Yeah, but really the issue was never that primaries are making us hot under the collar. The issue is that the Cafe has become a monoculture. How often does anyone post anything not related to the election? To some extent, the problem is that Cafe users have collectively forgotten that presidents are only a relatively small part of politics. If there was an understanding that effective political analysis and activism requires thought about a wide range of issues not connected to the horse race, I think there would be a lot less 'shut up!' coming out in the threads.

Posted at July 14, 2008 11:28 PM in response to This is disturbing. I have questions.

Any word that packs any punch is used by shameless opportunists. I guess we could stop using them all if you think it would make us more reelevant.

Posted at July 12, 2008 10:29 PM in response to The Republicans are right - we Democrats ARE pussies

Yeah, I kind of agree with you, and I kind of don't. I don't see the Red Cross as likely very effective in most cases. On the other hand, five years ago, it didn't seem like any information would necessarily come out about what goes on in Gitmo - in some ways, the knowledge that the ICRC had at least done some fact finding struck me as not unimportant even if it wasn't making an immediate difference. (And if I recall correctly, there were some very slight leaks around their original report then - I don't remember that there were any details beyond that the ICRC disapproved of what was going on, but I do recall very similar 'tut-tut' official Red Cross responses to what was appearing in the press. Back then, when nobody really gave much of a shit about what was happening (I worked for the group that brought the first habeas corpus suits - the ACLU refused to sign on, and some of my peers in similar organizations openly laughed at me), even that little hint was important.

Posted at July 11, 2008 11:45 PM in response to Mayer: CIA Forced Detainee To Stand For Hours Without Prosthesis

Dude, couldn't you still get pissed off at the charge because it's kinda misogynist?

Posted at July 11, 2008 9:59 PM in response to The Republicans are right - we Democrats ARE pussies

See, now this is just typical of how bloggers make uninformed snap judgments. Do you really know that Rummy wasn't shackled and naked?

Sorry....

Posted at July 11, 2008 9:39 PM in response to Mayer: CIA Forced Detainee To Stand For Hours Without Prosthesis

As I recall, the first IIRC report was written in 2003. I understand their reasoning (nobody is letting them into even shed a tiny bit of light on their torture rooms if it's going to go public), but it's hard to see how much less effective this could have been.

Posted at July 11, 2008 9:38 PM in response to Mayer: CIA Forced Detainee To Stand For Hours Without Prosthesis

I had thought that Arar's case was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which you mention (this is embarassing as I used to work at CCR).

Now that I look at it, effectively it was. From CCR's website:

Further, Mr. Arar filed a claim under the Torture Victims Protection Act, adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1992, which allows a victim of torture by an individual of a foreign government to bring suit against that actor in U.S. Court. Mr. Arar's claim under the Act against Ashcroft and the INS directors is based upon their complicity in bringing about the torture he suffered.

The Torture Victims Protection Act essentially extends the same right to sue available to noncitizens under ATCA to Americans. I guess there must be more to it, though.

Posted at July 2, 2008 10:13 PM in response to Bodemeine Established Arar's Connection To US Judicial System

I've been told by some evangelical leaders that a good percentage of evangelicals (who are decidedly not all right wingers) are likely to go to Obama. So whoever this guy votes for, this is a good sign.

Posted at June 16, 2008 11:02 AM in response to Christian Right Author Pens Favorable Book On Obama

Maybe, in a sense, it would be only political. But the political arguably matters quite a lot: what we need, coming out of this dark period, is a clear statement that the tactics of the Bush Administration are unacceptable. This would be a way to go about saying that the conduct we've seen in Bagram, then Gitmo, then a brig off the coast of Virginia (or somewhere) violates the constitution.

Maybe it's not just political, though. Just as there are no rights without remedies, as the lawyers say, there are no bright lines without penalties for crossing them. The disincentive of possible impeachment hearings would do that. Of course, more effective would be strong new laws clarifying what we think is acceptable.

Posted at June 16, 2008 10:08 AM in response to Today's Must Read

The way I read this, the short version of the decision is: we really meant what we said in Rasul v. Bush four years ago.

Posted at June 14, 2008 1:24 PM in response to Supreme Court v. Bush