds of Americans support investigations of the Bush administration's use of torture and warrantless wiretapping; roughly 40 percent support criminal investigations.
And the shift in public opinion is not the only thing transforming the environment in Washington on this issue. Susan Crawford, a Cheney protégée and the senior Bush administration official responsible for the military commissions in Guantánamo, told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that she refused to approve the charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani because he had been tortured. Torture is, of course, a felony under US law, and if multiple figures are involved, it might well be "conspiracy to torture," a separate crime. As ABC News reported and President Bush later confirmed, the full book of proposed techniques to which Qahtani was subjected had been approved by the National Security Council, headed by Bush. A senior Obama Justice figure remarked after reading the Crawford interview that it would be "impossible to sweep the matter under the carpet." That's a view that seems to be shared by US allies and United Nations officials, who, pointing to Crawford's admissions, are asking why the United States has failed to introduce a criminal inquiry into how torture came to be practiced as a matter of US policy. Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention Against Torture require the United States to prohibit torture under domestic criminal law and to investigate and prosecute incidents in which it is practiced. The failure even to begin criminal investigations has placed the United States in breach of its obligations under the treaty, a point that even torture apologists like University of Chicago Law School professor Eric Posner freely concede.
President Bush was widely expected to issue blanket pardons to those involved in his interrogations and surveillance programs, but he did not do so. Moreover, the Bush administration's tenuous claim to legality for its torture programs was ended immediately after Obama assumed office, when he directed a reassessment of interrogation policies and revoked all of the relevant Bush-era Justice Department opinions with the stroke of a pen.
Obama has been careful to avoid any suggestion that he or his senior officers are directing a criminal investigation or prosecution of the Bush-era torture enablers. He is right to do so. The criminal justice system of a democratic state should not operate like a well-oiled military machine taking its cue from the commander in chief. It requires professional prosecutors who operate with critical detachment from political officials when they pursue criminal investigations. Moreover, the painful circumstances of the torture and surveillance programs, particularly the fact that senior Justice Department officials were complicit in their implementation at almost every step, make it an ethically doubtful proposition for the Justice Department even to take up the matter.
Up to this point, political influence has been used to block accountability. Investigations are still under way at the Justice Department and other agencies that touch on important aspects of the Bush administration's detainee policy. One probe is looking into the mysterious destruction of evidence of interrogations using highly coercive techniques that was sought in pending criminal cases. Another probe, nearly complete, is examining the circumstances behind the crafting of the notorious torture memos in the black hole of the Bush Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel. Under the Bush administration, these and other investigations were often bottled up, as senior officials refused to cooperate and the White House--which functioned as the nerve center for Justice Department political operations--refused to turn over documents. On occasion, they were shut down directly by order of President Bush. One criminal investigation launched by FBI agents at Guantánamo was ordered closed by the head of the Justice Department's criminal division, Alice Fisher, who may herself emerge as a target of a criminal investigation. Under the transparency policies Obama announced during his first week, and under the detainee policies he is busily putting in place, the administration will unblock internal probes and mandate that federal employees, including White House employees, cooperate with them. Realization that this was in the works may have given rise to President Bush's January 16 "gag letters" issued to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, instructing them to keep quiet in the face of a Congressional probe about their dealings with the Justice Department.There are unmistakable signs of momentum in support of a commission approach in Washington. Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic Congressional leaders who once sang in the "let's forgive and forget" choir are now signaling their support for a commission. But what about the Obama White House? Following a meeting between Leahy and Greg Craig, Obama's White House counsel, the White House was committed only to an ongoing discussion.
But the commission approach may, depending on some critical details, offer the best solution to the impasse. Moreover, it may well suit Obama's needs for the commission to be the creation and initiative of Congress rather than of his administration. It would allow a comprehensive investigation without embroiling the White House in the process. A commission would be in a position to put to rest some persistent questions, particularly regarding how torture came to be embraced as a matter of policy and whether the administration ever got actionable intelligence from tortured suspects that could conceivably offset the immense damage that torture has done to the moral authority of the United States around the world. Most significant, if a commission recommended a criminal investigation to the Attorney General, and if it recommended appointment of a special prosecutor, that would deflect suggestions that the process was "political."
On the other hand, investigative commissions do not actually do justice. They cannot bring charges, and in the process of granting immunity for testimony they can muddy the waters for a later prosecutor. Any commission would need the advice and guidance of professional prosecutors, who could help to assure that it would prudently exercise the right to grant immunity and would avoid damaging future prosecutions.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions might be avoided under the Leahy approach and might be delayed under the Conyers approach. But whatever approach is finally settled upon, it seems increasingly clear that there will be multiple investigations: a commission of some sort, Congressional hearings (which are promised in any event) and internal probes within the government, which will likely be pursued delicately and quietly.
Though the wheels of justice grind slowly, they grind exceeding small. One year from today, it is likely that a large number of the secret documents that form the backbone of Bush detention policy will be public and many of their authors will have been publicly interrogated about them. We will have a better sense of how torture crept into the American interrogations system and whose authority was invoked to ram it through in the face of legal hurdles once thought insurmountable. And one year from today, we will probably still be asking whether any of the authors of this national tragedy will or should be prosecuted. That outcome is not likely to satisfy either side of the debate. But it may well be consistent with the interests of justice, which demands a complete exploration of the facts before anyone is held to account. That outcome fully reflects the Obama style.