Rats will run . . .

Aldous Huxley wrote:

"One of the great attractions of patriotism it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."

And Anna Julia Cooper noted:

“Bullies are always cowards at heart and may be credited with a pretty safe instinct in scenting their prey."

These two observations are the key to truly understanding the mindset of the Rethuglican party of criminally corrupted. Take for example former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. Less than an half a year ago, when he was indicted for numerous campaign crimes, he shouted in righteous indignation his complete and utter innocence, blaming his prosecution on partisan polital motives and a prosecutor gone wild. Probably the height of his hubris was exemplified by his smiling mug shot taken upon arraignment for the crimes for which he was charged. Yet far from maintaining his innocence and his arrogance, the noose has slipped upon his neck. Two former close aids have already pled guilty to a variety of crimes ranging from conspiracy to tax and mail fraud to corruption. To make matters worse, one of his closest advisors is now working with the prosecution. And other huge fans, such as Jack Abramoff are embroiled in scandal and headed to jail. And despite the fact that just days ago this hypoChristian whined that he was being "persecuted" because of his religious faith, what does this former exterminator turned powerbroker do? Decides to quit Congress and give up his fight for re-election. Obviously the noose has tightened, and he's rather flee than fight. Should that come as a surprise? Nope. Rats will run.

But maybe it's unfair to pick on Tom Delay. I mean he's just one of hundreds of Congresspeople. Maybe we should take a look at Katherine Harris, the woman to earned her way into Congress by helping her boss Jeb Bush steal the 2000 election in Florida to give to his older brother George. Not satisfied with the measly House of Representatives, she realized that the greater the criminality, the bigger the aspirations, so she sought to reach the Senate. Driven by a horrendous campaign and horrible polls, she pledged to use her personal ten million dollar inheritence to "spark life" into her campaign, only to renege on the plan the next day. And while she hasn't yet quit her race, all of the major campaign advisors are quitting, leaving her poor campaign even worse. But should this come as a surprise. Nope. Rats will run.

And as weazl noted, Iran has been placed in a bad place, but has long seen the writing on the wall, and has prepared itself. Not only, as weazl reported, had it launched massive military exercises, tested a missile that is believed to be undetectable on radar, tested what may be the world's fastest underwater missile, let the world get out that Hezbollah operatives may target Americans and American interests globally (Hezbollah should be remembered at the biggest factor in running the US out of Lebanon with its attack on naval barracks killing 241 American soldiers), and (as weazl predicted) seems as if it already has a substantial nuclear arsenal. And the US leadership seems typically schizophrenic, on one hand holding "secret" talks with Britain regarding a bombing attack, yet claiming that it is committed to a diplomatic solution. Yet weazl predicts that despite the clear psychosis of the Washington "leaders" the greater the military threat of Iran, the reduced likelihood of a military confrontation. The same has held true with the US relations with North Korea. Why is this so? We know why. Because rats will run.

And yet the biggest legal news yesterday was about what did not happen. Namely the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari (or judicial review) of arguably one of the most important judical questions before it in our nation's history. Namely:

"Does the President have the power to seize American citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detetion without criminal charge or trial?"

Padilla v. Hanft, Petition of Certiorari

weaz does not want to explain the complicated details of habeas corpus petitions and jurisdiction, but will offer a brief explanation as to why the case was deemed moot. Carlos Padilla also known as the "dirty bomber" was swept up in the Adminstrations phony War on Terror as an alleged al Qaeda operative who was planning domestic terrorism. In order to fear monger the American public and further strip Americans on Constitutional protections, the Administration claimed that he was an "enemy combatant", not subject to Constitutional protection and thus eligible to be placed in indefinite military confinement without trial. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the President had no authority under Congress to hold citizens indefinitely without charges, rejected all of the "Department of Justice's" new and creative ways to grant presidential powers never heretofore given. Yet because of jurisdictional issues of where Padilla was to be tried, the case was re-opened in South Carolina, where once again the federal court ruled that the Administration's arguments were void. But the Department of Justice once again appealed this decision, but this time under Judge Michael Luttig, who was being considered for a Supreme Court position, reversed the District Court ruling, claiming that Padilla court be held as an enemy combatant and could be held forever. Thus, there was a real opportunity for this critical issue to be decided by the Supreme Court. But in order to avoid the Supreme Court from deciding the question, the "Department of Justice" tried to transfer Padilla to civilian court, where he was charged with crimes almost completely unrelated to the reasons given for his military detention. But Padilla and the rest of observers interested in justice wanted to the Supreme Court to answer this critical question: either to show that the Constitution actually means what it says (and has always been understood to allow, eg. rights to trial, to be confronted with evidence against you, right to a jury of your peers, etc.) or whether we live in the anarchic state that the Administration is working to achieve. But because the case has been transferred to a normal criminal court, the case is now "moot." And the Administration has essentially delayed constitutional scrutiny of its shameful actions. The dissenting opinion for the denial of certiorari can be found here.

Even with this Republican stacked Supreme Court, the Administration didn't want the issue addressed of whether the government can sieze a citizen on flimsy evidence and hold him as an enemy combatant forever. Why didn't the Administration want to be held to account for its actions? Of course, because rats will run.