The grotesque McCloskey duo from St. Louis made an appearance and speeches in support of Kenosha Killer Kyle.
Conservative liar Jack Probscious is running his classic con of claiming to have inside sources who reveal the reason Cryer Rittenhouse wasn't immediately found not guilty
A bedrock of Fascism everywhere and in every iteration is Unequal Standards of Law. There are many terms and ways to call this;
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread-the rich as well as the poor."
There's a club and you ain't in it.
But, whatever you call it the goal is always the same; two sets of rules. Mark T. McCloskey and Patricia McCloskey broke multiple laws; but, received loud vocal support for their crimes from disingenuous and dishonest right-wingers and then received a Governor's pardon.
But, a huge bombshell today is the defense for Rittenhouse massively fucked up and did not know HD full color drone footage of their client was available and even worse has already been introduced into evidence. Lying Rightwing websites and agitprop peddlers tried to claim the State's Attorney office WITHHELD the video footage. The defense attorney's for Kenosha Killer Kyle know they are going to lose so now they are trying to play a trick claiming the State provided doctored DroneZ footage or withheld the HD version of the footage. The defense knows that every day that passes indicates Cryer Rittenhouse is going to get guilty verdicts.
It also highlights how far behind Legislatures and Governments are in reference to technology and technical issues. In this case, the Defense team of Killer Kyle made multiple mistakes because the HD full color Drone footage was widely available was shown on Faux News and apparently was purchased by Tucker Carlson last August. And the defense attorney's are no doubt supremely worried once the jurors have time to review the full drone footage they will see Kyle was lying the whole time and Rittenhouse initiated violence and was clearly the aggressor before he committed those murders.
Additional:
Meanwhile, a white man armed with a "rifle" and body armor was parading around outside the courthouse. You will note unlike Jacob Blake he was not shot and the Police response included polite questions about his concealed carry status and how carrying a rifle with a 1000 feet of a school was not allowed. Then the nice Officers walked him away from cameras so his name and dob (date of birth) would not be read when the Officers identified him. It's nice to be white and commit crimes.
While, over at Faux News, conservative media gurus have organized former members of Bergdahl's platoon to smear him because, as I predicted Faux News is destroying Bergdahl as a way to attack President Obama.
I will only note that Josh Korder, who said in an interview with CNN of Bowe Bergdahl, "He is at best a deserter, and at worst a traitor," received a General Discharge under other than Honorable conditions.
In a trial, which is not what Dishonorable Conservative Media is engaged in, the character of a witness testifying against the accused is, of course relevant, as the Defense will try and impeach the testimony. However, that often leads to the smearing of the witness which I will not do against Korder.
What's of more import is the nature of those released. Republicans and Right-Wing liars immediately took to labeling the 5 released from GITMO as the "hardest, toughest, meanest" and the "worst of the worst".
Of course, conservative blow hards and bloggers couldn't be bothered to name their supposed crimes and couldn't even name the 5 released from Gitmo. Most likely, cause they all look alike to conservative racists.
Muhammad Fazl was a military leader under the Taliban and was also a refugee from the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. I wonder if he received any CIA training in Pakistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s... He surrendered in November 2001!
Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa is a friend of Hamid Karzi, who was arrested in Pakistan in January 2002...
Norullah Noori claims to have joined the Taliban in the late 90's then went to Mazer-i-Sharif to work as a bureaucrat and eventually "Governor" and surrendered in November 2001.
Mohammad Nabi trained in Pakistan (hmmm with whom again) and fought against the Soviets with the mujahaddein was arrested in September 2002.
Abdul Haq Wasiq a religious student in the 1980s he was a member of Taliban "Intelligence Directorate" and was captured in November 2001!
For over a dozen years they have languished in Guantanamo. Sure, they were members of the Taliban but, the Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan from 1996-2001.
Anything they knew of intelligence value expired 10 years ago. They didn't participate in the insurgency. It's despicable the level of active ignorance and violent stupidity on display by dishonorable conservatives.
Now, as right-wingers are pig ignorant morons I can't expect them to know the name Karl Dönitz. He was the last Head of State for Nazi Germany. Hitler named Dönitz his successor as Head of State prior to his suicide. Previously, Dönitz was the Admiral in charge of U-Boats at the start of WW2 and then Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine. After the war he was tried at Nuremburg and spent 10 years in prison. The last ruler of Nazi Germany spent less time in prison then the 5 at Gitmo...
But, none of this matters to shameless dishonorable conservatives. Because they are the drones of the Republican Party, remote control weapons sent to destroy the opponents of the Plutocracy.
Update:
Oh look Right-Wingers have taken to lying about the men released. No More Mister Nice Blog found PJ Media Andrew McCarthy retweeting a photo which he identified as Muhammad Fazl even though it definitively is not.
Meanwhile, retired Col. Morris Davis, former prosecutor at Guantanamo says the five are so inconsequential he doesn't even remember them. But, that doesn't matter to conservative liars.
The Right-Wing Media resorts to lies because they know their conservative drone followers will absorb and re-emit their lies with unthinking certainty.
Do you see me doin' thrill seeker liquor store hold-ups with a "Born To Lose" tattoo on my chest? - Bobby DeNiro, Heat
The 13 Hour Filibuster staged by Seantor Rand Paul a mere month ago was a dishonest sham staged only for theater. On a Faux Business Network Interview Rand stated,
"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone."
You see only those people rob liquor stores whilst the right people own Hot Tubs. I've also been informed that Hot Tub users have a high tendency of smoking pot, I wouldn't know I don't have a hot tub or smoke pot.
So, Rand is fine with using a Drone to kill a suspect of a Robbery, presumably an American, who hasn't had his Due Process. Please recall that on March 7, 2013, Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz introduced a Senate Bill: To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within the United States.
Now, I wonder if Glenn Greenwald will begin a campaign of lies and vitriol against Rand in the same manner he has against President Obama? Because according to Greenwald, President Obama is worse than Dick Cheney because he infringed on an American's Constitutional Rights by authorizing a Drone Strike on Anwar al-Awaki (and his son).
Rand Paul is a right-wing madman who would do away with all Civil Rights Laws and Unchain Business so they could put Americans back in chains.
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill and all the neoliberal hipsters and self-satisfied libertarians who rushed to Stand With Rand and deified him to thwart the evil anti-chirst Obama got used by Conservatives like they always do. Conservatives never viewed the Drone issue as anything other than an opportunity to attack President Obama while getting some confused or ignorant lefties to aid them. Drones are valuable tools and weapons. It makes no difference if a person is killed by bullets, blood chokes, burning or drone strike. Dead is Dead. Drones simply fall under the Use of Force and the 4th Amendment. As for surveillance, using a Drone is no different than using binoculars or my eyes. If I observe a crime or contraband in plain sight or if I have a properly obtained Search Warrant then there is no issue. Update: Rand realized he upset the Gravy Train of his deluded followers who fund him. And Nothing so alarms a Grifter, like Rand Paul, as when his Grift is threatened:
"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. Let me be clear: it has not."
Please consider sending $25 to Help Rand Fight the DroneZ!
"But I had somebody last week in Washington from either Georgia or Alabama that was saying, ‘Look, this goes back to we have got to have at least 50 rounds in our magazines because on average that’s about how many it takes to bring down a drone.’ I hope he was kidding, I don’t know for sure." - Representative Louie Gohmert, Confederate States of America on Drones.
Glenn Greenwald has declared that President Obama is worse than Dick Cheney. Because Obama, unlike Cheney, never infringed on an American's Constitutional Rights the way Obama did by authroizing a Drone Strike on Anwar al-Awaki (and his son).
What is this? Did the backlash against executive power take this long to foment in Greenwald? Does Glenn Greenwald feel frightened that Obama, who is worse than Cheney, is going to send a Drone Strike against him for speaking out?
What's actually happening is Glenn Greenwald is like John Wayne. Wayne chicken hawked his way out of World War II and in response became a jingoistic warmonger and arch-conservative. Greenwald supported the Phony GWoT and Iraq War Crime and now to make up for it he's become a lunatic anarcho-libertarian declaring all Government Action to be the illegal Use of Force.
Here is the text of what Greenwald, himself, relies upon to excuse his tacit support of the Phony GWoT and the Iraq War.
I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism.
At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny – in journalism and politics – were doing that.
I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt.
I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
The swift removal of the Taliban? He assumed others were scrutinizing the Rush to War. Loyalty to My Country! I deferred to Bush's Judgement.
As the 10 year mark of that bloody debacle hits home, it's amazing to watch those who participated in bilking the American People whitewash themselves of their guilt. I think that in order to prove himself, Greenwald will equate Obama's policies with Hitler at every opportunity. It's a powerful display. Hundreds of Thousands of Sunnis, Shias, Afghans, Pastuns, and others killed during the a Multi-Trillion Dollar Theft of Generations and Glenn will spare no effort over Drones?
Drones are tools and weapons. All the hand-wringing over their use in the Phony GWoT* is a mistake. Drones are a valuable tool which allows infiltration deep into hostile territory for targeted killings. Why send in a SEAL Team or conventional forces when a Drone can accomplish the task?
Drones for Domestic Use are also not a concern. Drones simply fall under the Use of Force and the 4th Amendment.
It makes no difference if a person is killed by bullets, blood chokes, burning or drone strike. Dead is Dead.
And under US Law (reviewed by multiple SCOTUS rulings and written into State Laws) Killing someone is considered the Ultimate Seizure under the 4th Amendment.
For Reference the applicable reviews of the 4th Amendment are:
Graham v. Conner (1989)
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Drones and their use gained massive blog-o-sphere attention after the Filibuster of the Director of the CIA by Senator Rand Paul. Couch-Borne Commandos and Self-Styled Champions of Liberty,as long as Liberty isn't Black people getting equal rights, like Senator Paul may have a problem with Drones but that's only because they've never been shot at or had to go hands on with a criminal.
Now, there may be arguments to be made against the Use of Drones. But, if you're mad that President Obama is using Drones in and of themselves you are wrong.
If there had been a Drone available to use against Christopher Dorner (Or against the Newest Second Amendment Hero Kurt Myers) then it should have been authorized and used.
Remember Dorner had already killed 4 people. He published a manifesto in which he stated he was going to kill as many people as possible. Some only tangentially connected. On the day of his death he shot two more Deputies, killing one, carjacked a couple and holed up in house firing numerous rounds at the surrounding officers.
Against a person, such as Dorner, does Glenn Greenwald or Senator Paul demand we send in single officers one at a time to face them man-o y man-o?
But, while Greenwald believed it to be a good thought experiment about "Due Process" and his belief that Drones represent a massive violation of civil liberties, it highlighted the misunderstanding of seizures under the 4th Amendment (again killing someone being the ultimate seizure) and the Use of Force.
Apparently, Greenwald believes "Due Process" entitles a person to this level of warning:
If you believe that a Government should not be killing it's citizens, ever, that's a legitimate debatable position. But, Drones aren't used for the killing of incarcerated persons.
If you're concerned about Drones being used for surveillance, well unless you are complaining about Cameras in high-crime areas, wire-taps, and police officers with binoculars then it seems an arbitrary concern.
If you believe the President does not have the authority to use Drones for targeted killings overseas then your complaint is with Congress. Force Congress to exert their constitutionally-mandated War Powers Role and have them vote to seize back that power by removing authorization.
There might be legitimate concerns about the Use of Drones and there should be oversight and legal guidelines but they are nothing more than a tool. Every tool can be misused.
*- The War on Terror has a War Crime of Epic Proportions and has lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths and criminal theft of Trillions. As such it should be ended. But, the Drone Strikes aren't the worst thing about it.
