ThinkFast: October 20, 2006
ThinkFast: October 20, 2006
Iraq’s Prime Minister had ordered the country’s health ministry to “stop providing mortality figures to the United Nations, jeopardizing a key source of information on the number of civilian war dead in Iraq.”
President Bush recess-appointed former coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The Senate had twice refused to confirm him “because of his troubling mine safety record — the mines he managed from 1989 to 1996 incurred injury rates double the national average.”
“Moving quickly to implement” the new Military Commissions Act, the Bush administration “has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.”
In 1995, just three days into her tenure as Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) removed a routine working file alleging that her husband had engaged in inappropriate contact with a minor. The file, uncovered only recently, reports that Wilson’s husband touched a then-16 year old boy “in a manner that was not welcome.” Wilson sat on the Congressional Page Board and currently serves on the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s caucus.
The Government Accountability Office yesterday released a report stating that government-funded abstinence education materials must also contain “medically accurate information on condom effectiveness.” In the past, the Bush administration has insisted that its materials did not need to discuss condoms.
The Bush administration took “another step yesterday toward building a new stockpile of up to 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons that would last well into the 21st century.” The administration announced it will begin the process of repairing and replacing nuclear production facilities as part of an attempt to replace the aging Cold War stockpile of nuclear warheads with a smaller, more reliable arsenal.
In the middle of “National Character Counts Week,” President Bush yesterday went to Pennsylvania to campaign for Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA), who is being sued for repeatedly beating a woman with whom he had an affair. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that “Bush was careful to avoid the usual lines about family and conservative values.”
“The number of ‘dead zones’ in the world’s oceans may have increased by a third in just two years, threatening fish stocks and the people who depend on them,” the U.N. says. The number has previously doubled every decade since the 1960s.
And finally: California Treasurer and gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides (D) had an unorthodox campaign appearance on the Adam Corolla radio show. Prior to his segment, a “72-year-old woman named Sarah made out with a 20-year-old man” trying to get event tickets. Angelides’ daughter, who was with him, “received a hearty leering” while someone “suggested smearing mayonnaise on her.” Angelides also “made a pitch for some Playboy Mansion tickets for a staff member.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Moving quickly to implement†the new Military Commissions Act, the Bush administration “has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.â€
I bet Rove has a Top 100 List that Choicepoint helped him compile. He can't wait to get his hands on these top 100 people and throw them into the new detention facilities that Halliburton is building. I'm sure that within two years these facilities will be brimming with thousands of Bushs' loudest critics.
Hopefully Bloggers and Posters aren't at the top of Rove's List. But then we can't be sure.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:12 amHahahahahahahah! Heather Wilson(R), Mrs. Outraged at a little Boob of Janet Jackson..again ahahaahah.......... , Mrs."What will the children say", Mrs." What will I say when the children ask about a little tit at the Superbowl". Maybe you should have paid attention to your husbands needs (maybe he needs boys) No wonder she was so outraged, like all (R) she rails against what she is guilty of, or feels guilt for.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:14 am"I don't care if you beat women as long as you still support me, I'll take anybody nowadays" -GWB. What a pathetic excuse for life.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:15 amMorning all, Just another Friday in bull shit bizarro world...Let's see first the nut bag run's out and appointment's another no good for the mining industry, slam's his new bill at the judges to deny prisoners any rights and rounds out his day by stumping for a woman beater (sherwood) another drunken friend...This is all so special...Not....If it wasen't so deadly sad it would be funny watching this crazed bunch.....Have they ever done anything right?......Blessings
October 20th, 2006 at 9:22 amRepublicans' Current Platform:
1. Reinstate the poll tax.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:23 am2. We decide who the criminals are, no one may question that decision.
3. Pedophiles should be protected if it helps the Party.
4. Port security and airline cargo checks are a waste of money.
5. The poor are a nuisance. So keep the minimum wage below the poverty line, provide no health care, make it harder to declare bankruptcy.
6. Free speech is great, as long as we're paying the messenger.
The loss of habeas corpus should concern everyone, of course. What is next? Will some of us start to disappear as do people in countries without habeas corpus? Vice-President Cheney has already had people arrested by his thugs just for having the nerve to disagree with him. At the Bush campaign rallies back in 2004, many were arrested just for wearing T-shirts that expressed an opinion that was contrary to the President's view.
Let me go on record as saying that I disagree with everything the Bush administration says and everything the Bush administration does. Will I disappear for voicing my opinion? Whisked off to the gulag, if you will?
Unlike Bush and unlike Cheney, I am a proud veteran of the U.S. Navy. Will you come for me simply because I disagree? Like an eight-year old, I will throw down my challenge and double dog dare you boys to come and get me. On second thought, make that a triple dog dare. I look forward to the gulag chow.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:32 amGood morning Sharon,
"Have they ever done anything right?"
Well, if their goal all along has been to increase the power of the President at the expense of civil liberties, they have done everything right.
Assuming arguendo that 9/11 was orchestrated by a few well-placed government officials, they've been able to use a Pearl Harbor type incident to rouse the population against a minority, in this case, people of Middle Eastern descent;
they've managed to use fear to justify invading two sovereign countries using war plans that guaranteed not victory and peace, but on-going conflict, keeping the fear level high, justifying further reductions in civil liberties;
they've managed to appoint Supreme Court Justices who favor further reductions of civil liberties and support an Unitary Executive;
they've managed to place people on the Cabinet who are antithical to the very resources they are charged to protect (mining interests in charge of the Department of Interior, pro-business in charge of the National Labor Relations Board, and now a person with a poor track record on mine safety in charge of mine safety, and anti-UN ambassador to the UN);
they've passed tax relief to the rich and stymied any increase to the minimum wage;
and,
they've given despotic powers to the War Time President during a manufactured war against, not a peoples, but a tactic, a war that will continue for as long as the government wants it to continue, because there is no enemy to defeat. Thus the War Time President has perpetual dictatorial powers and the Constitution is no longer the rule of law in America.
Yes. I'd say, viewing things from the perspective of fascism, they've done pretty much everything right (reich).
October 20th, 2006 at 9:35 am“has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.â€
October 20th, 2006 at 9:45 amBoy, that didn't take long. How long will it take to file suit
on this? Is anybody out there? We must press on this, at least
to see if the SCOTUS will uphold this embarrasment to the US.
Maybe God will intervene & talk to Rummy...NOT!
Yep!...BnF....I loaded that question and knew some one else would get it....This bunch has done nothing right for America and her people, but everything for the reich...Sad day's ahead, but I for one fear nothing......Do me a favor and pull a ruen for me would you.? Thank's. I could use a little direction today....Blessings
October 20th, 2006 at 9:45 amSo, what kind of good news do we have today?
Well, for starters, al-Sadr has taken over a City in southern Iraq. This is just a glimpse of the future.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/20/iraq.sadr.ap/index.html
And, if you don't like the bad new, simply bar the press from access to that bad news as is happening with the monthly reporting on civilians killed in Iraq. See, that will show them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901799.html
And lastly, the Bush Justice Department has already moved to end habeas corpus. Not only that, but they are applying it retroactively. Now that didn't take long, did it. What is worse, this Supreme Court will probably decide by 5-4 to uphold the Bush administration even though there is clear language in the Constitution against retroactive provisions and the extension of habeas corpus to defendants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901692.html?nav=rss_nation/special
Not bad for just one day's news, now is it.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am“Moving quickly to implement†the new Military Commissions Act, the Bush administration “has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.â€
I can see two reasons for them doing this: The first is part of their never-ending quest to expand the powers of the executive branch to rival those of even Saddam Hussein. Ironic, isn't it? And the second is because they do not want the truth to come out at any trial these detainees might some day get (if they're lucky.) I strongly suspect that a trial would reveal that they have been tortured at the hands of US personnel, and this just might make the Bush administration look like they haven't been truthful with us. Never mind that it's only one of about two hundred things they've done that make them look untruthful (such as Bush going out campaigning and flat out lying.)
I hope that when the day comes that our conservative "friends" see their fellow citizens rounded up and put into detention facilities for doing nothing more than petitioning their government for a redress of grievances, they'll realize what a mistake it was to support this lying son-of-a-b*tch in the White House. I can only hope it happens to someone they love, or they may never see the error of their ways.
Peace to all.
Habeas Corpus (1215-2006), Requiescat In Pace
October 20th, 2006 at 10:00 amWayne,
Our conservative "friends?" Did you happen to see the John Warner and Lindsey Graham standing behind GWB as he signed that abomination? We have no conservative friends.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:07 amWhy was loss of Habeus not really covered here? Becasue the same people who control the money and all the other news control this site too. Don't be fooled people, this is all about money, global domination by a few. I was pretty skeptical about this whole 9-11 conspiracy theory, but there are respected scientists who have pieced of metal from the structutre with traced of Thermate, and thermate is only used for one thing, controlled demolition.
Br afraid, very afraid...
October 20th, 2006 at 10:07 amI was looking forward to casting my vote for Sherrod Brown in Ohio until I found out he voted for the Torture Act. And then said it does absolutely nothing to destroy the right to habeus corpus.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:08 amIraq to stop providing mortality figures to the U.N?
October 20th, 2006 at 10:13 amI guess there just aren't that many to make it worth while.
Good Morning Zooey, I hope you are doing well....Foggy here today, good weather on the way....Can't stay long, the site kill's my eye's.....Blessings
October 20th, 2006 at 10:13 amAnd McCain said it allows absolutely NO torture.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:14 am14 Wilco
Although I don't like the fact that Brown voted for the Torture Act, the only choices we have are Brown and DeWine. Brown would, hopefully, be an incremental improvement. I'm sticking with Brown, but not with the same enthusiasm.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:15 amGood morning, Sharon. Had a hell of a wind storm last night, no fog yet, thank goodness. A gloom has settled over me, and I'm hoping to shake it soon. You know this already, great lady, but we are soooo f*cked in the good old USA.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:17 am-no longer provide mortality figures to the UN , means what? The 600,000+ figure just reported is RIGHT ON, unfotunately this is how you have to read the news these days.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:19 amRegarding Item #1 - so instead of doing something to stop all the casualties in Iraq, we're instead not going to worry about counting them anymore? That is just wrong on so many levels.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:20 amAmerica's Least Wanted
#12 Zooey, I was trying to be polite. I hope that they have consciences (though the ones who support Bush can't possibly have any), and that they feel all the guilt in the world for what they have done. Being a Bush supporter is nothing to be proud of, nothing at all.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:22 amThanks, Wayne. Maybe we just need to stop being polite. I'm so frickin' disappointed in this country. Just seeing that BushCo is using this bill retroactively has made the whole thing really hit home.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:28 amBack at ya, Dear young lady, Yes I do know very well about the gloom, it has settled all over the world.....After the 31st some thing's may change a little, not much but a little...Will light another white candle for you and I, we need all the white light we can get. I don't do well in the winter grey either...Will hug some extra trees for us today.....Posting and reading the other post's has become a chore. Don't spend much time here any more....Here's hoping the day improves..Are you back at work.?. Any one see any post's from Cyra.?....Blessings
October 20th, 2006 at 10:28 amInfectiousGrooves, thermite (a.k.a a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide) is not used for demolition. It is instead a traditional component of incendiary warheads (like those used on Dresden in WWII) due to the highly exothermic nature of the transfer of oxygen from the iron to the aluminum. Given that passenger jets are largely made of aluminum alloys, and high rises have steel frames, finding residues that approximate thermite are to be expected in the 9/11 debris.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:30 amThanks, Sharon. Yep, I'm back at work, just about to head out. I haven't seen anything by Cyra for quite a while. That could be bad. I'll keep watching. Take care.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:32 am#22 Being a Bush supporter is nothing to be proud of, nothing at all.
Actually, Wayne, I couldn't be more proud to be a huge supporter of George W. Bush.
Who you should NOT be proud to support is the New York Mets.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:34 amCNN is running a series on "Broken Government", however we have a Broken Media. There is not nearly enough weight given to these unprecedented events in US history. Why aren't they talking about how dangerous this administration is and that we need to impeach?
October 20th, 2006 at 10:36 amExley 27
That's very nice of you. Bush really appreciates a huge codpiece.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:42 am#11 Oh, and Wayne, you might want to check out yesterday's "ThinkFast: October 19, 2006" thread. There I corrected a number of misperceptions and downright lies being told about the MCA. Read it and you will feel better. Wayne, I STRONGLY suggest you actually read the bill, instead of relying on some ESPN reporter's ill-informed commentaries.
Wait 'til next year, Wayne.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:45 amI think it's a riot that the Iraqi government is trying to suppress information about the violence! Good luck with that fools! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! As if they are the only ones who control information in this world. HAHAHAHA!!!!
October 20th, 2006 at 10:57 amIf they don't release credible information about the dead and dying, where will the information come from???? The other side, fools! And those numbers will be much, much much worse. HAHAHAHAH!!!!
Exley, you are GWB's atheletic supporter.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:07 am#32, Good one, ForTruth .... But I think PLC already beat you to that joke in posting 29.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:11 am"...it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates..."
i feel sick
October 20th, 2006 at 11:13 ami'm also not really clear who this applies to?
Oh well, sorry I couldn't be more original Exley.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:13 amOur cruel little momma's boy Bush just wants to get on with the torture as fast as possible, because it gives him a sense of power and control that he feels slipping away elsewhere in his puny life.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:15 amBushiva's appearance with Sherwood basically said to his TREASONOUS inbred 'CONNED'servative base...
...keep your mouths on my genitalia...
...that way you can't protest...
October 20th, 2006 at 11:16 am#35, No apologies necessary, ForTruth.
#34, Smiff, The MCA applies only to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amExley,Wayne A. and Jane A.-
Sorry,but.....
October 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amIf Congress will NOT impeach George W Bush after the elections, then I hope that they WILL do one good thing when they take over and that is to eliminate all PACs and other instruments that allow corporations to buy our Congress. ALL PACs, all contributions from non-citizens, and all 527s. Nobody should be able to contribute to political campaigns except individual citizens of this country, period. No lumping together funds, no laundered help from any group or organization. Just real people, and a limit should be kept on THAT too, to keep the rich and greedy from buying off our Congress as they have been doing.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:26 amThat would be enough, I think, to return the government of the people to the people.
#39....Well, they certainly did last night.
LET'S GO TIGERS!
LET'S GO JETS!
October 20th, 2006 at 11:27 am#9, Sharon, wrote: "Do me a favor and pull a ruen for me would you.? Thank’s. I could use a little direction today….Blessings"
Sharon, here's your rune: Mannaz (Upright Position) - [Air element] The traditional meaning of Mannaz is mankind or humankind. It is being within the self, it is knowing thyself, it is from the point from which all other relationships flow. And at the same time, this rune speaks of mankind's ancestors and progenitors, the inheritance we all can share.
The nature of human interdependency is key in Mannaz. People that share the same environments are connected and dependent on one another. This rune symbolizes the cooperative effort people share in exerting the common good of the tribe (Aswynn, 89-90).
Often this rune indicates that one may receive cooperative aid or good advise in dealing with the problem at hand. If Mannaz is referring to an individual, it may indicate that one is too absorbed by the problem and has made it seem much larger than necessary. If that is the case, the time to
seek honest outside advice is now (Peschel, 84).
Modesty, devotion and patience is counseled here. Demanding merit or focusing on outcomes is unlikely to be beneficial at this time. Instead, attempt to experience the true presence by doing the task for the task's sake (Blum 93-94).
Hope it helps. (Link: http://www.jaguarmoon.org/public/Runes/Interp.htm)
October 20th, 2006 at 11:28 am12 - Zooey
I think you'll find we do have conservative friends. It's just that the Republican Party of today does not represent conservative values, such as small, unintrusive government and fiscal responsibility.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:39 amThe MCA applies only to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
Comment by Exley
O.K. Who gets to determine who is considered an alien unlawful enemy combatant? You can try to spin it anyway you want, but its still f-ed up.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:45 am#34, Smiff, The MCA applies only to alien unlawful enemy combatants.
Comment by Exley
No, it allows Bush to decide who is an unlawfull enemy combatant, including you if he wanted, and you would have no way to chalenge it.
Adams had the sedition act. He used it to jail newspaper publishers, authors, scholars who's opinion differed.
Wilson had the Espionage act, he used it to jail LEGAL disenters, pasifists who protested the war. He used it against women who spokeout wanting the same rights as men.
Rosevelt interred Americans in concentration camps for the awfull crime of having Japaneese ancestors.
Every time, and I mean every time the jackboots suspend rights, it is abused and used on US Citizens. History tells us alot.
Do you think that King George,who already lies about the torture they have commited, who even when he was Gov of Texas was ruled against by the courts for the way he strong armed and ruffed up protestors in Austin ( funny only the local news covered this at the time)
But Exley,if if you are stupid enough to trust Bush with this law, what about the next president.
I want to hear you say that you would be ok With Hilary having these same powers, because since you support it for Bush, you should support it for ANY elected president, and trust they would not abuse it.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:46 am#44 The determination is made by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which is a military tribunal designed to determine whether an individual is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
If the tribunal determines that he may be detained, then the individual may appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Seriously, has anyone here actually READ this legislation? Or are you all happy to be regurgitating ESPN's Keith Olbermann's factually incorrect rants, as Wayne did in posting#45?
October 20th, 2006 at 11:55 amWC, If our enemies would treat our captured soldiers as required by the MCA, then I would be immensely happy. Oh, and by the way, the MCA does not apply to lawful enemy combatants. Read the legislation, WC.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amHey exley! (and wayne and jayne - thought i don't mean to rub YOUR nose in it) ... just so you know - i really don't follow the sports - i go to ILLINI football games because my daughter is in the marching band - and that is the only reason to have football team: for the band program that is so beneficial to student academics... but i digress...
as a product of the catholic school system administered by the School Sisters of Notre Dame, based in St. Louis, MO, 100 miles away, and so you can imagine how i was indoctrinated, i just gotta say:
WOO HOO !!! GO CARDINALS !!!
NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONS !!!
just had to pop in for that... hello, goodbye...
October 20th, 2006 at 11:58 am.
Thank You!, Theresa..........Blessings
October 20th, 2006 at 11:58 am#48 Katy...Your team won. You are entitled to gloat. I (and Wayne and Jane) just have to wait until next year...As we have done sooooo many years.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:00 pmExley, as alway, you dishonestly avoid answering the question asked, and Yes I read the act.
You are the one twisting the facts and you know it.
Now answer the question, you are or not ok with Anyone elected president having the same powers?
October 20th, 2006 at 12:01 pm"the new detention facilities that Halliburton is building"
The contract went to KBR, and the camps are complete. (afaik)
Busheviks probably want the ability to put the Enabling Act to good use immediately.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmWhat facts am I twisting, Wayne? Name one.
And, of course I am okay with the government -- be it led by Dubya, Hillary, Evan Bayh, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson -- utilizing the MCA. Y'see, I have actually read the legislation and know that it is filled with numerous legal safeguards (right to counsel, right to appeal, etc.) so I know that the overwrought and, quite frankly, laughable characterizations of this legislation are quite incorrect. Oh, but wait, ESPN's Keith Olbermann doesn't like (or understand) the legislation...That's good enough for Wayne!
But seriously, Wayne....Again I ask. Exactly what facts am I "twisting?"
October 20th, 2006 at 12:08 pmExley, again, many of us have read this miserable bill. As I stated before I have gone over every word of it 4 time's...Why should we take you're word for anything when we can read and understand full well ourselves... Get a new gig...This one isn't working for you..
I am leaving the TP site for the day. don't play nicely the reich doesn't. Time to get real and get even...Vote all the basterd's out.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmExley just can't stand the fact that Bush and Co. love to torture. If the courts try to take away their God-given right to torture, or provide the hundreds of GITMO detainees with a right to hear the evidence against them, then Exley and the rest of his ilk get nauseous. His reliance on "if our enemies didn't do it then we wouldn't either" is classic and quite funny. Most of us outgrew that sort of reasoning when we were six. The simple fact is that legislation is specifically designed to deny rights provided by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. You'd think if the evidence against these guys was so compelling, we could convict a few of them instead of just holding them indefinitely.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pmYou are twisting that they have a right to appeal, this bill specifically removed the right of habeus corpus from ANYONE deemed an enemy combatant by this president, even the next democratic contender for president and jailing them indefinately with no judicial redress, except for a military kangaroo court.
Just as Woodrow Wilson jailed a presidentual contender against him, with the Espionage act. Just as he jailed women who's crime was protesting for the right to vote and to be considered equals under the law.
This legislation is dangerously flawed and ripe for abuse.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#55 Actually, you are quite incorrect. The legilsation defines and codifies the amorphous rights provided by Common Article 3. Again, please read the legislation.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#57. Wrong. How's that law degree working for you? Or did you get your information from some talking point?
October 20th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#57 ---Again, Exley, I HAVE read the legislation and you are wrong. This law is fatally flawed and unconstitutional, it will never stand up against the Supreme court.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pmExley must think "defines and codifies" means "limits the application of, based upon the sole discretion of the Bush administration," or perhaps "guts."
October 20th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#56, Wayne, You are incorrect. The legislation does not remove the right of habeas corpus from anyone deemed an enemy combatant. I will explain...again.
The MCA applies only to alien unlawful enemy combatants. The italicized words are criticially important.
1) U.S. citizens who are determined to be unlawful enemy combatants retain the right to file for a writ of habeas corpus. That issue has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which the Court held that U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely without be afforded due process protections, as well as the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the MCA leaves the Hamdi decision undisturbed, it remains the law of the land.
2) The MCA specifically excludes lawful enemy combatants (soldiers in another nation's military) (See Sec. 948a (2) and Sec. 948d(b))
3) Alien unlawful enemy combatants, who traditionally have never enjoyed a right to file a petition for habeas corpus (which is a civilian remedy), are precluded from filing for a habeas corpus writ. However, they are permitted to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia and then, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court: See Sec. 950g (2): "`(2) A petition for review must be filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals not later than 20 days after the date on which--
`(A) written notice of the final decision of the Court of Military Commission Review is served on the accused or on defense counsel; or
`(B) the accused submits, in the form prescribed by section 950c of this title, a written notice waiving the right of the accused to review by the Court of Military Commission Review under section 950f of this title....
`(c) Scope of Review- The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals on an appeal under subsection (a) shall be limited to the consideration of--
`(1) whether the final decision was consistent with the standards and procedures specified in this chapter; and
`(2) to the extent applicable, the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI am certainly glad we've delivered enough democracy and freedom to Iraq that they are comfortable enough to remove some of it. After all, nobody needs to know those pesky casualty numbers. And after all, they're just some numbers!
October 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmHow is it that Exley can be here so many hours of the day making lengthy, carefully written (i.e. spun) posts that appear to require a lot of research?
Who do you work for, Exley? Do you work directly for the administration? A hard right think tank, perhaps? The RNC?
October 20th, 2006 at 12:47 pmFromhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060926_huq.html
"The MCA makes three gambits to clear the federal courts from the playing field entirely, focusing on the courts' ability to ensure compliance with laws of war long accepted by the United States. Each attacks the Supreme Court's holding in Hamdan. Each is constitutionally suspect. And each will yield needless litigation that will clog the courts and delay the release of likely innocent detainees held by the United States.
First, MCA Section 7 states, "No person may invoke" international humanitarian law "as a source of rights." That is, you may, in theory, have rights, but don't you dare use them.
The sweep of this provision is dangerously unclear.
The Geneva Conventions are part of the law of the United States, as the Supreme Court held. (Treaties are as much the law of the land as statutes are, and Geneva, again, applies by virtue of UCMJ as well.) What does it mean for them to be part of our law if they are not "a source of rights"?
Does it mean that they cannot be the basis of a lawsuit by any private plaintiff (except, that is, the government itself)? If so, then ironically, the MCA would likely have shut down even the case that gave rise to the MCA itself - in which Salim Hamdan successfully argued in the Supreme Court that the Geneva Conventions barred the kind of military commission proposed by the executive branch to try him.
Such a gambit may itself be unconstitutional. Though Congress may sometimes limit Court jurisdiction, this kind of limit - designed to single out and to thwart the effect of Court decisions Congress dislikes, and to pre-empt further disfavored holdings - squarely presents separation-of-powers problems.
The MCA's Second Gambit: Let the President Interpret the Geneva Conventions
The second gambit to keep the courts out of the tribunals issue comes in Section 8 of the MCA. That section purports to give the President the "authority … to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions," and states that his formal interpretations will be "authoritative … in the same manner as other administrative regulations."
A companion provision also states that no "foreign or international law shall supply a rule of decision" in court. This seems targeted at a portion of Hamdan in which a plurality invoked international law precedent to conclude that conspiracy was not a war crime.
Again, these provisions are no model of clarity. Might Section 8, however, be invoked as an effort to render presidential readings of treaties final and binding on the courts?
And what happens when the executive reads Geneva in a clearly unreasonable way?
This Administration has insisted that interrogation methods such as stress positions, religious and sexual humiliation, and sleep deprivation are "humane" enough that they do not qualify as Geneva Convention violations. Indeed, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said as much in a post-Hamdan memo claiming that the executive had been hewing to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions all along.
In another important reading of Geneva, the Administration went from the premise that the Taliban or al Qaeda are not POWs, to the conclusion that no battlefield status hearings were needed to sift combatants from civilians, such as Afghan shepherds and farmers, who were inadvertently seized. The result, of course, was detention operations that were criticized the world over.
The MCA's Third Gambit: No Federal Court Review of Factfinding
Lastly--and most importantly--the MCA attempts to strip federal court jurisdiction over any challenge to the detention of any non-citizen by the United States overseas.
Some background is necessary here: Recall that, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees can bring habeas corpus petitions. In the wake of the ruling, more petitions were filed challenging the factual and legal bases of particular Guantánamo detentions. In the December 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), Congress purported to channel all such proceedings into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But the Supreme Court, this year, in Hamdan, held that critical provisions of that Act only applied to suits filed after the DTA was enacted (that is, filed after December 2005).
The MCA tries to overrule this part of Hamdan, and send even the pre-December 2005 Guantánamo suits to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Moreover, it would sweep far more broadly than the DTA, encompassing all petitions arising all detentions of all non-citizens--including at the hands of the CIA--anywhere outside the United States.
What's so bad, readers may wonder, about petitions going straight to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? The problem is that the MCA does not afford the chance for factfinding by any neutral decisionmaker. (Recall that Hamdi put a constitutional premium on having a "neutral decisionmaker") Sending all petitions to the United States District Court in D.C., where a hearing on the facts is possible, would be acceptable; sending them straight to the appeals court is not.
For Guantánamo detainees have never had a meaningful chance to challenge the facts on which their detention is based. They had no battlefield status hearings. At hearings at Guantánamo before Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), detainees were asked to respond to vague allegations of "associating" with terrorists, based on facts and allegations to which they were not privy. The CSRTs, in short, were a charade. And whatever equivalents to CSRTs may be used in CIA secret prisons abroad--if any - are surely no less a mockery of due process.
No wonder that, as the Center for Constitutional Rights has shown, many of the Guantánamo detentions are likely erroneous: For example, why are we detaining an 80-year-old Afghan man seized when he complained about his son's detention? Or a Sudanese aid worker whose detention was described as "unconscionable" by military officers?
In D.C. Circuit proceedings, detainees will have no opportunity to supplement the resulting incomplete records from the CSRTs. There are no facts except those the Government chooses to present. Perhaps the judges of the D.C. Circuit will refuse to partake in these travesties of proceedings. Perhaps. But the statute does not give them power to ensure compliance with Due Process by sending petitions to federal district court for meaningful factfinding.
The MCA's triple assault doesn't just assail Hamdan, harm the courts, and undercut the abstract principle of judicial independence. It also inflicts collateral damage by degrading America's reputation for decency and fairness among friends and foes at a time when we need all the allies we can muster. The MCA should not become law - and if it does become law, its patent due process violations should doom it to be struck down as unconstitutional. "
October 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pmThanks Wayne, that pretty much sums up why this bill takes us 180 degrees from our legal traditions.
October 20th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#63, RealScientist askes: "How is it that Exley can be here so many hours of the day making lengthy, carefully written...posts that appear to require a lot of research?"
Thank you, RS. The answer is quite straightforward actually....I am just THAT darn good!
But seriously, it really does not require THAT much research. It simply requires READING THE LEGISLATION, which, it is clear, very few people here have actually done.
But again, I appreciate the compliment. We all have our skills and talents. I would never dare to debate you on scientific matters. I almost always stay away from global warming debates. That is not my area of expertise at all. This just happen to be my "thing."
October 20th, 2006 at 1:00 pmI almost always stay away from global warming debates.
Comment by Exley — October 20, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
And that is why I so rarely engage you. Hendler, on the other hand, is one of my favorites. He doesn't come around much these days, though.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:03 pmAnd by the way, Exley, I also paid you a compliment on the Armitage thread (post #51).
October 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pmExley, you do make some good points.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:07 pmOne thing that is clear in this legislation is that it only applies to aliens.
The open door is how the president and his appointees get to determine, solely, without any review, who is an unlawful enemy combatant.
The other pieces Wayne commented on are also pertinent to this departure from our legal system that has served us well for over 200 years.
If you think the war on drugs or the war on terror, neither of which is against a definable enemy is worth that departure, then just say that.
Thank you, RealScientist....And to answer your second set of questions from posting #63. Nope....Don't work for the RNC, think-tanks, or White House....I'm just a guy who finds debating these issues a lot more interesting than what I deal with at work....especially on a Friday
I used this quote the other day to explain this. It is from the movie Office Space:
"It's not that I'm lazy, Bob. It's that I just don't care."
October 20th, 2006 at 1:12 pmEx(crement) #46
That Tribunal is handpicked...
...by guess who?
October 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pm#69 RUCerious....you do make some good points....Thank you for that.
I do agree that the "Third Gambit" discussed in the FindLaw piece provided by Wayne is potentially problematic. I think the author overstates the concern somewhat, but it is something worth considering.
I think I just disagree with you that the MCA represents that much of a departure from our legal traditions and jurisprudence, especially during war-time. Military commissions were used before in our nation's history (including the Civil War and World War II).
However, I do think September 11 and the terrorist threat does also brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said in his Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
October 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThat is not my area of expertise at all. This just happen to be my “thing.â€
Comment by Exley
Obviously your "thing" isn't history either, 0-6.
“It’s not that I’m lazy, Bob. It’s that I just don’t care.â€
Comment by Exley
About "little things" like facts.
Don't sell yourself short in the lazy department, Bob.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:27 pmObviously your “thing†isn’t history either
Says the man who did not know that Pol Pot and the Shah of Iran were deposed in 1979.
Shhhhh, Barfly. The grown-ups are talking.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#72 - I don't even want to begin to compare the state of our country as it began the Civil War with today, where some crazed Islamic extremists want payback for our slavish devotion to Israel. Not comparable threats.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#77, The threats are different, but I dispute that the danger is much less. Keep in mind that more Americans were killed on American soil by a hostile action on September 11, 2001 than at any time since the Civil War. And with Al Qaeda actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, the danger of a strike in the United States causing massive amounts of casualties is still quite real.
Moreover, I seriously dispute that Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and commited numerous other deadly attacks against U.S. interests because we are allies with Israel. But that is a debate for another day.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:53 pm“It’s not that I’m lazy, Bob. It’s that I just don’t care.â€
Comment by Exley — October 20, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
Great movie, great line.
My excuse comes from Dilbert. The pointy-hair boss asks Wally why he has been staring at his computer screen for 30 minutes doing nothing. Wally replies "I'm waiting for my code to compile."
October 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pm“I’m waiting for my code to compile.â€
At least that is a excuse I could try to use with my boss. I don't think the "I just don't care" honesty would go over well.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#80: You're right. The September 11 attack was a huge tragedy. Too bad your boy, George, did nothing to prevent it. The worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history and W. was asleep at the wheel. Must make Republicans feel like utter failures.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pmActually, #85, I am quite proud that this administration, which I support, our miliary, and our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have to date successfully protected this country from another September 11-like attack on our country. Continued viglilance, however, is of course required.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:14 pmIt is a logical fallacy that to assume that just because Event B failed to follow Event A, that Event A was responsible for preventing Event B.
Just because terrorists haven't attacked us again in five years does not necessarily mean it's because the Bush Administration was responsible for preventing them. Eight and a half years elapsed between attacks on the WTC, so it's not like we were getting attacked by them every year and that these attacks stopped upon Bush taking office.
Don't give credit where it's not due.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pmWayne, good post. I find it interesting that my analysis comports with the authorities writing for findlaw.com.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pmWayne, Your post ignores the fact that there have been numerous Al Qaeda leaders and operatives killed and arrested and break-ups of nascent plots since 9/11. Of course, you cannot say that the lack of another strike has been solely attributable to the U.S. government's action. But to discount categorically the possibility (indeed, likelihood) that those actions have played a major part in preventing an additional attack to date is somewhat churlish.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:31 pm#89, And Wayne, I hope you were able to review my explanations of the MCA both here and on yesterday's "ThinkFast Thread." It should allay many of your concerns.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:35 pm85 - and what if the attacks on 9/11 weren't pulled off solely by a cave-dwelling muslim on dialysis, but by factions within our own government? Assuming, arguendo, that the 9/11 attacks were committed by our government, that would explain the apparent willful blindness to all the warnings beforehand, would it not? It would mean that Bush was not asleep at the switch. It would mean that our own government manufactured a crisis for the sole purpose of assuming War-Time powers over the populace. For it is when we are in a state of War that we relinquish our civil rights for the illusion of safety.
The President's power is at its zenith during War. And, given the stated goals of the PNAC, many members of which are now placed within this Administration, a consolidation of power within the hands of a Unitary Executive increases their power and their ability to spread their brand of imperialism around the world.
There are those who post here who gladly support an imperialist dictatorship. They won't realize the fallacy of their position until their world comes crashing down on them in appocalyptic fashion. Sadly, they would rather see the world destroyed than admit they are wrong.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pm89 - I believe we will be attacked only as necessary to maintain Bush in dictatorial power.
And there was news on the radio this morning that the Iraqi Court will sentence Saddam Hussein to death on November 3. We'll have to see if this report plays out.
And the Eisenhower Aircraft Carrier group is one day away from Iranian waters, according to earlier reports.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:43 pm"Of course, you cannot say that the lack of another strike has been solely attributable to the U.S. government’s action."
But that's just it, Exley. To hear the President and Vice President and all of their staff and congressional supporters tell it, they ARE the sole reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
(Just to be clear, you do realize that I always post under my full name, as Jane posts under her full name. Anyone else posting under the names Wayne or Jane are different people who happen to have the same name. I don't care if the other Wayne posts as "Wayne". It's his right. And as long as neither of us intentionally tries to make people think we're the other, this arrangement should work. I only mention that because in glancing through the previous comments, you responded to the other Wayne with a reference to Keith Olbermann - who has more than one dimension to his personality - but I didn't know if he brought up Keith first. SO I thought that you might think he was me. He is not.)
"this administration, which I support, our miliary, and our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have to date successfully protected this country from another September 11-like attack on our country."
This statement appears to give ALL the credit for our not being attacked to our government, and none to the other law enforcement agencies around the world that have prevented attacks (through law enforcement, I would point out, not military action.) Sure, the Brits may have stopped a plane-bombing plot, but that was them, not us. All I'm saying is don't give credit where it's not due.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pmNo, Wayne, I assumed the single-name "Wayne" and you were separate people....(I think BnF got you two confused).
Anyway, we are dancing around the BIG topic of the day.....How are you and Jane doing????
October 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWayne, good post. I find it interesting that my analysis comports with the authorities writing for findlaw.com.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Which is why I am inclined to believe them. I have been reading the MCA and I notice that while it does say that it applies to "alien unlawful enemy combatants", I am concerned that the determination of who qualifies as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" can be made by the President or the SecDef (or their designees) and that this decision cannot be reviewed by a judge! At least, that's the way my legally untrained mind sees it. I intend to print out the threads from yesterday to which Exley refers and read them thoroughly at home along with the MCA.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#96 Exley,
We're bummed out, of course. In total shock. While the ending sucked big time, the game wasn't without its good points. It was close throughout and exciting because of that. Endy Chavez robbing Scott Rolen (career Met killer) of a home run and then getting a double play out of it happens to be one of my favorite kinds of plays. But, it's over now, and there's nothing that can be done until next year. Time to try to enjoy what's left of the Jets' season.
Getting back on topic, can we get anyone who strikes out looking with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 7 declared an "alien unlawful enemy combatant"?
October 20th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#97 correction, BnF. When I said "Which is why I'm inclined to believe ", I meant to write "believe your posts". My brain got a few lines ahead of my fingers, and my fingers have poor memory retention.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:01 pmActually, #85, I am quite proud that this administration, which I support, our miliary, and our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have to date successfully protected this country from another September 11-like attack on our country. Continued viglilance, however, is of course required.
Comment by Exley
You are proud of an administration that on a daily basis lies to the American public
You are proud of an adminstration that has lied toget usinto a war in Iraq
You are proud of an adminstration that tortures, lied about it,then through legislative back door, tried to get pardoned for the previous war crimes and excuse any further war crimes
You are proudof an administration that has gutted the constitution.
You are proud of a President that calls the Constitution a "Goddammed piece of paper" and stated that itwould be better if the US was a dictatorship " But only if I was dictator"
That speaks volumes for what kind of person you are Exley.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:04 pmWayne,
The only solace I have is the fact that in the past when Congress and the President have enacted an unconstitutional law which also purported to strip jurisdiction from the courts to hear a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court has held that it still retains jurisdiction to hear the constitutionality.
Like you, and Mr. Olbermann, I am concerned that our government could detain anybody, alien or citizen, as an unlawful enemy combatant, and that it could falsely claim a citizen had renounced his or her citizenship status (based on classified evidence). Since the Judicial review is limited to review of law, the false claim based on secret evidence would be unreviewable. And that's how a government does away with Habeus Corpus for everyone.
The English had to hold their King at sword-point to get the right of Habeus Corpus some 800 years ago. Will an armed insurrection be necessary to regain the liberties so many have died for in the intervening time? I hope and pray not.
Exley does a lot of copying and pasting, but he does not know how to interpret the law, nor does he have the vision to see how the law can and will be applied. And his ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance. In a lot of ways he is like Vice President Cheney. It does not matter if he is wrong, as long as he is consistently and constantly wrong.
Thus far the Supreme Court has stricken Bush's attempts at trashing the Constitution. Here's hoping it continues to do so.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:09 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 20, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Thanks. I understood your intent.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#98, Wayne...I think you summed it up quite nicely. That's really all that can be said. (And you are right...Can you get the bat off your shoulder, Carlos? At least go down swinging!)
Oh well....Let's go Jets. Let's go Tigers. Say hi to Jane for me. We'll get'em next year.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:12 pmBnF, Actually I do a lot of reading of the language of the statue, something which you have failed to do seeing as you consistently misstate the contents of the MCA. One of the first maxims of statutory interpretation, BnF, is to look to the wording and language of the statute itself.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI would suggest you do so.
Yes, Wayne (me) and Wayne A. Schneider are 2 different people though we share the same wonderfull first name and similar political viewpoints. I have posted as Wayne ever since I have been posting at TP and never used another name.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:22 pm107 - I've no problem keeping you two separate, although it does get confusing sometimes when, as above, I responded to Mr. Schneider using only his first name! I'll try to keep to whom I respond clarified better in the future.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:26 pmGeorgia Elections Are Fraudulent
20th of October 2006
by Jay Randal
Since flagrantly fraudulent 2002 election, in Georgia, nobody knows if their votes are even tallied, since the notorious Diebold voting machines are still used here!
Nobody even knows if the paper absentee ballots are counted, or not, because cheating in elections undermines confidence in the entire voting system as well!
Why should Georgians flock to the polling booths, to vote for the candidates of their choice, then to watch in dismay as their votes are switched mysteriously?
Why bother to vote, if someone else decides who the winners should be? And why take time off from work, to vote, if the winners already determined in advance?
Are Georgians just supposed to act like voting props, cardboard dummies, or wooden Indians going to vote like shills in a pantomime game of charades for show?
And what about the citizens of Florida, and Ohio, who have NO idea if their votes are counted honestly? And who actually in any State are assured of fair counting?
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)
October 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pmJay,
2nd try on this...
Why bother to vote?
Because voting against this Administration is an act of non-violent protest.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:46 pmFaire > I am not telling people not to vote, but to be aware especially in Georgia that the Diebold machines can be rigged for the Republicans > happened in 2002 and 2004, so probably again this November 2006! Diebold and the other touch-screen computerized voting machines must be gathered up and destroyed, but the Congress spent a lot of money on the fraudulent over-priced crap, so they are loathe to replace them! If Democrats fail to gain the House, then they can thank Diebold!
October 21st, 2006 at 1:55 amJay,
I tend to agree with your assessment. I believe Rove is confident in the outcome of this election with good reason. Diebold machines being just one factor. Republicans counting the vote being another. States passing laws to eliminate exit polls being another. Republican "suppress the vote" activites being yet another.
This election may well be the last chance Americans have to make a non-violent statement for regime change. If they are unsuccessful and their voice is silenced at the ballot box....well...in one of my shamanic journeys I have already seen the entire eastern seaboard of the United States in flames...
As Thomas Jefferson said some 220 years ago, a little rebellion now and then is good for the country. The 1860's saw the civil war. The 1960's saw the civil rights movement and associated rioting. I don't think people will tolerate 60 years of living under a dictatorship to take to the streets again.
And there will be a bit of irony. Many "liberals" who supported gun control legislation may well be arming themselves with assault rifles, thanks to the actions of the "conservative" NRA.
October 21st, 2006 at 4:11 amJane and I are sorry for the abrupt departure on Friday. A storm came through and knocked out our office's power and internet connection. Nothing we could do about it.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:21 am