#thepete #podcast this week: #Election2016 is kind of a #farce

This week on #thepetepodcast I go into my thoughts on how this election is just a big old #distraction #festival, or #distractionfest. #DonaldTrump and #HillaryClinton are the #RingLeaders AND the #clowns.

Here is a direct download of the 10 minute mp3 of this week's #thepete #podcast, or you can subscribe to #thepete #podcast! ;)

Got iTunes? Sure, we're all forced to! Subscribe to #thepete #podcast on iTunes!

You can also listen to this podcast on Audioboom!  In fact, you'll get to listen one day earlier than iTunes and RSS subscribers!

Let me know what you think of this podcast! Leave a comment here or on Twitter or where ever you found my podcast. THANKS!

Like what I do online? Support me on Patreon or by buying my long-form comic, INKSTREME BALLPOINT ADVENTURES!  Or, hey, just buy me a cup of coffee!  Seriously--every bit helps!!  Thanks!

You can always find more episodes of #thepete #podcast at podcast.thepete.com!

The Problem with Religion is...

A very very long time ago, one of two things must have happened:

1. Someone noticed a lack of instinctive organization in society (in other words, people were not working well with each other in order to keep society stable).
2. Someone wanted to control the general populace.

It's possible both things happened. The point is, there was a need for a system of control that would allow some level of uniformity to how society ran. At some point someone realized that they didn't have to be accurate when the questions of existence and life were asked. That someone would explain that it was God's will. In other words, he could and did lie. How do I know he lied? Because there is zero proof of a supreme being.

None.

Zip.

Zero.

No God. At all.

And that's the problem with religion.

The whole thing describes a system that was made up to control us all. Sometimes it is used for good things, like bringing communities together and providing a support structure for people in need. Other times it's used for bad things, like 9/11 and the Inquisition and possibly even the biggest mass shooting in American history, the Orlando Pulse shooting which happened just the other day.
But let's go back to that first person to lie to that other person who asked "why are we here?" That first person uttered an explanation that was complete fiction. He had to because science probably wasn't even a word yet. He may have thought:

"This person really needs some answers to make him feel better about life--who cares if it's not true? He trusts me and it'll make him feel better!"

Or he may have thought:

"This guy is a fool and I can manipulate him for my own ends with a good enough story about why he exists."

Regardless, the result is the same: humans for millennia have been making choices based on seriously false assumptions. There are people who believe that God will send his only son back to us at some point in an event called the Rapture. These people believe, because they Believe, they will be whisked off to heaven once Jesus returns. As a result, they do not plan to have a full life. In the documentary Waiting for Armageddon, one young woman laments, through tears, that she really wanted to have a family but she knows the Rapture is coming, so…

Then there is Omar Mateen, who, as of this writing, is believed to have been a Muslim, possibly gay, man who was apparently disgusted when two men kissed each other in front of his family. He took that disgust, to a gun shop where he bought some guns and ammo, which he then took to a gay club and murdered almost 50 people. It seems like he did it because he couldn't make the reality he saw there line up with the reality that was explained to him by his faith.

This is the same thing that happens when a Christian "pro-lifer" decides to kill an abortion provider. They think "this isn't right! God says we shouldn't do this! I have to act now and kill this person who is murdering helpless little babies!"

Religion creates a schism that most believers are able to ignore. However, there have been many people throughout the history of human civilization who either could not ignore that schism or chose not to. The Crusades are a good example of this. Christians believed that they should possess what their holy book had told them was holy land. So they marched into the Middle East and tried to conquer the folks that already lived there. Thousands of years earlier the Old Testament told the Jews to do the same, so they marched into the land that would become Israel and claimed it as their own, even though someone already lived there. But it was OK because their god told them "it's cool!"

This same land is in dispute to this day--all because of what some people's religion told them.

Years ago, when the US Congress was trying to decide what to do about Climate Change/Global Warming, one politician spoke up, explaining that God had given the planet to humankind to do with as we pleased. He further described how he was sure God was going to take care of this one for us. All these years later, we all know, CC/GW has gotten noticeably worse, with extreme weather patterns, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, wild fires, and more, all providing visible, measurable feedback from an ever-warming planet.

And yet, so many of us, too many of us, still believe that it's OK to believe in a supreme being and all sorts of other Biblical teachings from thousands of years ago that were, themselves, ripped off from other religious texts that were written even earlier, none of which are based on modern scientific findings.  In other words, they don't describe the reality we actually live in.

From my perspective as an atheist, it's like someone turning to the Holy Teachings of Jedi Master Yoda or recognizing how Superman died for our sins and was later resurrected. Not only are these people fictional, but they are wrong. Sorry, Master Yoda, but there IS "try." In fact, you make a false equivalency--"try" represents an intermediate state, where as "do" or "do not" are definite states. So, not only is there a "do," and a "do not" but there is also a "try." But I'm getting off topic…

The problem with religion is… that it's fictional and likes to pretend it isn't.

Essentially, religion is like those "work from home" scams where you call up and the person on the other end is just trying to get your credit card number from you so he can start charging you excessive amounts for essentially nothing in return.

Sure, you might get a class or two on how to build a website that might make you a couple of bucks, but then, you'll also feel better about life pretending God has a plan for you.

Or, you can accept the reality that there is no God, that you won't get rich off of your blogspot blog and that guy who blew himself up in the Middle East the other day isn't going to get to sleep with 72 virgins in Heaven.   Mainly, this is because there is no heaven.

"There is no god, so let's murder 50 people in a nightclub!" said no one ever.

When you discard the trappings of belief, the world becomes more simple--more straightforward. There is no more pleading with God for winning lottery tickets or an answer to why your child has leukemia. It is simply life in a universe that is actually quite hostile to our existence. Life, therefore, becomes much more precious than it is under the rules of most religions. If you die here, don't worry, there's life after death. Except, there isn't. So shouldn't you cherish what you have and leave behind a world where you will be remembered fondly?

Instead, the names Omar Mateen, Osama bin Laden, Dylann Roof, and many others will be remembered only as killers.

That's the problem with religion, it pretends that there is a reason why, and when that reason doesn't line up with the facts staring back at us, some of us decide that we should rewrite reality on God's behalf and kill a bunch of black people, gay people, Muslim people, Christian people.

The problem with religion is… obvious.

Ballpoint Adventures for March 27, 2006: Billy finally concedes to Barbie... sort of...

When I was growing up during the Cold War, it was as black and white a world as it is now--where there was good and evil and we were the good guys and blahblahblah. The difference is that back then, we were bravely standing up against the communist threat. We wore our freedoms on our chests like medals of honor. I, for one, was ready to die for my freedom if I had to (still am). Flash forward a few decades and we're all a bunch of scared kids afraid of the boogie man. What happened to us?

Ballpoint Adventures for March 26, 2006 Yes, Billy is still laughing at Barbie's joke about Al Qeada getting a nuke.

What else is there to say? Statistically, we are way more likely to be killed by a car, than killed by a terrorist. This has ALWAYS been the statistic since before 911, even. Why, then, are so many Americans willing to give up what brave men and women died to protect just because they have a tiny fraction of a chance they might get killed by a terrorist?

Ballpoint Adventures for March 25, 2006: Billy still enjoys Barbie's joke about Al Qeada getting a nuke.

It's such a silly thing to be afraid of. Sure--we should definitely stop terrorists and I don't want anyone to be killed by terrorists, but for Americans to be scared of terrorists? I'm sounding like a broken record, but so does anyone who still insists that AQ could ever "destroy America."

Ballpoint Adventures for March 24, 2006: Billy enjoys Barbie's joke about Al Qeada getting a nuke.

It is pretty silly, when you think about it--I mean--the USSR had almost as many nukes as we did and there was no Patriot Act in the 1980s. And now we're supposed to be afraid of a handful of guys in the desert getting a single nuke when those of us who remember the cold war were staring down the barrel of a gun firing thousands of nukes at us? Seems like America has turned into a bunch of fraidy cats.

Ballpoint Adventures for March 23, 2006: Barbie still doesn't get why Billy's not afraid...

Now that Al Qeada seems to be much less of a concern than gay marriage, women's health, immigration and the economy, I have to admit I am a happier person. There's still no reason to be afraid of gays or to control women's bodies, but at least literal wars aren't fought over those issues. The economy however? A flagging economy has been used to as an excuse for war since the dawn of time.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if suddenly a war pops up to help the economy out of its slump. Only problem: who will be the enemy? My guess? ALIENS!

You just WATCH!!

Ballpoint Adventures for March 22, 2006: Live on your knees or...?

Too many people would rather live on their knees than face death standing up. As if it's even death we're facing by not being afraid of terrorists. Statistically, you're MUCH less likely to get killed by a terrorist than you are a car. And cars aren't even Muslim!

Ballpoint Adventures for March 21, 2006: Barbie wants to know...

The one drag about going back through these strips is that it reminds me of how afraid we were of a bunch of guys in the desert. Sad some of us still are afraid of them. Even more sad that President Obama is one of them.

Ballpoint Adventures for March 19, 2006: There's still plenty for Barbie to be afraid of...

FDR was right--be afraid of fear, first... or else you might find yourself performing oral sex on someone who claims to be keeping you safe.

Ballpoint Adventures for February 16, 2006: God is Finally Straight with Billy

Yeah, I hate to break it to ya, but most of the stuff we humans are afraid of every day isn't anything worth being afraid of. Odds are, if you don't die of old age, you'll die by a car accident or cancer.

Just a reminder: The USG likes to trump up Terrorist threats, like that last one.

I spotted this tweet two weeks ago and opened it in a tab but then forgot to blog about it. Basically, it’s proof, once again, that the USG doesn’t like to bother with actual terrorists. Instead preferring to pretend people with intent but without means deserve to be arrested for wrongthinking and being stupid enough to trust an FBI plant who is pretending to be someone he isn’t.  So, here’s the tweet:

From @BreakingNews: “More: US officials say their assessment of some Iranian leaders’ plot knowledge is based on history, analysis, not hard evidence - @Reuters”

Original tweet is here.

See, evidence is that thing you need to convict another human of a crime since all humans are guaranteed certain rights regardless of nationality, gender, religion or sexual preference.  At least, I thought that was the case before American citizen Al-Awlaki got blown up by a drone.  So apparently, you don’t need a court OR evidence to decide someone is a terrorist.

Read more about the case the tweet refers to in a post on my blog.

Yet another supposed "terrorist plot" has been "foiled."

One thing I've noticed about the various terrorist plots foiled by the USG is that they've all involved undercover USG-types posing as Al Qaeda or someone else.  When those dudes in Florida wanted to blow up the Sears Tower, they were to get everything from weapons to boots (BOOTS!) from their Al Qaeda guy.  Their Al Qaeda guy was actually FBI.  Turns out they had zero means to do what they wanted to do.

Likewise, that kid who wanted to leave a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon (I think) a year or two ago--he was a kid who was dealing with, who he thought was an Al Qaeda guy, but was actually an FBI guy.  This was a kid who had no means to commit his act of terror.

And again, recently with this supposed Iranian plot.  Check out what Reuters reported:

U.S. court documents accuse Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen with an Iranian passport, of paying $100,000 to an informant, who had posed as an associate of a Mexican drug cartel but in fact worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and alerted the authorities to the plot.

Now, there aren't enough specifics here to say it's essentially a case of entrapment (like we can say about the previous two examples), but if the USG is sticking to form, we can certainly consider it a strong possibility until we know for sure.  But seriously, we really shouldn't be surprised if suddenly this story drops out of the media entirely in a few days like those previous stories I mentioned.

It's just another example of this trumped up (non-)war on terror.

An Act of Futility? (Killing an American citizen suspected of terror links)

newsweek:

An article in the Apr 12, 2010 issue of Newsweek argues the killing of radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki would do more harm than good, as his links to attacks on American targets are speculative (at the time, administration officials today would likely disagree) and it’s not even known for certain if he is a member of al Qaeda.

As the lawyers and judge who will try Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab move this week to outline the contours of his hearing, the Obama administration is trying to prevent a repeat attack. The White House announced last week that the CIA will try to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda-linked American citizen living in Yemen who tutored Abdulmutallab. Awlaki will be hard to find—he is currently hiding in southern Yemen, protected by his powerful tribe—but if a drone operator has a shot, he will take it.

Today, a drone operator took that shot. Awlaki was killed. In the coming days, the Obama administration will have to defend its decision in taking out an American citizen by a drone-fired missile.

The rationale here seems self-evident. First, Awlaki has already been linked to two recent attacks in the U.S.: Abdulmutallab’s attempted bombing and also the Fort Hood rampage, where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan went on a shooting spree at his home base, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. (Hasan was advised over the Internet by Awlaki.) Second, Awlaki’s ability to speak English and recruit Westernized Muslims poses a continuing threat: just last month, he called on Muslims living in the United States to carry out similar strikes in the coming months. Eliminating him now, the White House claims, will do much to prevent a third attack. And third, the optics are great: Obama is a president who has promised to bring the fight to Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately, the administration’s argument is based more on frustration and assumption than real strategy. Killing Awlaki will do little to disrupt Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Inside that organization, he is a nobody—at best, a midlevel functionary in a local branch. There are dozens of men who could do more harm to the United States, and killing Awlaki would only embolden them and aid in recruitment. For an organization as resilient and adaptive as AQAP, his death would be a minor irritant, not a debilitating blow. The futility of such a strike should give Obama pause before he greenlights the assassination of a fellow citizen.

Read the rest of the piece. Do you think his killing is justified?

Unless that guy had a gun to someone’s head and refused to drop it, killing him was absolutely unjustified. This is disturbing to no end.  The American Founding Fucking Documents explain that all humans are created equal and that we all get certain rights—like the right to a trial.  Awlaki, to the best of my knowledge, never had a trial.  To the best of my knowledge, he never killed anyone either.  

You know, Timothy McVeigh once said that the reason he used violence to send a message to the USG was because he felt that violence is the only language the USG understands.  I don’t know if that’s true, but violence is certainly the language the USG likes to speak in.

Frank Miller: Great Writer and Great Fear Monger? Yeah, probably.

Frank Miller, the man who wrote some of my favorite comic stories ever, has a new graphic novel called "Holy Terror".  If you're familiar with his previous work "300" and his politics, you'll not be too surprised that this new book is about super-heroes going up against jihadists. Spencer Ackerman has reviewed it negatively (understandably) for Wired.  Toward the end of the review, Ackerman explains:

And following 9/11, Miller himself had a sophisticated, complex reaction, intolerant of anyone’s easy pieties. As David Brothers at Comic Alliance reminds, Miller contributed to a volume called 9-11 Artists Respond by offering a scathing, stark series of captions — “I’m sick of flags. I’m sick of God. I’ve seen the power of faith.” — over a haunting illustration of the World Trade Center wreckage.

But it wasn’t God who knocked down the Towers. It was fanatics who believed themselves to have deciphered His true message. Miller doesn’t realize that by portraying them as true disciples of Islam, he’s giving the murderers what they want most. That’s the real terror of Holy Terror, the real lie, and the real naïveté.

Absolutely right.  However, Ackerman glosses over the real truth behind what brought those towers down.  Here's the comment I left on the review:

I never read "300" but I saw the movie and found it to be racist, xenophobic and very much a reflection of Bush-era foreign policy. So, Ackerman's take on "Holy Terror" doesn't surprise me at all. But I think it's an important thing to note, that, while a Believer would defend God and say "God didn't knock down those towers, it was fanatics," an atheist would point out that it's the belief in that god, itself, that did it. Of course, then you put every major religious belief system on the hook (which is why you never see it taken that far). We can't challenge all religions everywhere, now, can we?

But I don't think planet-wide atheism would solve things, either.  Fear-mongering isn't always about religion.  Sure, it was for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonization of North and South America ("Convert or die" was the option given to many natives), but often it's about whatever the fear-mongers can get their hands on.  The Soviets were, according to President Reagan, literally, "The Evil Empire" when 30 seconds of thought would have reminded us that they have spouses and children and homes and hopes and dreams *just like us*.  And we all know that the human tendency toward the fear of "The Other" goes back much further than the Soviets and so does said fear's exploitation by humanity's "great" leaders.

That's really what brought the Towers down ten years ago--fear.  Those extremists were terrified of what would happen to their culture, their beliefs, their loved ones if America wasn't stopped.  Likewise, Frank Miller is terrified what will happen to his culture if Islam isn't stopped.  What's worse is that it seems like he wants us all to feel that way, too.  And that is really really sad and kind of scary.

Sorry for the long comment.

I'm just glad Frank Miller has an outlet for his fears!  After watching Thomas P.M. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" seminar on C-SPAN a couple times, I think I truly understand why terrorism happens.  In that seminar Barnett concludes that the majority of the violence in the world comes from regions of low connectivity.  In other words, the people committing the violence don't feel connected to the world around them.  They feel powerless and out of control.  Connected people feel that their voice is heard.  Frank Miller's voice is heard by a lot of people.  I wonder what he would do if suddenly his audience and book deals vanished.  As a writer, myself, I know firsthand that it takes an impossible amount of passion and belief in/for a story to see it through to the end.  Now imagine all that passion and belief with no where to go.

As much as I wish Miller would stop writing, I'd definitely prefer literary terrorism to the literal kind.  Then again, he could just get a blog like the rest of us.

That seminar from Barnett is really quite excellent. I highly recommend you watch it either at the Google Video link above or here on C-SPAN.

UPDATE 16:45:

Someone commented on the above-mentioned Wired article and basically put forth the idea that some of Miller's fears are true, saying in part:

Certainly many Muslims and Arabs are very much the peace loving types that Bush espoused, and that you seem to think all non-Al Qaeda-card-carrying Muslims are -- but it's telling that a few cartoons will get Muslims protesting in the streets about offending Islam, while the bombings carried out in the name of their prophet around the world seem to mostly go unmentioned. The "Not in our name" protests are far and few between.

Ugh... I hate this kind of disguised racism, so I had to say something:

I don't think anyone is saying Islam is a perfect religion with believers who are flawed, just like the rest of us. I think the point is that painting them *all* (or even most of them) as violent people willing to kill for their beliefs is unfair and a mistake. The "connections" you describe are pretty tenuous. I have a good friend who is Muslim and I dated a Muslim, as well. I'm an atheist. They both knew this and they never tried to kill me. Not once! I even had my friend play Jesus in a web video I shot. Does it sound like they have connections to terrorism? Are they acting like extremist Muslims? I don't think so.

As for moderate Muslims not speaking out against extremist Islam, I agree, but then again, how many moderate Christians do we hear speaking out against the extremist Christianity that denies global warming, hates gay soldiers and is somehow simultaneously both pro-life and pro-war at the same time? Hell, while we're at it, I'd love to hear from moderate Jews who are against the occupation of Palestine. However, I also understand why it doesn't happen. How would you like it if I asked you to prove you're not an ethnocentric, paranoid racist? Wouldn't you mind me demanding that you prove your innocence to me?

That's the key, by the way, to know whether you're being unfair to someone else.  Point your judgment or accusations back on yourself.  Do they fit? Or not? And why?

In this commenter's case, he was demanding Muslims prove they aren't supporters of terrorists and aren't terrorists themselves.  But when a similar question is put to him, how would he like it?  He'd probably make excuses about how no group he is affiliated with is responsible for the death of thousands.  To which I would say: "Oh, you're not American then? Because they killed A LOT of people--half-a-million in Iraq, alone!  Probably billions if you go back to the Native Americans during the time of western expansion!  So, go ahead, prove you're not a genocidal maniac like so many other Americans throughout history. Or maybe you don't like someone demanding you prove you're not like other people of your kind since you're pretty sure you're not."

The USG trumps up threat then tells us how they're protecting us from it.

This is something I’ve noticed the USG and the FBI doing for a while.  See if you can notice what’s wrong with the following cutting from a November 28, 2010 article at LATimes.com reporting on a 19 year-old naturalized American (originally from Somalia) who wanted to blow up a bunch of Americans (I’ll add italics to make it obvious):

“The threat was very real,” said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon. “Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale.”

According to the FBI, they arrested Mohamud after he dialed a cellphone that he thought would detonate a huge bomb — six 55-gallon drums, diesel fuel and a large box of screws — in a large white van parked near the tree lighting.

But the bomb was a fake built by the FBI, and the packed crowds who enjoyed a youth choir and a symphony orchestra at Friday’s holiday celebration at Pioneer Courthouse Square were never in danger, authorities said.

Let me break this down for you:

The FBI finds this teenager who’s pissed at the USG, builds a pretend bomb for him, hands him the detonator and then arrests him when he activates it.

Where’s the crime there, exactly?

I mean, sure, he’s “wrongthinking” like in the Orwell novel, 1984, but wrongthinking isn’t illegal (yet). 

On top of that, this guy had no obvious means to make a bomb to kill anyone on his own.  He’s a kid.  I remember how moody and obnoxious I was when I was 19! (If you think I’m bad now!) 

Why is it that we only hear about these toothless tigers and not actual threats being foiled by the FBI?  Hell, the Times Square Bomber from earlier this year failed in his attempt to blow up a bomb only because he was a complete and utter fucktard.  The FBI didn’t catch him beforehand and nearly lost him as he tried to flee the country. 

Seems the FBI can only catch a terrorist if they arm him and supply him first. It’s like a literal version of the “Straw Man Argument” where you, effectively, make a false statement and then prove it wrong to show how cool you are.  This time, they prop up this kid as a terrorist and then brag about it when they take him down.

There’s something deeply wrong about this.

Islam and the West: (not) keeping things in perspective

From blogdrop.posterous.com:

Just to put this into perspective, Ariana Huffington transported, for free, around 10,000 New Yorkers to Washington DC for the Rally for Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010.  That’s a third of the Taliban and more than Al Qaeda.

Here’s another graphic I nicked from blogdrop.posterous.com:

If you are pro-life you should be horrified by this.  Of course, if you are pro-only-your-own-life, you’ve already rationalized this away.  Sad, either way.

SEE THAT, Anti-Mosque-at-Ground-Zero Protesters? You’re HELPING THE TERRORISTS! (seriously)!

officialssay:

“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor… It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”

—

Taliban operative Zabihullah, on how the mosque controversy is benefiting the Taliban. 

If we respect people’s freedom (even their freedom to be insensitive to people’s feelings about 911) the terrorists DON’T win. Why do you anti-mosque-types not get this? Maybe you just WANT to hate? That could be…

(Blogged this on my lifestream by accident so here it is where it belongs on Website666.com)

Episode 8 of the 666cast featuring a rant against our leaders, both elected and paid for! Yep, in this week’s 666cast, I take to task the folks who are leading us. Whether elected or not, they have a responsibility to do the right thing to keep society and the people who live in it safe and moving forward. However, none of the guys at the top are doing it. Whether it’s Obama or the bankers or the head of BP, we’re getting screwed big time and our society is in trouble because of it. Please subscribe to the feed. What do you think?

Episode 8 of the 666cast featuring a rant against our leaders, both elected and paid for!

Yep, in this week’s 666cast, I take to task the folks who are leading us.  Whether elected or not, they have a responsibility to do the right thing to keep society and the people who live in it safe and moving forward.  However, none of the guys at the top are doing it.  Whether it’s Obama or the bankers or the head of BP, we’re getting screwed big time and our society is in trouble because of it.

Please subscribe to the feed.

What do you think?

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

My sister-in-law, Lisa (she runs OnLisaReinsRadar.com ), Tweeted yesterday about how every day there's something new from the Obama camp that makes her what to ask "WTF?"

I agreed and suggested a daily ObamaWTF Tweet. Here's mine for today, taken from today's DemocracyNow.org headlines:

Obama Considers “Preventive Detention” for Indefinite Jailings

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a “preventive detention” system that would indefinitely jail terror suspects in the United States without bringing them to trial. The New York Times reports President Obama discussed the proposal at a meeting with human rights advocates at the White House. Two anonymous advocates told the Times that Obama indicated he favored applying the system to future cases, not prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is set to deliver a speech later today outlining his plans on how to deal with closing Guantanamo.

Original here: www.democracynow.org/2009/5/21/headlines#5

This'll be no big deal assuming Obama doesn't do it--but why is he considering this at all? I think there's an amendment in the Bill of Rights promising due process and a speedy trial or something like that.