ThinkFast: October 2, 2006
ThinkFast: October 2, 2006
The Supreme Court begins its term today, with abortion and race dominating the agenda. “Conservatives want the court to uphold a 2003 federal law banning the procedure opponents call ‘partial-birth’ abortion, and to strike down local integration policies that distribute students by race.”
Bob Woodward’s new book paints a devastating picture of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “as an arrogant, indecisive bumbler who won’t take responsibility for his mistakes — or even admit any.” Asked if Bush still supports him, Rumsfeld said, “Oh, my Lord, yes.”
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft is set to publish a memoir of his time in office, “lashing critics of the Bush administration’s strategy in the war on terror.” The book reportedly has particularly harsh words for some of the members of the 9/11 Commission.
3,000: Aug. 2006 total of Iraqi civilian deaths from violence, up from 2,000 a year ago. Five thousand Iraqis have been displaced. “[T]his year’s violence was the worst since liberation, and probably the worst over all since 1991,” concludes the Brookings Institution.
Texans are unhappy about the border fence. “From Laredo to Brownsville, a meandering 200-mile stretch of the Rio Grande that would be walled off if President Bush signs, as expected, the bill to fence 700 miles of the border, reaction was overwhelmingly negative.”
Wal-Mart “is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more workers on nights and weekends.” A 2005 company memo noted the benefits of this switch, saying it would “lower Wal-Mart’s health-care enrollment.”
In the worst fighting since a peace deal was signed in May, “[f]ierce clashes between rival African groups in south Darfur have left up to 40 people dead and prompted most foreign aid workers to abandon Greida, one of the world’s largest camps for displaced people.”
Softer Voices, a conservative political group, is “shelling out nearly $1 million to soften the image” of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) in the hopes of boosting his popularity with female voters. The group has received funding from John Templeton, who has been an outspoken advocate for intelligence design.
And finally: Tony Blair meets Kaiser Soze. Before his speech last week to the speech to the Labour Party Conference, the Prime Minister received speaking tips from actor Kevin Spacey. “He got Blair to pause a lot more than he usually does and did some work on his posture. He also wanted Blair to use his eyes to a much greater effect.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Habeas Corpus-your right to be seen by a judge.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:13 amA month before the election, Softer Voices is finally trying to “soften” Santorum’s image in the eyes of women.
Not to give any advice to right-wing loonies, but those morons should have started this 2 years ago.
Talk about missing the boat.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:17 amBritish troops in secret truce with the Taliban
BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people.
I just wonder whether to file this under cut and run….or appeasement?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 amOf course the British could just be following the Pakistani’s Lead….
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:26 am“Bob Woodward’s new book paints a devastating picture of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ”
And Saturday, CNN aired a program on Rumsfeld which portrayed him as a firm, decisive, no-nonsense leader, supported by his generals and lambased by those who disagreed with his style. This, from the “liberal” media.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 amYeah, softening up Santorum’s image should do wonders. I’m just glad that they’re still dumping money into this lost cause.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 amOh, and Tony Snow thinks that the Foley scandal is just a couple of naughty emails.
America’s Least Wanted
If Santorum’s image can’t be “softened” and he loses the election, he can always start a lobbying “firm”. I hear Foley and Ney are looking for jobs. No, not THAT kind!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 amBob Woodward’s new book paints a devastating picture of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “as an arrogant, indecisive bumbler who won’t take responsibility for his mistakes — or even admit any.†Asked if Bush still supports him, Rumsfeld said, “Oh, my Lord, yes.â€
Bush still supports Rummy because Bush himself is “an arrogant, indecisive bumbler who won’t take responsibility for his mistatkes — or even admit any.” So George is looking in a mirror every time he looks at Rummy — and concludes that Rummy must be doing a heckuva job, since Georgie would be doing the same things!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 amIf Rummy were to grow a pencil moustache, he’d be a dead ringer for Closeau.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 am#1 – I’m with you, Will, I am mystified as to why TP along with the rest of the SCLM (so-called-librul-media) have completely ignored the ramming through of the Torture Bill featuring a suspension of Habeas Corpus at His Majesty’s Pleasure. Here is yet another day on TP and yet another day of the Foley scandal. I’m posting on nothing other than the suspension of the foundation law of the western democracies until I see something that addresses it.
Never mind a pre-9/11 mindset, the Bush Administration has gone beyond 1776 and reverted to a pre-1215 mindset. How is it that a malevolent cave-dweller in Pakistan/Afgahnistan can almost singlehandedly unravel 800 years of western civilization? Isn’t that worth talking about?
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 amTerry T.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 amYou’re right! Turning back the clock on legal precedent and foundation values of our country should be the front and center issue on this and other blogs.
To not give it posting space is a disservice to the nation.
I wonder how long it will take before it comes before the SCOTUS??
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft is set to publish a memoir of his time in office….
I look forward to reading this. He was one of our nation’s greatest Attorney Generals, right alongside Robert Kennedy.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:39 amThe LAT article about the fence probably started with a pro-NAFTA, pro-illegal immigration idea of going to Texas and trying to find as many people as possible to say bad things about the fence. Looks like they succeeded.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:49 amWhoops…Embarassingly poor grammar in posting 12. My apologies…:
I look forward to reading this. He was one of our nation’s greatest Attorneys General, right alongside Robert Kennedy.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am“Conservatives want the court to uphold a 2003 federal law banning the procedure opponents call ‘partial-birth’ abortion, and to strike down local integration policies that distribute students by race.†Leave it to Charles Lane and Pravda on the Potomac, aka the Washington Post, to describe racial discrimination as “local integration policies.” ROTFLMAO
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pmAny chance this is something the Supreme Court could/would overturn? Seems to follow the same logic behind the finding of Gitmo illegal…
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm#16 – Maybe Parrot – but in Jose Padilla’s case it took 3.5 years to get his habeas case to the steps of the SCOTUS. And then the JD dodged the bullet by charging him with financial laundering for terrorist organizations instead of the ‘dirty bomb’ ‘charge’ they initially detained him (but never charged him) for. Do you think 3.5 years is acceptable between arrest and charge? The Torture Act last week made that 3.5 year abomination for a US citizen legal, and retroactively too. If I don’t miss my guess, the Torture Act just made the SCOTUS judgement on Geneva and Guantanamo irrelevant too. This act made the SCOTUS irrelevant ‘at His Majesty’s Pleasure’ . Now maybe just maybe, someone on the SCOTUS will reread the Constitution and shoot down this act, but well, if they waterboard me while I wait, I’m not going to be able to ‘hold my breath’.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:15 pmAh Parrot her you go, someone smarter than me discussing the legal angle:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-detain29sep29,1,2271064.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:20 pmCool. I will read that link. For the record, I completely agree that this is something newworthy, at least on sites like TP, even if the conservative media won’t take it. Sadly, sex scandals sell. The good news is that this can help our “cause” in the elections. More dems means more chances of laws like that NOT getting to the king — i mean president — to sign. I’m not sure the average citizen even knows why habeus corpus is important, much less that the law signed suspends it for “enemy combatants.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 pmO.K.T.P……..WE ARE WELL PAST TIME ON A OPEN THREAD OR JUST PLANE THREAD ON ALL THE MISERABLE BILL’S THIS DREADFUL ADMINISTRATION PASSED LAST WEEK….HOW ABOUT IT.?….THE TIME IS NOW TO HAVE A POSTING OF THE “DO NOTHING GOOD CONGRESS.”…….PLEASE…GIVE US ALL A CHANCE TO VENT ATLEAST……BLESSINGS
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pmParrot – I noticed that TP has not covered the Torture Bill since the House passed it last Thursday. Now they may think that the Foley scandal is just going to be great to run on, but how long is it before the ‘well I know we do it, but so do they’ spin shows up with an email from a Democrat? I saw someone advocating great messaging somewhere which went a bit like this:
1. Do you think George Bush should be able to arrest anyone he likes for as long as he likes?
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm2. Do you trust George Bush with the life of your soldier?
3. Do you trust George Bush to decide what is torture and what isn’t?
4. Do you trust this Repubican Congress to make George Bush accountable to you?
We’ve heard a lot in this age of ‘cut and run’ from Busheviks about Churchill and Chamberlain. Chimpy thinks he’s Churchill apparently. Well Churchill was a flawed man too – just think about who was the first to use chemical weapons in Iraq and you’ll see that. But then when he was thinking about what was good about the western world he fought to the death to defend it. Here’s Winston Churchill on the subject of habeas corpus, which is your right, since 1215 in western common law not to be detained without charge or trial:
“…the great principle of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgement by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments.â€
“It is only when extreme danger to the state can be pleaded that this power may be temporarily assumed by the executive, and even so its working must be interpreted with the utmost vigilance by a free parliament…â€
“Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy. This is really the test of civilisation.â€
- Winston Churchill, 21 November, 1943
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pmIt is amazing that America is not protesting and demonstrating in every major city on the new legislation Congress passed suspending Habeas Corpus – and it applies directly to American citizens. The President can now declare anyone to be an “enemy combatant,” and that title is one the White House can charge anyone with minus judicial review!
We hover closer than ever to a dictatorship, concentration camps are being built with the continental United States – yet the population does not question the government as to the purpose of these camps. Complacency in this matter undermines our inherent rights to free speech and liberty – and it’s time for America to wake-up!
In case I disappear…
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:49 pmJoe Biden FINALLY put the whole Rummy resignation thing into proper perspective…
…when he declared that it’s now gone BEYOND just Rummy…
…we need to clean up the White House…
…he says that he told L’il Dick to his face in a meeting with the criminal chimperror…(NOTE: “error” at the end pretty clever huh? hahah)
…anyway Biden says he told L’il Dick that he’d ask for HIS (Dick’s )resignation if he thought it’d do any good…
…then two minutes later Biden trips all over himself backtracking when asked by (Stephanopolous I believe)…
…if Biden thinks either Bush or Cheney should be impeached…
…”NO, no I don’t think either the President or Vice President should be impeached,” Biden cries…
…what a lump of sh*t…
…Is there ANYONE in the opposition (or media) who’ll STAND UP and tell the truth?
…They should ALL (in the Bush WH) be impeached, prosecuted, impoverished and imprisoned…
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 pmHopefully, the Supreme Court will get right on these rulings, so that we have fresh fodder for the election.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhy Judd, Why?? No mention of the removal of Habeus Corpus?????
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm26- Fascists like Hendler are perfectly ok with the suspension of Habeus Corpus.
It would be in line with Hendler’s prior views to presume he thinks “getting it right” to be rubber stamping Bush’s Torture Bill as passing Constitutional muster.
However, a “strict construtionist” view of the Constitution would read the Bill of Rights in the context of the founding fathers, who were all too familiar with the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh and the use of coerced testimony and hearsay to condemn someone to death. The founding fathers also knew of the Tower of London and the nasty tendency of a King to incarcerate someone indefinitely without a hearing.
The 5th Amendment applies to any person, not just to United States Citizens. There is no justification under the Constitution to deny a person life, liberty or property without due process of law. But under Bush’s Torture Bill, there are two types of “persons,” those whom he names “unlawful enemy combatants” and those without such lable. Once named an “unlawful enemy combatant” that decision cannot be challenged, and those persons lose the protections of the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
Granted, the Constitution gives Congress the right to limit federal court jurisdiction. The question is, and it is presented here: can Congress pass an unconstitutional law, and, within that law, also eliminate the federal court’s jurisdiction to hear the Constitutional challenge?
If this question is answered in the affirmative, then Congress can, by a simple majority vote, negate the Constitution, or any portion of it. Such a proposition is not tenable and is in direct opposition to the founding father’s intent in creating a lasting document, as expressed in Article V. Thus a “strict constructionist” judge would hold both the law, and the attempt at eliminating judiciability to be unconstitutional.
But that’s just a lay-person’s view. I’m sure our resident “lawyer” Mighty Afraudite can give us a much better analysis and insight.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm