Crap-A-Fracka!!!

Activists rally against money in politics in Washington DC, 01/21/11. (photo: Public Citizen/flickr)

The Fracking Industry Buys Congress

By Sharon Guynup, Environment News Service

22 February 12

WASHINGTON, DC, February 16, 2012 (ENS) - A natural gas drilling rush is on in rural North Dakota. And with it, residents are reporting growing numbers of respiratory ailments, skin lesions, blood oozing from eyes, and the deaths of livestock and pets.

Elsewhere, residents of Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wyoming and other states who thought they'd hit the lottery by signing natural gas drilling leases have watched their drinking water turn noxious: slick, brown, foamy, flammable.

In December, for the first time, federal regulators scientifically linked hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to the contamination of an aquifer, refuting repeated industry claims that the practice does not pollute drinking water.

A stream near Pavilion, Wyoming (Photo by Violet Clark/Legacy Images)

It happened in the rural ranching community of Pavillion, Wyoming, an area riddled with 162 natural gas wells dug between 1990 and 2006. Despite a decade of complaints from residents that their reeking water was undrinkable - and that many suffered from nerve damage, asthma, heart trouble and other health problems - state officials did nothing.

Finally the EPA stepped in, launching a three-year study running from 2008 to 2011.

In its report, the EPA identified numerous fracking chemicals in Pavillion's water. Cancer-causing benzene was found at 50 times safe levels, along with other hazardous chemicals, methane, diesel fuel, and toxic metals - in both groundwater and deep wells.

Now, across the country in Pennsylvania, the EPA is testing drinking water in 61 locations in Susquehanna County for possible fracking-related contamination.

Nationwide, residents living near fracked gas wells have filed over 1,000 complaints of tainted water, severe illnesses, livestock deaths, and fish kills. Complaints, sometimes involving hundreds of households, have risen in tandem with a veritable gold rush of new natural gas wells - now numbering about 493,000 across 31 states.

This month's hearings on the EPA's Pavillion report, led by the House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, have been contentious, with pro-drilling politicians and industry representatives attacking its conclusions.

"The EPA is trying to go after fracking everywhere they can," said subcommittee chairman Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican. "They've had absolutely no proof that fracking had polluted drinking water, that I know of."

Both he and industry spokesmen implied that the media had created a poorly-informed frenzy, spreading fear and mistrust of fracking.

A natural gas well using hydraulic fracturing (Photo courtesy EPA)

However, James Martin, the EPA's regional administrator for the West, testified that cement casings that should have protected drinking water were weak or missing - a possible source of contamination.

Other witnesses, including Dr. Bernard Goldstein, of the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, argued that the public should be concerned, noting that policy makers lack adequate information to protect public health.

Still, the fracking industry goes virtually unregulated. Why? The answer is money.

The oil and gas industry has reaped billions in profits from fracking. And since 1990, they've pumped $238.7 million into gubernatorial and Congressional election campaigns to persuade lawmakers that fracking is safe, which has effectively blocked federal regulation.

Republican candidates received at least three times more cash than Democratic candidates. Fracking industry spending especially targeted oversight - members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Congressman Joe Barton addresses the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit, February 2011 (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Top Congressional recipients include Joe Barton and John Cornyn, both Texas Republicans, with contributions of $514,945 and $417,556 respectively; Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, who received $372,450; and Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican who took in $275,499.

James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, who accepted $357,788, claimed the EPA study was "not based on sound science but rather on political science."

The industry spent an additional $726 million on lobbying from 2001.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett also received hefty election support - $361,207. Corbett has signaled willingness to sign a fracking bill passed by the state Senate this month that offers huge benefits to natural gas drillers and essentially prevents municipalities and environmentalists from taking action against the location of wells.

Today, only four of 31 fracking states have significant drilling rules, while the gas industry is exempted from seven major federal regulations.

One of these, the "Halliburton loophole," pushed through by former Vice-President/former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, exempts corporations from revealing the chemicals used in fracking fluid - bypassing the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts.

Congressman John Cornyn addresses the American Conservative Union's Conservative Political Action Conference, February 11, 2012. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Recently, five states have adopted disclosure rules, though they still allow for "proprietary trade secrets."

Another loophole leaves hazardous waste, including contaminated soil, water and drilling fluids, unregulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Still another loophole dodges the Superfund law, which requires that polluters remediate for carcinogens like benzene released into the environment - except if they come from oil or gas.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, which was invented by Halliburton in the 1940s, injects water, sand and chemicals into the ground at high pressure, blasting apart shale bedrock to release natural gas. However, industry's reassurance that fracking is an old technology with a proven safety record is misleading.

Modern fracking is drastically different, using new chemical mixtures and millions rather than thousands of gallons of water injected at far higher pressure. It takes between one and 10 million gallons of water to frack one well.

Last week it was revealed that one well in Carrollton, Ohio, required 969,024 pounds (484.5 tons) of chemical additives, 5,066 tons of sand and 10.5 million gallons of water. Up to 40 percent of that water returns to the surface, carrying toxic drilling chemicals, high levels of salts, and sometimes, naturally-occurring radioactive material.

A 1990 industry study concluded that radium in drilling wastewater dumped off the Louisiana coast posed "potentially significant risks" of cancer for people who regularly eat fish from those waters.

Most fracking water remains underground, potentially polluting aquifers and drinking water. Streams and groundwater can be contaminated by spills, surface wastewater pits, and by millions of tons of chemical-laden dirt removed during the drilling process. Sewage treatment plants aren't equipped to treat chemicals or radioactivity in frackwater that could end up in drinking water.

Today, 65 probable fracking chemicals are federally listed as hazardous. Many others remain unstudied and unregulated, making it impossible to assess the effects on water resources.

EPA documents note that some "cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure," and that fracking fluid migrates over unpredictable distances through different rock layers.

Last August, a national association of pediatricians published concerns that children are more susceptible to fracking chemical exposure than adults.

Millions of gallons of water from Texas' Trinity River near Fort Worth is pulled for fracking. (Photo by Don Young)

Clearly, the natural gas industry needs federal regulation, something President Barack Obama pledged in his State of the Union speech in January.

Now, as Interior Department officials draft new fracking rules for public lands, environmentalists are warning that they must not be swayed by industry: they must mandate full disclosure of fracking chemicals, well stability, and proper wastewater disposal.

The EPA is being urged to impose these rules nationwide, and do further studies on human health and environmental impacts. Federal health agencies are calling for a nationwide study that tracks people living near drilling sites.

Congress is being urged to pass the Frac Act, repealing Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions. Industry-friendly state agencies - like those in Texas that sometimes approve new drilling permits in two days, but haven't inspected many wells in years - are being prompted to institute real oversight.

In 2011, during the worst drought and biggest wildfires in Texas history, the natural gas industry used more than 13 billion gallons of Texas water in fracking operations.

EPA's report creates an incentive for the natural gas industry to increase political spending to further influence public opinion and impact the outcome of November's Congressional elections. That flow of spending has increased after last year's U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, with industry no longer hindered by a century-old ban on corporate spending around elections.

Environmentalists argue that natural gas companies must be held to the same regulatory standards as the rest of America's industries. Real oversight means that Exxon, Koch Industries and other oil and gas companies would be prevented from exerting even more influence over the political process. Otherwise, federal loopholes that allow water to be poisoned and health to be ruined will never be closed.

Find out how much money flows to your Congressperson by reading Common Cause's "Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets" report online.

So Sunny And yet So Cold

Crap-us-Sick-worLDs!!!

Dr. Gunter is not only a good doctor, but a 

great writer as well,.. but that was only a small 

factor why I found myself  in tears reading this 

story…   

Unsafe and poorly-performed abortions are a major cause of maternal mortality 

and morbidity. Banning abortion does not reduce the numbers of women who 

attempt it. (photo: Charlie Shoemaker/Corbis)

Anatomy of an Unsafe Abortion

By Dr. Jen Gunter, Dr. Jen Gunter's Blog

15 February 12

 was in clinic when I heard the overhead STAT page to the emergency room.

As I sprinted down the stairs, I ran through the possible scenarios. I wasn’t on call, so the day to day gynecologic emergencies weren’t my purview. I hadn’t operated on anyone in the past few weeks, so unlikely to be one of my own patients with a complication.

Logically there was only one conclusion.

A nurse was holding the staff entrance to the ER open. From the look on her face I surmised this was to save the minute or two it would take to punch in the numbers on the lock and inquire at the desk for patient’s whereabouts.

"Down there," she pointed.

On the gurney lay a young woman the color of white marble. The red pool between her legs, ominously free of clots, offered a silent explanation.

"She arrived a few minutes ago. Not even a note." My resident was breathless with anger, adrenaline, and panic.

I had an idea who she went to. The same one the others did. The same one many more would visit. A doctor, but considering what I had seen he could’t have any formal gynecology training. The only thing he offered that the well-trained provers didn’t was a cut-rate price. If you don’t know to ask, well, a doctor is a doctor. That’s assuming you are empowered enough to have such a discussion. I was also pretty sure his office didn’t offer interpreters.

I needed equipment not available in an emergency room. I looked at the emergency room attending. "Call the OR and tell them we need a room. Now." And then I turned to my resident. I was going to tell him to physically make sure a room, any room, was ready when we arrived, but he had already sprinted towards the stairs. He knew.

We didn’t wait for an orderly. A terrified medical student and I raced down the hallway with the gurney. The amorphous red pool dripped onto the floor as we rounded the corner to the elevators.

The double doors that led to the operating rooms swung open. "The urology room. They’re between cases," my resident shouted.

I saw an anesthesiologist out of the corner of my eye. "You. Now!" Most emergencies can wait a few minutes to check in at the front desk and for the anesthesiologist and nursing staff to take stock of the situation. This was not one of them.

The urologist, whose room I appropriated, blustered and sputtered in behind me. "What the fuck are you doing barging in, I’ve got another case…" but as we moved my patient over to the operating table and he saw the blood, he stopped. He grabbed a tray of instruments and opened. "I’ll be your scrub."

The anesthesiologist was pissed. Not really mad, more riled up than anything. No one likes to be blind sided, no matter how well intentioned. And he probably thought I was over reacting. That is until he put in another intravenous.

"Fuck." What looked like blood tinged water flashed back.

And now they all understood what I knew the second I laid eyes on this patient. Abortions that go horribly wrong bleed out. Quickly.

The room filled with surgeons, nurses, and students eager to help. To do something. Anything.

I opened the vagina and by feel clamped through the holes on either side of the uterus where I knew from experience I would find the uterine arteries, the likely site of the puncture. I didn’t know which side, and at that point it didn’t matter. I just needed to stop the blood flow. It took less than a minute. She would have bled to death if I had opened her belly.

As the bleeding had stopped, it was up to the anesthesiologist to fix the hematologic tempest. A vascular system so traumatized by sheer blood loss that it had run haywire and lost the ability to clot. Disseminated intravascular coagulation. This is how many young women die when an abortion goes wrong.

My hands started to shake. Everything from leaving my clinic to this point had been one crescendoing adrenaline-fueled reflex. Now that there was nothing physically for me to do the energy had to go somewhere.

I looked around. A forest of IV poles, laden with blood instead of fruit. Everyone not directly helping was running back and forth to the pharmacy or blood bank. A nurse and another surgeon started to clean the floor. We were all bonded by this nameless woman whose life we were desperately trying to save. And we were bearing witness, because we knew if she died it was unlikely anyone would read about her in the paper. It was unlikely her family would protest. A myriad of potential reasons. Shame of the abortion. Distrust of government. Fear of immigration officials.

The urologist, a grizzled older man with whom I had nothing in common except a medical degree and this patient, rested his hand on my shoulder. It was a kind, fatherly gesture. The weight was comforting.

"You done good." He said. And then he added, "Those bastards."

I knew he was referring not just to the physician who did this procedure, but to everyone in society who had contributed to a disadvantaged woman finding herself in such a desperate situation.

God-damned-the-Crap-Gene-Modif-A-microRNA !!!

New research shows that when we eat we're consuming more than just 

vitamins and protein. Our bodies are absorbing information, or 

microRNA. 01/09/12. (art: Greenpeace)

The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

By Ari LeVaux, The Atlantic

10 January 12

hinese researchers have found small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to proteins in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

The type of RNA in question is called microRNA, due to its small size. MicroRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been linked to human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. The Chinese research provides the first example of ingested plant microRNA surviving digestion and influencing human cell function.

Should the research survive scientific scrutiny, it could prove a game changer in many fields. It would mean that we're eating not just vitamins, protein, and fuel, but information as well

That knowledge could deepen our understanding of cross-species communication, co-evolution, and predator-prey relationships. It could illuminate new mechanisms for some metabolic disorders and perhaps explain how some herbal medicines function. And it reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health.

Monsanto's website states, "There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans." This viewpoint, while good for business, is built on an understanding of genetics circa 1950. It follows what's called the "Central Dogma" (PDF) of genetics, which postulates a one-way chain of command between DNA and the cells DNA governs.

The Central Dogma resembles the process of ordering a pizza. The DNA knows what kind of pizza it wants, and orders it. The RNA is the order slip, which communicates the specifics of the pizza to the cook. The finished and delivered pizza is analogous to the protein that DNA codes for.

We've known for years that the Central Dogma, though basically correct, is overly simplistic. For example: Pieces of microRNA that don't code for anything, pizza or otherwise, can travel among cells and influence their activities in many other ways. So while the DNA is ordering pizza, it's also bombarding the pizzeria with unrelated RNA messages that can cancel a cheese delivery, pay the dishwasher nine million dollars, or email the secret sauce recipe to WikiLeaks.

Monsanto's claim that human toxicology tests are unwarranted is based on the doctrine of "substantial equivalence." This term is used around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods, by sparing them from extensive safety testing.

According to substantial equivalence, comparisons between GM and non-GM crops need only investigate the end products of DNA translation: the pizza, as it were. "There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods," Monsanto's website reads. "DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard."

The Chinese RNA study threatens to blast a major hole in that claim. It means that DNA can code for microRNA, which can, in fact, be hazardous.

"So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks," Monsanto's website goes on. In other words, as long as the pizza is OK, the introduced DNA doesn't pose a problem.

Chen-Yu Zhang, the lead researcher on the Chinese RNA study, has made no comment regarding the implications of his work for the debate over the safety of GM food. Nonetheless, his discoveries give shape to concerns about substantial equivalence that have been raised for years.

In 1999, a group of scientists wrote a now-landmark letter titled "Beyond Substantial Equivalence" to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called substantial equivalence "a pseudo-scientific concept" that is "inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests."

To these charges, Monsanto responded: "The concept of substantial equivalence was elaborated by international scientific and regulatory experts convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1991, well before any biotechnology products were ready for market.

This response is less a rebuttal than a testimonial to Monsanto's marketing prowess. Establishing the concept of substantial equivalence worldwide was a prerequisite to the global commercialization of GM crops. It created a legal framework for selling GM foods anywhere in the world that substantial equivalence was accepted. By the time substantial equivalence was adopted, Monsanto had already developed numerous GM crops and was actively grooming them for market.

The OECD's 34 member nations could be described as largely rich, white, developed, and sympathetic to big business. The group's current mission is to spread economic development to the rest of the world. And while that mission has yet to be accomplished, OECD has helped Monsanto spread substantial equivalence to the rest of the world, selling a lot of GM seed along the way.

The news that we're ingesting information as well as physical material should force the biotech industry to confront the possibility that new DNA can have dangerous implications far beyond the products it codes for. Can we count on the biotech industry to accept the notion that more testing is necessary? Not if such action is perceived as a threat to the bottom line.

Ari LeVaux writes Flash in the Pan, a syndicated weekly food column that has appeared in more than 50 newspapers in 21 states. Learn more at flashinthepan.net.

the eve of x'mas eve

X'mas-Crap-Over-Grandma !!

Remy: Grandma Got Indefinitely Detained (A Very TSA Christmas)

Merry X'mas America - Hoe Hoe Hoe

chillier and chillier nights and days

Crap-O-Shockin'-War-Crimes !!!

New Documents Released of 2007 Iraq Atrocity by Troops

Saturday 17 December 2011

by: David Swanson, War Is A Crime.org | Report

Every American should read this letter:

December 18, 2007
To:   Mr. Randy Waddle, Assistant Inspector General, Ft Carson, Colorado
CC:  LTC John Shawkins, Inspector General, Ft Carson, Colorado
        Major General Mark Graham, Commanding Officer, Ft Carson, Colorado
        Major Haytham Faraj, USMC, Camp Pendleton, California
        Lt General Stanley Greene, US Army Inspector General
Subject: Formal Notification of War Atrocities and Crimes Committed by Personnel, B Company, 2-12, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq

Dear Mr. Waddle,

My name is John Needham.  I am a member of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry division, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, (BCo,2-12INF,2BCT,2ID .  I deployed with my unit to Iraq from October 2006 until October 2007 when I was medically evacuated for physical and mental injuries that I suffered during my deployment.  The purpose of my letter is to report what I believe to be war crimes and violation of the laws of armed conflict that I personally witnesses while deployed in Iraq.

Upon arriving in Iraq in October of 2006 my unit was assigned to the ¼ Cavalry unit at Camp Prosperity.  In March of 2007 I was sent back to my unit, B Company 2-12 at Camp Falcon.  It was at Camp Falcon that I observed and was forced to participate in ugly and inhumane acts against the Iraqi citizens in our area of responsibilities.  Below I list some of the incidents that took place.

In March of 2007, I witnessed SSG Platt shoot and wound an Iraqi national without cause of provocation.  The Staff Sergeant said that he suspected the Iraqi be a “trigger” man.  We had not been attacked and we found no evidence on the man to support the suspicion.  As the Iraqi lay bleeding on the ground, PVT Smith requested to administer first aid to the Iraqi.  SSgt Platt said no and “let him bleed out.”  When SSG Platt walked away, Pvt Smith and PVT Mullins went to the Iraqi, dragged him to an alley, and applied first aid.  They then drove him to the cache for further treatment.

In June of 2007 1SG Spry caused an Iraqi male to be stopped, questioned, detained, and killed.  We had no evidence that the Iraqi was an insurgent or terrorist.  In any event when we stopped he did not pose a threat.  Although I did not personally witness the killing, I did observe 1sg Spry dismembering the body and parading of it while it was tied to the hood of a Humvee around the Muhalla neighborhood while the interpreter blared out warnings in Arabic over the loud speaker.  I have a photo that shows 1SG Spry removing the victim’s brains.

On another occasion an Iraqi male was stopped by a team led by Sgt Rogers as he walked down an alleyway.  The Iraqi was detained and questioned then with his hands tied behind his back, SGT Rogers skinned his face.

1ST Spry shot a young Iraqi teenager who was about 16 years old.  The shooting was unprovoked and the Iraqi posed no threat to the unit.  He was merely riding his bicycle past an ambush site.  When I arrived on the scene I observed 1SGT Spry along with SSG Platt dismember the boy’s body.

In August of 2007, I responded to radio call from SGT Rogers reporting that he had just shot an Iraqi who was trying to enter through a hole that the platoon had blown in a wall to allow them observation of the area during a security patrol.  When I arrived, I saw a one armed man who was still alive lying on a barricade.  The man was about 30 years old.   He had an old Ruger pistol hanging from his thumb.  It was obvious to me that the pistol was placed there because of the way it hung from his thumb.  The Iraqi was still alive when I arrived.  I saw SGT Rogers shoot him twice in the back with hollow point bullets.  The Iraqi was still moving.  I was asking why they shot him again when I heard Sgt Hoskins say “he’s moving, he’s still alive.”  SPEC Hoskins then moved to the Iraqi and shot him in the back of the head.  SSG Platt and SGT Rogers were visibly excited about the kill.  I saw them pull the Iraqi’s
brains out as they placed him in the body bag.  CPT Kirsey must have learned something about this incident because he was very upset and admonished the NCOs involved.

I have seen and heard 1SGT Spry brag about killing dogs.  He kept a running count.  At last count I remember he was boasting of having killed 80 dogs.

On many occasions I observed SGT Temples, SSG Platt and SGT Rogers beat and abuse Iraqi teenagers, some as young as 14, without cause.  They would walk into a house near areas where they suspected we had received sniper fire, then detain and beat the kids.

I have photos that support my allegations.  I also have numerous other photos on a laptop PC that the unit illegally seized from me.  I have requested its return but they have refused.

My experiences have taken a terrible toll on me.  I suffer from PTSD and depression.  I had no way to stop the ugly actions of my unit.  When I refused to participate they began to abuse and harass me.  I am still in treatment at the Balboa Naval hospital.  I respectfully request that you investigate these matters, that you protect my safety by reassigning me to a different unit that is not located at Fort Carson, that you return my PC or, at least, seize it to protect the evidence on it, and that you issue a military protective order to prohibit the offending members of my unit from harassing, retaliating, or contacting me.

I have some photographs and some supporting documentation to these allegations.

Respectfully,
PFC John Needham
US Army
 

And every American should view these photographs (warning, extremely revolting).

And then watch this superb video to learn from John Needham's father what became of him:

On the Dark Side in Al Doura - A Soldier in the Shadows fromPulse TV & Maverick Media on Vimeo.

WARNING: Graphic and disturbing photos between 38:47 and 40:00.

VIDEO DESCRIPTION:

U.S. Army Ranger John Needham, who was awarded two purple hearts and three medals for heroism, wrote to military authorities in 2007 reporting war crimes that he witnessed being committed by his own command and fellow soldiers in Al Doura, Iraq. His charges were supported by atrocity photos which, in the public interest, are now released in this video. John paid a terrible price for his opposition to these acts. His story is tragic.

CBS reported obtaining an Army document from the Criminal Investigation Command suggestive of an investigation into these war crimes allegations. The Army's conclusion was that the "offense of War Crimes did not occur." However, CBS also stated that the report was “redacted and incomplete; 111 pages were withheld.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-57323277/war-damaged-vet-kills-girlfriend-ptsd-to-blame/?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo

Salon covered this story too:

 http://www.salon.com/2009/02/12/coming_home_three/

Thanks to Cindy Piester for the excellent video and all of this information.

---------------

chilly and chillier days comin'

Crap-A-baad-laaw !

Why a Constitutional Law Professor Should Not Sign an Unconstitutional Military Detention Bill

Thursday 15 December 2011

by: Ralph Lopez, War Is A Crime | News Analysis

President Barack Obama speaks at the White House Tribal Nations Conference at the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, Dec. 2, 2011. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)

There has never been a better time to take a close look at how we got here, with Obama, a former Constitutional law professor,  about to sign a law which overnight turns the U.S. into a Third World country, where anyone can be swept off the streets by the military to rot forever, or even be killed.  

Some people say wearily that the new powers for the indefinite military detention of Americans are not new at all.  That this is nothing the government cannot, and has not, already done.  

What this misses is that the new government powers seek to codify, "hard-wire" if you will, an area of law which is in flux, and far from settled in the courts.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proclaimed in his momentous speech on the Senate floor that:

“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Graham goes on to say that the proposed law is simply based on the "law of the land" in the Fourth Circuit Court decision in the case of Jose Padilla, the first American arrested in the US and declared "enemy combatant" in the war on terror.  Padilla was held for 3 1/2 years in isolation, tortured, and given, according to his lawyer, some kind of hallucinogenic drug such as LSD.  His attorney Andrew Patel said that after a time, according to brig staff, “Mr. Padilla's temperament was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of a piece of furniture. ”  

An examining psychiatrist before his eventual trial said that after the 3 1/2 years, Padilla exhibited "facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body.”

Mr. Graham, University of South Carolina School of Law, the man who at the moment occupies one of the US Senate seats for the Great State of South Carolina, got wrong what any eighth-grader would know from civics class were he no more than a "C" student.  A higher authority than Graham, the Founding Fathers, declared in Article VI that not the Fourth Circuit, but the Constitution, was the "supreme law of the land":

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."

The Fourth Circuit decision to which Graham was referring, upholding the Bush administration's authority to hold Padilla indefinitely, without trial if it wished, was handed down by Judge Micheal Luttig.  Luttig, University of Virginia School of Law, gave Bush the benefit of the doubt believing that the question would go before the US Supreme Court to be properly deliberated.  Luttig in essence relied on the World War II precedent, Ex parte Quirin, in which a number of German-Americans were held as enemy combatants after being accused of spying for Germany during World War II.

Luttig must have known that, were the Padilla case to be properly deliberated, one of first questions to arise would be the applicability of a WWII precedent.  

One of the most fundamental understandings of American-English jurisprudence is that precedents can only apply when a case has a similar set of operative facts.  Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."  This is not to say precedents cannot apply to cases with very different circumstances: different times, different places.  But the "operative" pieces, i.e. the major assumptions, must be substantially the same.  

Since a war which lasts forever is substantially different from than one that does not,  Luttig must have suspected that previous precedents on enemy combatants, cannot apply.  The war on terror is the first war which by definition has no end, in which the "enemy" is an amorphous network rather than the kind of military hierarchy we have opposed in every previous war.  This is the first war in  which there is no one from whom to accept surrender.

George Bush clearly defined the war on terror as lasting forever when he said to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, that it the war on terror was  "a task that does not end."

Perhaps, then, this is why Luttig was livid when Bush released Jose Padilla to civilian trial before his case could come before the Supreme Court:  

Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case

    The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.

    Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."

Why would Luttig be so angry?  No one but Luttig knows.  What we do know is that the Bush razzle-dazzle prevented his administration's declaration of permanent wartime powers from being struck down, and it made Luttig the man on whose written opinion Graham relied to abolish the Bill of Rights.  This would be Luttig's place in American history.  

The adjudicated wartime powers now being codified have never been put to the test in the Supreme Court.  Yasar Hamdi in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld carried the crucial difference that Yasar Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, arguably behind true "enemy lines."

You don't need to be a meteorologist to know if it's raining outside, and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that permanent wartime powers amounts to the overthrow of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.  

Common sense alone says you might have unlimited powers in a war of limited duration, or you might have limited powers in a war of unlimited duration, but the plain language of the Constitution tells us you cannot have both: unlimited powers in a war of unlimited duration.  

This is the question which has been ignored since 9/11.  Instead of addressing it, the Congress, and the Executive, are jumping on a flawed Appeals Court decision and rushing to codify it.  But Appeals courts make bad rulings all the time, and there is no rush to codify the error.  Judge Luttig may not be a bad man.  But his place in history may be assured, and it is not an enviable one.  Could it be that his anger was not misplaced?

-----------------