Habeas corpus returns!
Apparently the Supreme Court has declared that even Gitmo inhabitants have human rights.
Thank God. I've been ashamed for years to be living in a country that would imprison people without even a hearing on whether there was a reasonable suspicion that they had done what they were accused of doing--a country that had abandoned the rule of law. I want to cry with relief.
Slate's Convictions blog is having a fascinating discussion about the precise meaning of the ruling. To follow the discussion, start here and work your way upward, via the "prev" button.
Advertisement
I feel the same way E.J.
Surprised a little that there are so few comments on your post.
June 12, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the vast majority of TPMC readers would agree about Guantanamo.
But, most people actually concerned about the issues are probably going to read and post on threads started by experts having been involved with the issue or at least having followed it closely.
Has Graff posted on "the other human rights" i.e. those besides gay marriage? Her being a "human rights" activist, and all. It's nice she's expanding her activism to already accomplished goals.
I also enjoy when Graff cites poll data, claiming it as accurate, despite it having been consistently off by 10-20 points for over three decades. Nothing like tissue thin and easily debunked pandering to inspire an enduring and pragmatic movement towards victory. Didn't MLK always say the way to build a movement is by giving a lot of bubble heads false hope to sell them books?
Maybe Code Pink will throw a Guantanamo party to celebrate the occasion. Oh joy.
June 12, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro on the Boumediene Decision. He also recommends Glenn Greenwald's writing on Guantanamo, which have been excellent. (GG being Salon's last good regular contributor.)
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/06/12/aclu-legal-director-steve-shapiro-on-the-boumediene-decision/
June 12, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube converter
December 20, 2010 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the decision:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. All were predictably rt wing Republican appointments that passed thanks in no small part to a group of DINOS in the pocket of the same proto-fascist corporate interests as Republicans.
The majority opinion is formed of centrists appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. The sort of judges we should have throughout the court and a clear example of why it's important to elect moderate and non ideological pols, independent from corrupting lobbies and interests.
June 12, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, agreed. Somewhat.
I'm all for centrists, independents, non-leftist liberals and non-right-wing conservatives on our Supreme Court. If that was our only disagreement, the disagreement is hereby over and we can all leave the playground now (picking up our toys, first, of course).
I am all for justice and balance and clear-thinking and the middle path that Buddha loved to talk about back in his day. Jesus talked about it too. After that, the message kinda got garbled (I think that was the Tower of Babel?) but, hey...we all still know how to get along and talk peaceably in this day and age, I would hope.
If you talk to people peaceably, kosmic, I might talk the same way back at you.
Karma. Kosmic. Karma. Kosmic.
Keep repeating that to yourself. Softly. If you want, you can do like Jesus suggested and pray quietly to yourself in the closed closet door of your own domicile, so long as you still pray to The One that you believe in. The One will see it. Trust me.
June 12, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Republican, ex-Republican, Buddhist, Christian, goof ball, whatever you are.
I don't really care to be your friend, or have you "swallow my dick." Thanks, but no thanks. Lay off the sauce. Maybe get a shrink.
The last thing we need is more unhinged people with personal problems projecting their psychological issues into the body politic. We tried that. It was called the 60's cultural wars. It produced a generation of ideological idiots on both sides with disastrous consequences all around. No thanks.
As far as I'm concerned, goof balls like you, on both sides, are already a lost cause. Any party you're at is going to suck.
June 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you peace.
June 12, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. All that, and phony too. Quite a package.
June 12, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, you thought that when Lis said "Karma. Kosmic. Karma" she was paging you?
No. She was not.
June 12, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tis not often I bother to call-out an online persona for ill behaviour; but you, 'kozmik', are an unmitigated asshole!
Tie a pork chop about your neck & find a doggie to play with you. Or stick a lubed vibe in your ass. Whatever; just chill.
June 12, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pork chop?
LisB already made clear all it takes is some combination of "honey, whipped cream, and Kama Sutra oil." Since your fond of anal vibrators, and LisB is lonely, why don't you round up some more closeted Republicans and you can have a proper party?
June 12, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's "you're". As in, You are.
Are you still seriously here? Well, gee. So am I.
But this post belongs to a woman who has far more intelligence and grace than you have, so why don't you do us all a favor and take this to the Readers' Posts thread, where it belongs, since we don't have a personal place to go to and E.J. Graff's post was already ruined by both of us?
June 13, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've now been spell checked by a woman obsessed with repeatedly posting on "swallowing dick" and her relationship problems to a political forum. Now I've seen everything.
June 13, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've now been spell checked by a woman...
Spell-checked? You forgot "and repeatedly pwned."
June 13, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, reading your comment leaves me wishing that TPM had either a "report abuse" or a twit-filter feature.
Sigh! Oh for a good unmoderated board whee people can get really vulgar.
June 15, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised, as well, that no one has commented on this post. Lord knows we all comment about how wrongly we treated the detainees at Gitmo. Now that they have a voice, TPM'ers lose theirs?
I don't get it.
Where in the hell IS everybody???
June 12, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should be partying in the streets! I saw the Yahoo headline when I got home from work today, that said, "Bush Disagrees with Decision, But 'Will Abide' By It" and thought, "No shit?! Like he has a choice?!"
Where IS everybody?
June 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We should be partying in the streets!"
lol. Like I said up thread.
June 12, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo.
Asshole who has nothing nice to say in any of your comments ever (and I know, because I just looked them all up by clicking your name and I see nothing cosmic but everything toxic in every single one of your hate-spewing rants) -- yeah, you.
Get out of my party if you don't want to dance.
June 12, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and, uh...by the way? I don't think MLK ever used the term "bubble heads".
But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
June 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
From LisB's blog:
"HELL-O-OH! ANYBODY CELEBRATING WITH ME AND E.J.?!!!
I took off my stockings and my slip and my bra is next! I'm dancing around my living room with my dress on and nothing underneath!!!
And y'all still want to talk about Michelle Obama and Whitey?! Y'all still want to talk about how Hillary lost?!
HELL-O-OHHH!"
***
Is this Guantanamo or Mardi Gras you're celebrating?
But hey, party on wild and crazy gal!! Because nothing says "activism" like blogging your party-of-one after the fact. Wooohooo!
btw, Has EJ Graff been a leader on the subject and I missed it? What have you done?
June 12, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh. You're fun.
I'm gonna like this.
I am not gay, so therefore, you have not yet jumped down my throat with your dick first, as you seem to do to everyone else here who either chooses to love someone of their own sex or chooses to agree with and support those who do.
If you're not familiar, yet, with me personally here at TPM, all I can say is: You don't know anything about me, or how I choose to party, or WHY I chose my party, or HOW I chose my party, and you don't know jack shit about me.
Wanna learn? Keep posting.
E.J., Bluebell, TPMGary, keep partying with me. Because it's our party and we'll dance if we want to, celebrate freedom if we want to, celebrate human rights if we want to, celebrate love if we want to, and dance with nothing underneath our dresses. Or pants.
June 12, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not gay, so therefore, you have not yet jumped down my throat with your dick first"
Wow. How insane. Great fans you have Graff.
June 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight, unfortunately for me, is the first night that I've read E.J. Graff's posts here. So you really shouldn't consider me a friend.
When I said, "I am not gay, so therefore, you have not yet jumped down my throat with your dick first" I was pointing out:
a. I'm not gay. All of your comments seem to be directed at those who are.
b. You've never trolled me before, that I can recall, so you've never exposed me to your tactlessness and your beautiful way with words before.
c. I left a man who treated me with as much understand as you treat others who don't think like you, and I've grown because of it. I have found my voice because of it. And so therefore, on to:
d. You're a dick, and I can't swallow you. There is no honey, no whipped cream, no Kama Sutra oil with which to enoint you enought to make you easy to swallow. Therefore,
e. I must resist, reject, and denounce you. I have no other choice.
Peace, and sweet dreams (unless, of course, you want to continue this dialogue further, and in that case, I simply wish you peace),
LisB.
Your new friend.
June 12, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pardon my typo's. I was angry.
Please pardon my rant in the middle of an important post that belongs to E.J. Graff and not me.
I'm calm now. And still dancing.
Amen to our Supreme Court's decision today. Gitmo has been one of the most embarrassing failures of our administration's administrations.
Good riddance to it.
Dance on!
June 12, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing. I really wanted to know how your personal relationship history formed your opinions and that this isn't a new problem for you. Glad to know anyone you disagree with becomes emotionally morphed into your EX in your mind. I'm sure that will really help you in future relationships and generally promote a sane world view.
June 12, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was my apology and explanation to everyone else, especially E.J. Graff.
I have known and loved many good men. I have been known by and loved by moany good men too.
Let's just say.....you're not gonna make the list.
MEN HERE TONIGHT: Tear your ties off! Move them hips!!! Unbutton those top buttons!!!
Democracy is coming! Democracy is coming!
I can feel it in the air, I can see it like a thousand points of light!!! Not even the sight of brocolli will make this former George Herbert Walker Bush supporter of throw up on a Japanese VIP's lap tonight!!
Reagan's shaking head ain't got NOTHIN' on ME!!!!
Peace, liberty, and the pursuit of happily dancing almost naked in one's own private living room march on!!!!
June 12, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lay off the sauce.
June 12, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock, Lis!
And kosmic can go fuck himself; his views re celebration cast him as the prototypical repuke.
June 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya have to hand it to him, Lis, he takes your beatings and keeps coming back begging for more. Nice job accommodating his masochism.
June 12, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, ok. I'm really being humiliated by LizB's diatribes on swallowing dicks. Nice avatar too.
Like I said before: great fans you have EJ Graff.
June 12, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understood, and thanks. I'm still dancing in my dress, though.
June 12, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tease.
June 13, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good call, LisB, especially because you really haven't seen the worst of it, you made an accurate judgment without the full poop. :-) He's actually been good until recently, relative to behavior in the past. I really had to laugh when he accused Destor 23 of setting up straw men the other day cause he's like the expert of all times in setting up straw men to argue with. In the old Cafe days, he managed to slowly, one-by-one, alienate virtually everyone from talking with him, with the straw man tactics, trying to make everyone into an enemy in order to argue his points with that enemy. When people started to ignore him, as in "don't feed the troll who makes you into a straw man," he would amp up the vitriol and start with the name calling, see if he could get a reaction from that. If you gave him a downrating for doing that (we used to have comment ratings) he would also ramp up the attack mode. Most of us more long-term members have been called Republicans or conservatives by him in desperate attempts to get us or someone else to respond after we had stopped; he did that to a ridiculous level at times, to even the most liberal, mild mannered members. It's a pity that he's so wed to a vicious adverserial/straw man method, because he often has interesting things to say on topics.
P.S. I'd have put this in a private message if we had private messaging because it's off-topic and for the most part am happy using the "don't feed" method. I decided to post it in public because I don't relish watching deja vus ramp up allover again, given this comment from a contributor in response to an insult jihad from kozmik.
June 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor23 was setting up a straw man to attack Obama's policies by totally distorting them.
He first claimed Obama's plan is to require a year's FT work for $4K scholarship, and then changed that to a year of F/T for a $16K scholarship. Both scenarios complete fabrications of Destor's imagination, showing he doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Others explained in the thread how it would actually work.
That artappraiser would defend him is no surprise. They both make a habit of nonsense and disinformation, often at the expense of the leading Democratic candidate, and fluff each other often. In fact, when we had ratings, those two and a few others were continually rating each other up.
I guess LisB is the newest member.
June 12, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understood. I appreciate your sharing your knowledge, because I'm new here by a few months. I didn't know.
God. This reminds me of when I used to fish off the Long Island sound in one of my ex-boyfriend's 22-foot Bayliner. We bottom-fed. We got a lot of very big and tasty Fluke (Flounder, on the West Coast), but we also got a lot of those damned Sea Robin things. At least, that's what my ex-boyfriend called them...Sea Robins. They were red, like boiled lobster, and they had these sharp and pointy head-fins and side-fins and dorsal-fins and sharp spines and I used to HATE them for robbing my bait.
My ex-boyfriend used to pick them up from the water with his worm-goo-stained, fish-blood-stained rag, and break their necks.
And we used to cheer, together, click our beer cans together (if we'd known about terrorist fist jabs we would've terrorst fist jabbed each other), as we watched those suckers sink to the bottom where they could dwell but eat no more.
But, I digress.
E.J.'s post and it's links and comments and recommends await me. I now leave the bottom of the sea, and gladly swim upwards, towards the sunlight dappling happily upon the waves. Towards the fresh air that seems to carry the sweet smell and taste of Democracy.
Carry on.
June 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't want 'ya to feel lonely (especially since your fellow party goers are so friggin lame!!!).
I celebrated earlier(the news hit the reader posts this morning)!! But this is big enough to celebrate again. Mardi Gras comes every year - restoring the constitution to it's rightful place is truly cause for celebration!
I've been somewhat subdued really - some things are just such a combination of joy/relief that they must be savored.!!!
June 12, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved Matt Frewer's show, back in the day. Max Headroom.
Showing my age.
June 12, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are--like Hillary--giving you Obama fans the floor. Where is Obama on this issue? Why has HE not congratulated the Supreme Court and its decision? Why are you asking us to comment when your guy is busy moving further and further to the right? Your criticism is highly selective as it has been all along
June 12, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the fuck did you manage to make the restoration of Habeas Corpus about Hillary?
June 12, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised you're surprised. Apparently you don't know Andrew Strat.
June 12, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post was directed at LisB, whose vitriol against Hillary in the primary was really something else.
Of course I support Obama for president. That does not mean I cannot keep a critical eye on the guy.
I'm not into the cult of personality type of politics. I could not care less who occupies the WH as long as s/he acts in a just way in dealing with the people's business.
June 12, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry he has congratulated the Supreme Court. Just saw it on the news
June 12, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where IS everybody? -- They're too into the horse race and not enough into the reason we run the race. That's a problem for Democrats. Republicans never forget why they are running the race.
June 12, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's intentional on this site, that's the intended audience. Read What We Do by Josh Marshall, Jan. 22, 2008. I admit I somehow got the crazy idea that the TPMCafe subdomain was meant as an alternative to that, and hung onto that idea for a while after reading that post by Josh Marshall, but the software change letting the Election Central audience dominate finally disabused me of such silly notions. Also, they had lapsed into mostly horse race posts on the Cafe even before they did that.
Scotus Blog has comprehensive roundups on this news, and by using their links, I am sure I can find some interesting discussions on the decision, which is what I'm going to do now. :-)
Over at the New York Times, I see that the Supreme Court beat reporter Linda Greenhouse just published her report, and they'll probably have a discussion place up on the topic soon.
June 12, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last 2 links fixed, I hope:
Scotus blog
Greenhouse/NYTimes
June 12, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ruling. Scalia is a fear mongering fascist disgrace, as always, in dissent. A highly educated version of El Presidente.
I have long felt that holding "terrorists" as "enemy combatants" in a "war" against a stateless enemy was unconstitutional. So what would be the next "war" where we could ignore the accused's Habeus Corpus rights? The "war on drugs", a "war on porn", a "war on subversive un-American free speech"?
What country are we at war with right now? None that I know of. And since we are not officially at "war" the detainees should be viewed as criminal defendants, not POW's or enemy combatants, and be given all the rights afforded any other defendant in a US criminal case. If they were involved in terrorist attacks or were planning a terrorist attack(s) against the US I can see trying them in the US court system. But I don't think they can be tried in the US court system for actions committed against our forces during our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
June 12, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia is really a vile man. I so hope Obama appoints Hillary to the court. The prospect of her being the deciding vote against that little man should really give any woman as much satisfaction as seeing her in the White House. In fact, I hope Obama appoints at least 3 women to the court.
June 12, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...Hillary would drive Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts up a wall bluebell. I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary on the court one bit. And after her Laurence Tribe would be another great choice to drive Scalia nuts. I agree the court needs much more diversity...and I am sure there are a diversity of well qualified liberal jurists to choose from if Obama wins.
And, yeah, Scalia makes my skin crawl...
June 12, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary? On the supreme court? What a nutty idea. That's never going to happen for too many reasons to list.
1) she's never been a judge.
Where do people come up with this stuff? It amazes me.
btw, John Roberts was only a judge from 2003-2005, was previously council to Reagan and HW Bush, a Federalist Society member, and is about as sleazy a political appointment as it gets. Oh, and to top it off, he has mild epilepsy, which has been covered up, but is linked with increased rates of mental disorders including autism and mental impairments to reasoning. Great Chief justice.
June 12, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never been a judge?
John Marshall? Earl Warren?
June 12, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was just the first reason of many. Which you know. Quit trollin.
June 12, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't, kozmik. You're such a fish!
June 12, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik;
Naw, man. It's a GREAT idea. Think about it. With Hillary on the USSC we won't have to worry about her running for office again.
This is better than appointing her ambassador to Guam. And (you're gonna love this one) if she somehow replaces Roberts as chief justice, she'll have to be the one swearing in every future president.
Always a bridesmaid. Never a bride. Sweet!
As a matter of fact, I do NOT want to see her as President.
June 15, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have long felt that holding "terrorists" as "enemy combatants" in a "war" against a stateless enemy was unconstitutional. Libertine
I'm not sure the Supreme Court agrees with your feeling.
As far as I can tell, the SC held that the detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in a habeus corpus hearing.
But if they lose that challenge? What then?
June 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Ellen. I am very unsure if they would agree with me on that.
And if they lose that challenge it is back to square one in the fight. Not that I have any affection for the detainees but everyone deserves their "day in court" and cannot (or maybe "should not") be held indefinitely without a trial and are innocent until proven guilty.
June 12, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If any of the detainees is actually innocent of being an enemy combatant--which is very likely given the fact that many were rounded up on heresy evidence given by locals, some of who received monetary remuneration--then they do deserve our compassion.
We should be mindful to suspend judgment as to the guilt or innocence of these detainees especially since their guilt or innocence has not been tested by any judicial proceeding.
I don’t see what the danger is in testing them for being enemy combatants other than that the evidence, such as it is, is flimsy or lacking.
June 12, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. If they're determined to be "enemy combatants" i.e. people who willfully desire to harm the US, then they can be held as essentially POW indefinitely. I have some problems with that as wars ordinarily aren't perpetual and POW status not eternal.
If we're in a perpetual war against terrorism, then it's unlike other wars and we'll have to consider whether we're OK with keeping prisoners in such conditions (hooded, solitary confinement, etc) in perpetuity, and whether that's either necessary, humane, or even productive.
I'm more concerned about evidentiary standards and whether these proceeding will be both fair and practical. We should be able to clearly establish the guilt of serious terrorists, leaders, would be 9/11 bombers and such. We should also be able to detain suspects, at least temporarily, on *reasonable* suspicion.
On the other hand, I'm concerned we're sweeping up large numbers of innocent people in dragnets based on unreliable informants and such. Which is obviously immoral and corrosive to law enforcement and the military, encouraging a police state, and very bad for US optics which ultimately hurts our interests and fuels anti-US sentiment having real consequences.
We need a more practical and level headed approach to this, to hold the bad guys, and free the innocent, and present a system to the world which we can be proud of. Hopefully this is a first step.
June 12, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why in hell didn't you just say that in the first place?
I would've given you an "Amen" and let it rest at that.
June 13, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, if you look at the post at the top of the page, I said from the beginning that most people on TPMC would agree with the decision.
However, and I'll say it again, EJ Graff is primarily a gay marriage activist, and she's recently made some pretty factually troubled posts. So Guantanamo is both outside her area of expertise, her credibility pretty low, and frankly I find it distasteful for her to hop on the bandwagon after an issue is "won" when her focus is usually so narrow.
It seems rather ingratiating to say the least.
To answer the question of "why aren't more people in EJ Graff's thread?" I responded basically: there are better places that have actually been following the Guantanamo issue on a regular basis. Obviously. Even Graff linked to another site.
Btw, I'm not anti-gay as you claim, which is just another example of your shallow, black/white identity politics. I'm for civil unions and against gay marriage, despite having supported it for many years.
My opinion on Graff and the the L+G political movement generally is it's been largely a disaster of their own making. My sympathy has run out due to the terribly counterproductive way they've handled issues, and the often Republican leaning economics of many L+G, while promoting endless liberal cultural wedges. The L+G community isn't a very good neighbor or supporter of basic human rights across the board, yet they seek to wrap themselves in the mantle of human rights when it comes to gay marriage.
Maybe if you weren't making a fool of yourself posting about ex boyfriends and your propensity for swallowing dicks, you could figure it out for yourself and learn more. If you can ever figure that out, you'll understand why so many people dislike the shallow identity politics on either the left or right, because the bubble heads and f'ups do more harm than good and have been since the 60s.
June 13, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are--like Hillary--giving you Obama fans the floor. Where is Obama on this issue? Why has HE not congratulated the Supreme Court and its decision? Why are you asking us to comment when your guy is busy moving further and further to the right? Your criticism is highly selective as it has been all along.
June 12, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw his official immediate response put up on CNN in writing, I thought it was quite good and strongly worded, I was impressed with it.
They also put up a sound bite from McCain from wherever he was speaking and he said he was disappointed with the ruling, but then he stressed that he had come out in favor of closing Gitmo, trying to sound like he was in the moderate middle, I guess.
I will be surprised if we don't hear more from both of them on this.
June 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...Andrew get over it all ready. Get on the team and help make sure a D is elected POTUS in November. This ruling has nothing to do with the Democratic primary process.
I would hope that Obama will comment on it soon and while I am not sure if he will "congratulate" the court if he does comment I am thinking he will probably praise the majority opinion nonetheless.
June 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said the other day and he continues to prove, Strat is a real doofus. The guy is a defacto fifth column. Either from malicious intent, or sheer stupidity.
No rational person would drag Hillary into this unless they're trying to troll. Read his claims about converting CO2 to liquid jet fuel being "easy" to get an idea of how spaced out and unhelpful to any realistic conversation he's going to be.
June 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe...or...maybe not. Either way I am not in the mood to stir things up any more.
But, unlike me, at least he didn't butcher the word "already", already. *rolleyes*
June 12, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik
Being that this is a debating blog and not a mutual admiration society, you should not take personal offense when someone disagrees with some point you make.
It would be rather dull indeed if we succumbed to dittomania.
What used to make the old format with the old people such an exciting and vibrant blog site was that we generated an enormous diversity of opinion by very interesting people.
Many of those people have left.
Now it seems that there is some pressure to tow the line here. That's very unfortunate.
You do have interesting things to say quite often. But lately you have been on "attack" mode unnecessarily.
The purpose is not merely to prove your opinion right, but to expose yourself and others to a variety of "takes" on issues and thus enrich your understanding of a given topic.
That requires that you don't engage in personal attacks unless you feel the other person is really being a dick.
It seems to me that lately you must think everyone is a dick on this site, and that's probably unlikely.
. What used to make the old format with the old people such an exciting and vibrant blog site was that we generated an enormous diversity of opinion by very interesting people.
June 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just babbling and hand waving.
Your post the other day claiming the conversion of CO2 to liquid fuel, to be easy and just "simple physics" and hence going to easily replace petroleum based jet fuel, was moronic.
Your political opinions are also incredibly ill informed and you're a defacto fifth column. I know plenty of people from working class to physicists, and I don't know anyone who spouts such stupidity as you in RL.
June 13, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said conversion was "easy"--whatever that means. Easy is not a technical term. I was making a technical point. In the physics of energy the issue is whether the production of the fuel is efficient; where efficiency is measured as the ratio of energy output of the produced fuel over energy input needed to produce the fuel. the greater that nuber is the more efficient the fule is.
My point was that you claimed that nobody is going to be flying planes based on wind power. And my point is that energy harnessed by the wind can be converted to electrical energy which can be used to synthesize a fuel for the jet. The fact that I used CO2 a raw material is totally irrelevant.
What I don't like about you is that you stick your nose into things you know little about and then when you are called on it you do not take it gracefully. That's being a dick.
June 13, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol.
:rolleyes:
June 14, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik
you are hopeless
June 15, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do support Obama but am troubled by the neoliberals he has put on his team.
June 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC lost the primary fight. His team will be/is more liberal than the team Hillary would have put in place. To the victor...
June 12, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, there goes Strat trolling and tryign to poison the well again. He's a Republican Freeper.
Look:
1) He claims he's a Hillary supporter to undermine Obama.
2) Then he claims he's reluctantly an Obama supporter, to ingratiate himself.
3) Then he claims he's "concerned" Obama's economic team is too "neoliberal" which is just another attempt to poison the well.
4) In fact, Bill, Hillary and the DNC are as neoliberal as it gets. They were the conductors of the neoliberal, Third Way, DLC, Reaganomics-lite economic movement. Highlights being NAFTA, killing Glass Stegall, etc.
Andrew Strat is a Republican Freeper.
June 12, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
To member Devon, who posted on this topic quite a bit in the past, I am wondering how surprised you are.
June 12, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
restoring the constitution to it's rightful place is truly cause for celebration!
We still have a VERY long way to go to do that, but, agreed, this is a giant step in the right direction.
June 12, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There we go. Now you're dancing.
June 12, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I at least kept my bra on!
June 13, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
EJ,
Your biography is both impressive and intimidating, but I'm too dumb to care about that.
Therefore, one correction to your characterization of the SC decision: It means that Gitmo detainees have US Constitutional rights, not Human rights.
The former is much more significant and definable than the latter, IMH(non-attorney)Opinion.
FB
June 12, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The movement to ban false modesty flags this use of IMHO.
June 12, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MdeSTSS,
Elaborate, please.
FB
June 13, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, Justice Kennedy.
As for the dissenters, they were, unsurprisingly, the usual craptacular suspects.
E.J.Graff said:
Much better to smile. I know, the heart is full. But lets celebrate the way Lis is.
She's even advised me to shorten my skirts as a prologue to celebration, dancing and deep ocean swimming (uh, why will there be deep ocean swimming, Lis...?).
BTW, Ms. Graff, welcome to TPM Café!
June 12, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to say - I loved your book on marriage.
June 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would there be deep ocean swimming, Cricket? Because I felt, for one brief un-shining moment, that I was drowning.
I lost my life-boat for a moment. I forgot that we're not riding on The Titanic.
But still....nothing wrong with showing some leg now and then, girlfriend. You know what I'm saying?
June 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
;)
June 12, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure a "welcome to TPM Café" is called for.
Graff's been here for quite a while.
Oh for the days when archives were archives!
June 12, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for telling me that, Ellen.
In 2006, I don't think I bothered to get past the front page and EC. Only this year have I ventured into the Cafe. My apologies for being de trop
June 12, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was my fist venture in, too.
I think I'll stick with the readers' posts until I feel righteously qualified to stick my two cents in again.
Or not.
Depending on my mood....the topic....the joy.....the anger. All of the above.
I wish you all peace, and sweet dreams.
June 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh heh...until NEXT time....
Just kidding.
E.J., can I have this dance?
June 12, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah.
You post where you like, Lis.
It's a free blog.
;)
June 13, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, y'all, for the corrections and the comments. (Hey there Kozmik, keep enjoying yourself!) I didn't have anything intelligent to say but I was just bursting with happiness. Glad you all took it somewhere overnight.
June 13, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't have anything intelligent to say but I was just bursting with happiness.
E.J., you would sound intelligent reading the ingredients on a pint of Chunky Monkey.
June 13, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
CORRECTIONS?
You must have recycled this comment from another one of your many other "drive-by" posts.
There were no facts in your post, ergo no "corrections" were possible.
June 15, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave Gitmo open long enough to take care of the war criminals Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, then close the place.
June 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Bush can add a signing statement to a Supreme Court decision...
June 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't give him any ideas.
June 13, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder if Bush can add a signing statement to a Supreme Court decision..." hrebendorf (June 13, 2008 3:04 PM)
He doesn't need one. He will simply refuse to obey their decision. He always has. He always will. An' ain' nuttin' you 'rennybody gawn do 'bouddit.
June 15, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia was against the decision? Really???
Is anyone buying my mock surprise???
Nah, didn't think so. Scalia belongs in Gitmo!
I completely echo E.J.'s words. It's just shameful that we went even 1 day with holding prisoners and refusing to give them habeas.
June 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v download, hardware iscsi initiator
April 8, 2011 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of db2 high availability
May 4, 2011 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink