will Lindsay Englund be in the sequel?
 

As long as he keeps his head, that should be acceptable, relatively speaking.

win one more for the gipper
 

No.

What was the idea?

God saved by Supremes
 

on a standing issue.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._of_allegiance

Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

15 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

Pussies.

The Fucking Nerve
 

True.

It is a clever move by ICRC, though. Seems from the article that they're really more focused on the thousands of other detainees, and understood that the best way to get public attention on it was to shine the light on SH to show the logical flaws in perpetual detainment.

Actual question: Wouldn't SH get handed off to whatever Iraq organization that's been preparing for his trial, anyway? Or are we really thinking that we'll keep him until we're ready?

The Fucking Nerve
 

Last I heard, the Saddam tribunal was having difficulty coming up with witnesses willing to testify against Saddam. It would suck if it couldn't make a case against one of the world's most notorious and brutal dictators. But I've overestimated the abilities of the Bush team in the past.

It seems inconceivable to me that we would hand him over to any body that was not prepared to guaranty Saddam's conviction of an offense with a penalty of death. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but it would be dangerous to leave him alive - he could be used as a figure head for a band of adventurers plotting a coup.

God saved by Supremes
 

Sidestep my ass. Sandra Day O'Connor joined Rehnquist's opinion that the pledge does not violate the Constitution. Since the arrangement in Establishment Clause cases is that she has the proxy of the other eight justices, it's as good as litigated.

God saved by Supremes
 

Thank God.

The Fucking Nerve
 

Jay Leno on the charges against Hussein:

• According to The New York Times, last year White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security -- so if that's legal, what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?

Son of Spam
 

Ty, I know you've got a pretty full blogplate, but I just ran across one that you may find interesting.

(spree: from TSG, samplings of David Berkowitz's prison blog)

The Padilla Case
 

The whole "enemy combatant" regime troubles me a lot. As applied to a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, who is undoubtedly entitled to all of the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, it troubles me even more.

Arrest a U.S. citizen, and slap him in jail. Just before you may have to make a court appearance -- remove his case from the criminal justice system and transfer him to a military prison without telling anyone.

Take the position that, because the Administration has declared that citizen an "enemy combatant", he has essentially no procedural rights -- and no ability to challenge his detention or the information on which it was based. Take the position that the Administration can hold him incommunicado indefinitely -- until the "War on Terror" is won.

Take the position that the Courts cannot intervene, and have no standing to look behind a bland summary declaration submitted by a government official who has no first-hand knowledge of the facts.

Deny him access to a lawyer, or to any visits from anyone, for years. Interrogate him at will, under undisclosed conditions.

After losing at the Ct. of Appeals level -- and during a bad news week for the Administration while the S.Ct has your case under advisement -- have the Deputy Attorney General hold a press conference in which he puts out a whole bunch of damaging information about you allegedly resulting from the years of your incommunicado detention and interrogation.

In fairness, the written form of the presentation (letter to Orrin Hatch) does footnote your denials of membership in al Qaeda and allegiance to bin Laden, and your claim that you discussed this stuff with AQ so that they'd let you go back to the U.S. rather than send you to Afghanistan with John Walker. However, its damn clear that, if the government gets its way, you will never have the ability to contest the charges against you.

That's a fair summary of what I have a problem with.

If you don't, well -- if the War on Terror is still going on when I'm elected President, I'll garauntee you that Not Me and Gin Rummy are going down. Probably have to silence AG as well. He'd make a stink.

S_A_M

The Padilla Case
 

I don't really know enough about this area of law, but it is my understanding that this is not a case of first impression. So I'm not sure it is right to say he is undoubtedly entitled to Constitutional protections.

Perhaps you are arguing what the law should be, in which case, I believe there are constituencies on both sides whose rights need to be considered. From what I understand, the big fear of the GOV is that by giving him Constitutional rights, he would have access to communicate with those who mean to do us harm. If true, this is a serious concern to me. On the other side of the coin are, of course, the human rights issues. And on top of all this, we have separation of powers issues.

So given all this, it seems to me that the way to balance these competing issues is to have some sort of judicial review on the enemy combatant question, which I think is exactly what we have.

Plot to Blow Up Ohio Mall Foiled
 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...324EDT0600.DTL

With all of the critisms, the GOV should get some praise as well.

but wait, there's more
 

From the Telegraph (a Tory paper):

• New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.
  
  The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.
  
  According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.
  
  "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."

The Padilla Case
 

I don't know enough about this area of the law, either, but isn't there any consideration given to the fact that we are at war? If so, then I think those opposing his status as enemy combatant don't see the war on terrorism as a real war.

If Iran attacks us, and american muslims were to take up arms and fight against US forces on US soil in support of Iran, would their actions be crimes or acts of war? I think it would be pretty clear that they were enemy combatants and should be treated as POWs if taken prisoner. POWs don't get lawyers to represent them.

I see Padilla being the same as an American who fights againt the US in a war and is captured - an enemy POW.

Plot to Blow Up Ohio Mall Foiled
 

I agree. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, but there have been several plots that were uncovered and arrests made.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much longer our 1000 batting average is going to hold up. I fear it is only a matter of time that one will succeed, and if those opposed to renewing the Patriot Act have their way, the odds will be even higher that the bad guys will succeed.

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

""Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer. Over eight years it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service." -- GWB, today.

Boy, that hadda hurt.

win one more for the gipper
 

The panel on Fox were discussing the parallels between RR and GWB - they both had controversial big picture ideas and were heavily criticized by the opposition as being too aggressive and alienating our allies. Bill just said that at the Rep Convention, one of the speakers needs to say "win one more for the Gipper." I like the idea, and it would certainly get a good response from the crowd, but it might backfire if not done right or not said by the right person.

win one more for the gipper
 

I think it would be a HUGE mistake, and is really unseemly to me. Bush needs to stand on his own record, not on Reagan's.

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

He didn't really say much in that quote, but yet was gracious. He said that Clinton was working hard to bring a better day to America. He didn't say that Clinton succeeded. He said Bill loved the job of Prez. Sure, he loved access to fat interns with soft full lips. The only quote that can even be construed as saying something substantive is when he said Bill could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service. I am not even sure what that means, though.

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

For what it's worth, I've heard they kind of get along. And remember it was Clinton in 2000 that, after meeing GWB, was warning DEMS not to misunderestimate him.

win one more for the gipper
 

Yeah, it could come off bad if it wasn't done right. If Nancy spoke at the convention, maybe she could say it and it would work.

win one more for the gipper
 

She'll probably be dead by then. Her funeral may still be going on, though.

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

Where do the official portraits go and why is there a Hillary portrait?

win one more for the gipper
 

Doubtful. As we've seen, especially in the last week, Nancy is the guardian of Reagan's legacy. There's nothing to be gained from her trying to leverage GWB's candidacy with it.*

Instead, maybe we could recruit Buchanan to say it instead. I visualize him using the line to exhort the faithful, possibly with a pitchfork in hand. Or maybe an AK-47.

Gattigap


*That's not to say, though, that GWB might not ask anyway. Apparently, he's making it a habit to request political help from (un)orthodox quarters.
It seems like only yesterday when Kennedy had to swear that he wouldn't be taking instructions from the Pope. Good times, good times.

The Padilla Case
 

(a) Under what circumstances is a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, not entitled to Constitutional protections as against his government?
(Particularly when we are not, technically, at war with anyone?)

(b) As far as I know, this is pretty much a case of first impression. The "enemy combatant" cases that the administration's defenders kept throwing around early on involved Germans sent ashore from a submarine to spy/sabotage in the U.S. in WWII. I'm not aware of a case with facts that are even particularly close to this.

I'm not arguing what the law _should_ be -- I just listed what troubled me about how they've handled it.

However, Club -- how can you say that we HAVE judicial review of the "enemy combatant" designation when that is precisely the issue being fought in the courts, and the administration has taken the position that there can and should be NO REVIEW of such designation by the judiciary?

If there is some judicial review, and the designation is upheld -- is it your position that this is just fine? i.e. If you've been properly designated an "enemy combatant" (some kind of "reasonable basis" test, I'd assume) -- the government can hold him forever (or so long as desired), without charges, and with no right to further challenge his status? Shit, we should heve thought this up years ago and used it on Randy Weaver.

Sure, there are plenty of contituencies and issues to consider. There are legitimate national security concerns if the government is exercising its power responsibly.

What would prevent these issues from being handled in an expanded "national security" court system, where proceedings can be held in secret, with judges, attorneys, etc. who have the requisite clearances to hear the evidence? [The hell of it is that these scary secret courts, with the proper procedural protections, would be a vast improvement on what we have now for them.]

If the response is that the evidence won't meet the requisite burden of proof, because intelligence is always squishy, I'd ask whether we really want our government to be able to confine our citizens indefinitely based on vague or unprovable assertions?

Is whatever benefit we might be getting from this "enemy combatant" stuff really worth the cost to our civil liberties and national identity? It is true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. However, people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

S_A_M

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

I think the article mentions that there's an entrance hall in which the most recent president's portrait resides.

Hillary's will be downstairs with the other first ladies, but rumors are that there's a tiny mechanism hidden in the back of the frame that will detach HRC from the wall sometime in late August and start moving itsurreptitiously towards the Oval.

It's Topsy-Turvy Day!
 

When it gets there, will it engage in a catfight with the monica lewinsky portrait hanging in the corridor off the Oval?

The Padilla Case
 

So, then, do you think that the protections of the Geneva Conventions should apply to Padilla and should have applied to Walker Lindh? Think carefully.

Or, if not -- and he's regarded as a plain-clothes spy and traitorous enemy operative, shouldn't he get his day in Court before being executed? Or not.

S_A_M

The Padilla Case
 

The entire issue turns on whether we are at war with Al Qaeda or not.

The Padilla Case
 

As Mark Kleiman said in a post that he's recently re-posted on his blog, people are wrenching that line from Justice Jackson's decision out of context. Al Qaeda is trying to kill us. But it is not a threat to our Constitution, our government or our way of life. Justice Jackson did not mean that the Constitution is suspended when, e.g., we're at war. (Kleiman's post on this is a good one; read it.)

The Padilla Case
 

I can also remember wars on drugs and poverty. How is "at war" defined (serious question)?

The Padilla Case
 

I'm not sure I see a difference between someone in US controlled waters and US controlled land. Is there something special about land?

If this is the case, my position is that there should be judicial review, or some sort of check on the executive branch's power.

Troubling as it is, yes. Assuming the person has been properly categorized, I see no reason to treat him differently then we treat POWs, as he has waived his rights to the protections of the US when he has sought to destroy it.

You seem to site this as a throw away. I view this as the paramount factor.

I have no problem with this type of safe guard, as long as we don't have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It should be something far less. Shit, even OJ wasn't convicted.

Yes, is is. It is not "our" civil liberties, it is the civil liberties of a handful of people who have sought to bring down the very free society that we cherish. I can't get all worked up about this given the limited application to US citizens and the alleged conduct of those citizens.

The Padilla Case
 

According to Article I, section 8, clause 11, Congress has the power to declare War.

The Padilla Case
 

as conventionally modified by the War Powers Act (I think)

The Padilla Case
 

The GC has a specific definition of what types of POWs fall under the protections of the GC. My understanding is that AQ types don't fit that defintion.

I consider him an enemy POW, who can be held until the war is over and some sort of truce has been declared or a surrender or whatever the end of this war will be like and the terms of release of the POWs have been settled.

Whether the GC applies to him or not is determined by the language of the GC. Not every enemy POW falls within the GC. Only those enemy POWs that are defined by the GC as falling within the GC. If the countries signing onto the GC wanted to include AQ terrorists as having protection, they could have written the GC to include terrorists. My understanding is that the GC does not define terrorists organizations as falling under its protection.

The Padilla Case
 

The WPA doesn't lend that power to the Executive, and if it did it would likely be unconstitutional. It delegates the power to "introduce[] into hostilities" the armed forces in the absence of a congressional declaration of war when certain criteria are met, but it doesn't make what the President does "war" or "declare war."

Indeed, the text of the WPA tends to support the view that Congress saw a difference between introducing the American armed forces into hostilities on the one hand and declaring war on the other. And well they should --- their President was telling them there was a difference.

The Padilla Case
 

I suppose next you'll be saying that accused criminals have forfeited the protections of the Bill of Rights by virtue of their transgressions?

The Constitution makes an express provision for U.S. citizens who make war on us. It is not optional --- you try them for treason under Article III.

The Padilla Case
 

I am not really sure, and that is the crux of the issue as I see it.

The Padilla Case
 

I just wanted to see this one more time.

Yo Soy Juan el Marino!
 

Yo pienso que tu y Hankee son pedazos de pelotudo. Comense mis pelotas michinados! No intiendo un retruécano.