ThinkFast: February 13, 2007
ThinkFast: February 13, 2007
Former CIA Director George Tenet is racing to complete his memoir which is due out this spring. “Tenet is not expected to take on [President] Bush, with whom he developed a close bond during early morning intelligence briefings in the Oval Office.” A former colleague said, “In order to sell books he’s going to have to throw somebody out of the lifeboat.”
63 percent: Number of Americans who want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008, according to a new USA Today poll. A CBS poll shows that 63 percent of the public also disapprove of the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.
One year has passed since Sunni insurgents “ripped a hole in the glorious dome” of the Samarra mosque (photo), “one of Iraq’s most sacred Shiite shrines.” The New York Times reports, “Not a single brick of the mosque has been moved since. There has been no rebuilding and no healing; the million annual pilgrims, and the prosperity they spread, are gone.”
The House is set to consider legislation that would “place strict ethics limits on executive-branch officials.” Among numerous reforms, the bill requires officials “to report all significant contacts they have with any private interest related to an official government action,” a response to the secrecy surrounding Vice President Cheney’s energy task force.
“Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.”
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said yesterday that he is “very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, ‘Tet Offensive’” that might “switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did” during Vietnam. Note to McCain: more than two-thirds of Americans already oppose the war.
Today, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) plan to introduce a bill to restore habeas corpus protections to Guantanamo Bay detainees, effectively reversing provisions of President Bush’s Military Commissions Act passed last year. The bill would also create an independent court review to military commission rulings and and bar information obtained through torture.
“In the absence of federal action,” and at odds with a Bush budget that cuts assistance to states, “governors and state legislators around the country are transforming the nation’s health care system, putting affordable health insurance within reach of millions of Americans in hopes of reversing the steady rise in the number of uninsured, now close to 47 million.”
And finally: Arm the frickin’ laser beams. “Dozens of dolphins and sea lions trained to detect and apprehend waterborne attackers could be sent to patrol a military base in Washington state, the Navy said Monday.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Dozens of dolphins and sea lions trained to detect and apprehend waterborne attackers could be sent to patrol a military base in Washington state, the Navy said Monday.â€
Why?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:18 amTo think, reports from a year ago seemed to indicate and implicate a “black ops” or covert operation blew up the mosque in an attempt to draw Iran into the conflict. Now we just accept without questioning that Sunni Insurgents did the dastardly deed….
A year later, and Bush is still trying to draw Iran into the War.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:20 amOne year has passed since Sunni insurgents “ripped a hole in the glorious dome†of the Samarra mosque, “one of Iraq’s most sacred Shiite shrines.†The New York Times reports, “Not a single brick of the mosque has been moved since. There has been no rebuilding and no healing; the million annual pilgrims, and the prosperity they spread, are gone.â€
Maybe they can become sister cities with New Orleans.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:21 amA poll on C-Span this morning showed also that:
58% of the americans polled are against withdrawing of funding for the escalation…
…and that Bushiva now has a 37% approval rating…
…these dumb sombiches are going backwards!
…How can we stop this madness if we don’t stop the funding?
…perhaps if Democrats (and anti-war forces) pose the question as:
“Should funding be cut for Halliburton?”
…maybe that phrasing will wake these idiots up…
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 amFormer CIA Director George Tenet is racing to complete his memoir which is due out this spring. “Tenet is not expected to take on [President] Bush, with whom he developed a close bond during early morning intelligence briefings in the Oval Office.†A former colleague said, “In order to sell books he’s going to have to throw somebody out of the lifeboat.â€
I think Colin Powell’s going under the wheels of that bus.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 amThe House is set to consider legislation that would “place strict ethics limits on executive-branch officials.†Among numerous reforms, the bill requires officials “to report all significant contacts they have with any private interest related to an official government action,†a response to the secrecy surrounding Vice President Cheney’s energy task force.
Look for a signing statement treating this bill as merely advisory. That is, if the Republicans in the Senate don’t filibuster it.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:24 amDozens of dolphins and sea lions trained to detect and apprehend waterborne attackers could be sent to patrol a military base in Washington state, the Navy said Monday.â€
Why?
So they can blast out their eardrums with sonar. Damn dolphins hate America
February 13th, 2007 at 9:25 am“Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.â€
where’s Vince P. to tell us to “Fear all Muslims, Fear the Jihad!”?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:26 amThis madness needs to be cut off at it’s knees – rendered impotent due to lack of financing. This is the ONLY way to stop this bushreich fascist machine.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:28 am#8 I think Vince P. is busy on one of the other threads and is incapable of real multi-tasking…..now multiple personalities, that’s another story altogether!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:29 amWhy the paranoia over Iran and nuclear weapons? North Korea has already demonstrated their effectiveness as a deterrent. Given the rhetoric, I would be far more concerned about Bush initiating a nuclear war than Iran. Iran would never be able to prevent its country from being obliterated if it started something with nukes. But Iran with nukes just might be able to avoid being attacked by Bush. Now, is that a bad thing?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:29 amMaybe they can become sister cities with New Orleans.
Comment by Bluedahlia — February 13, 2007 @ 9:21 am
ouch! truth hurts!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am” . . . legislation that would [place strict ethics limits on executive-branch officials requiring them to] report all significant contacts they have with any private interest related to an official government action.”
Oh my. If this becomes law one thing will happen: (1) Cheney will ignore it, as he has with all other requests for information regarding his decision making. Cheney thinks he owns the government and we are merely outsiders. That jacka$$ needs to be reminded that HE works for US.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:32 amWhere were they when the damn MCA was passed? Why couldn’t the Democrats in the Senate filibuster that affront to human rights?
Senate Republicans have no problem filibustering anything and everything that might possibly embarrass the Commander-in-Chief. And even if they don’t Bush could simply write one of his famous signing statements. Remember the McCain Anti-Torture amendment? McCain hammered out a “compromise” with Bush to put that language into a bill, in return for stripping rights from “enemy combatants.” And what became of the Anti-Torture Amendment? Bush brushed it aside with a signing statement.
The Democrats blew it when they refused to filibuster the MCA. And now people are going to be tried before those Commissions, and evidence obtained through torture is going to be used to convict and execute them. Oh, and just because I’m faulting Democrats for failing to filibuster, don’t think I know that the Republicans have the lion’s share of innocent blood on their hands.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am#11 Bris
yes, yours is the logic of a sane person, and it has been proven through the actions of Bush: If you have capability of incuring harm (ie n. korea) then we’ll leave you alone, but if you don’t have those large weapons as a deterent, we’ll attack. So what the hell would any nation do in this situation? get ahold of the freakin deterent.
Bush policy is the very reason for militarization and accelerated nuclear proliferation.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:40 am#11 BnF
February 13th, 2007 at 9:40 amI totally agree. Does anyone really think that letting the world powers hold nukes but not the non world powers is an effective strategy? We have proven what bullies we are, people are afraid. And they should be! The US has probably fostered the biggest boom in the desire to have nuclear and/or other armaments in other countries all by our lonesome. Let’s look beyond the problem to the cause of the problem, shall we?
#15 and 16
February 13th, 2007 at 9:44 ameerie…..
What possibly could be accomplished from now until 2008 if we stay in Iraq? are we moving forward to stay until 2008 in Iraq?.
Things were much better in 2004 than they are now. So, where is the progress..?
All what you hear is about completing the ‘mission’…,the same ‘mission’ that was declared ‘accomplished’ back in 2003.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am“In order to sell books he’s going to have to throw somebody out of the lifeboat.â€
taking bets? i’ll say CLINTON… it’s always clinton’s fault, right?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:55 am…
18
i’m starting to feel resigned to the fact that the democrats have little will to do much but play it safe… at the moment it seems with the war so unpopular and dragging the reublicans down with it, the dems in their own way are profiting from that, and may be wagering that they’ll profit from an ongoing unpopular war to gain more seats in 2008 and a better shot at the presidency
and don’t forget the oil…
February 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am#15 – This is what’s dubbed “the great equalizer” as it would place everyone on equal footing – something which Impearialistic Despots abhore! It’s the old “bully in the schoolyard syndrome” at it’s finest – the weakest bully (the draftdodger) goes after the weakest victim – survival of the fittest. Of course, we won’t seriously go after a country who has strength because we will lose. We’ve stretched our military out until it’s totally broken; economically, we’re indebted to other countries up to our eyeballs, and the People do not stand behind this dictatorship any longer. It’s over for us, I fear, if we posture like schoolyard bullies and the “big boys” behind the scrawny weakling come out from behind.
The ony way to equalize the power in the world IS for other countries to have what we have…..of course, we’re not supposed to “have it” either according to our own words….but of course, everyone knows that our words mean nothing. Ours is the epitome of a double standard.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:02 amPress the wimpy dems now! After all, they made promises to the people which they are dragging their feet on now. If they continue to show themselves as weaklings with empty rhetoric, then they will be no better than the Rethuglicans we know are corrupt liars. This is the last chance for the Dems and they’d better step up to the plate NOW and do something meaningful…..or you will see a very strong, third party rising out of the ashes of the ruins of both parties.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:04 amWhatever happened to John Conyers “Downing Street Memo” charges of high crimes & misdemeanors against the Bush Administration? Remember that meeting in the bowels of the Senate building, without sufficient air circulation and about the size of an antfarm?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:05 am“Today, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) plan to introduce a bill to restore habeas corpus protections to Guantanamo Bay detainees”
The phrasing of that sentence is inaccurate. In the history of the Republic, prisoners of war and detained alien unlawful combatants have never enjoyed habeas corpus rights. Thus, the bill cannot “restore” that which the detainees never possessed.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am#20…If all resolutions in the Congress and Senate stay weak and non binding..then Democrats might want see this war drown the Republicans in 2008.
However, Democrats cannot enjoy the same support they had in the last election of November 2006 in the face of angry voters,who expect actions from them.
Dragging this to 2008 elections can also hurt Democrats…because their honeymoon days are over by now.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am22 veritas
we started “discussing” this yesterday when H. Bob was around, jokingly calling him a Progressive Conservative. But it did sort of make sense: alot of base issues that cut accross party lines: desire for – universal health care, “going green”, taxing the rich, holding corporations accountable, sane foreign policy. It reminds me a little of
a third party making headway in new york: The Working Families Party. I don’t know alot about them, but they bring up issues that 95% of “us” can relate to and tend to appeal to people accross the board (unless you’re one of the “top” 2%).
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/
of course they have cross endorsement in NY, but nonetheless, this party has strong appeal
February 13th, 2007 at 10:24 am[...] him? Tenet will hit the talk shows and hit back to sell his book. Wish he had as much passion and conviction when he sold the war? Maybe he should have had [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 10:53 amBush Only Cares About Oil In Iraq!
13th Of February 2007
by Jay Randal
If there was NO oil under Iraq, then President George Bush would never have invaded, nor occupied, nor cared about it!
Controlling the oil reserves of Iraq is the sole reason for any foreign interest in that failed nation-state. The British tried to occupy Iraq twice: From 1918 through 1932 and again in 1941 through 1947. Both times they were forced to get out.
The British installed Hashemite puppet monarchy lasted till 1958 when a military coup ended it. Baath Party overthrew the military government in 1968, and Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979. He ruled Iraq till the US invaded in 2003.
Iraq is a created nation that has never been able to meld its population into a unified country. The Kurdish people in the north of Iraq have always refused to assimilate into citizens. The Sunnis and the Shias have always been rivals for power.
After President Bush occupied Iraq the 3 ethnic groups have completely given-up on being a united nation-state, so Kurds want their own country, and the Sunnis and Shias are going to have to be divided into separate countries for their own good.
The Bush Regime, like the British Empire before it, cannot continue to occupy Iraq forever, so it’s time for US to leave!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
February 13th, 2007 at 10:58 amSo, Bush ain’t sayin’ it? Damn EU lying to cover for Bush/sarcasm>
Seriously, there goes the “we are only developing for peaceful energy useage” arguement.
But I still am not in favor of the US attacking Iran.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:58 amit was dubya’s procamation of an “axis of evil”, which included IRAN, that prompted the election on a “strongman” in ahmadinejad and the race to get a protective sytem up…
February 13th, 2007 at 10:58 amwhat the hell else was expected?
after the iranians were slighted and brushed off and then threatened,
what else could their leader do?
Caption:
(assuming it is the back of Chainee’s head in the foreground)
Tenet: “Are you really sure you want to try and pull this caper off, Dick?”
February 13th, 2007 at 11:08 amGeorge, thinking to himself: “And I thought I was a few beers short of a six-pack…….”
Seriously, there goes the “we are only developing for peaceful energy useage†arguement.
But I still am not in favor of the US attacking Iran.
Comment by hacker bob
Bob, whats your face when you are writing this? US has more than 5000 nukes and is the ONLY country to have ever used them against other country. I mean, really, dont you have the slightlest feeling of hypocresy or shame? So what if Iran makes a bomb, really, what? Did Fermi asked Iran what they think about building a bomb?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:13 amGosh, such hypocresy is sickening…
We need someone to lead us properly and solve the issues that really matter to us. If President Bush or any other president really wants to protect our country from future terrorists, he or she should combat global poverty which is at the root of the problem. We don’t need to be in a war that benefits the businesses of Americans. We need to be helping the rest of the world in order to help ourselves which would really benefit the economy. We could actually be doing businesses with the past “poor†countries of this world.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe phrasing of that sentence is inaccurate. In the history of the Republic, prisoners of war and detained alien unlawful combatants have never enjoyed habeas corpus rights. Thus, the bill cannot “restore†that which the detainees never possessed.
Comment by Exley
I agree with the Prisoner of War part but the people at Gitmo are detainees and the phrase “detained alien unlawful combatants” was dreamed up by whom again? Oh yeah the Bush Administration. So are you saying that because Bush created a new classification of prisoner that somehow keeps them away from any justice you can place that into the history of teh Republic? It’s that irrational classification that is the question.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:23 amGosh, such hypocresy is sickening…
Comment by Juan C
Gee Juan, I do not feel any hypocrecy as I am not the one that developed nukes. Nor did I use them. I am against ANYONE having Nukes. I think they should all be disposed of.
Nuke energy is one thing, weapons are another. If you have them as weapons, eventually you are going to want to use them. Everyone want to play with the new toys.
All I did was point out that we keep hearing that Iran is developing Nukes for energy and not weapons (from Iran) then the rest of the world now is saying WRONG. So their lie is getting exposed. Now maybe the rest of the world will start to apply more pressure for them to stand down the development.
But I guess you would have the World body just say “Stop” put in more sanctions, then more, then more and finally not get involved until Iran charbroils Moscow or something.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am“wimpy dems”…
you all gotta hear/see thisâ€
Here’s the clip of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) that we just played. Share it with your friends and ask them, “Is debating the security arrangements for the Speaker the best the Republicans can offer? Is this really the best they can do?â€
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg&eurl=
fantastic!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 11:28 amBEIJING – In exchange for fuel aid, North Korea agreed Tuesday to shut down its main nuclear reactor and eventually dismantle its atomic weapons program, just four months after the communist state shocked the world by testing a nuclear bomb.
A positive first step.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:32 amCaption Contest:
Tenet: So I play three cards and place 10 armies in Alaska. Ok Dick attacking Alaska with three dice.
Chimpy: Should have held on to Australasia Dick, 2 armies every turn…
Dick: Go f*** yourself George..
February 13th, 2007 at 11:37 amMitt Romney’s Ford Follies:
- Former Governor of liberal Massachusetts and previous resident of heavily Mormon Utah, Romney cynically announced his White House bid in Michigan.
- Needing to preach a message of religious tolerance, Romney announced his bid at a museum honoring a giant of anti-semitism, Henry Ford.
- Romney’s own father George was president of American Motors, which brought us such classics as the Rambler, the Marlin, the Hornet, the Gremlin and the Pacer.
- Romney’s message of innovation rang hollow as Ford is in the process of laying off 44,000 workers and closing 16 plants.
For the full story, see:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:42 am“Mitt Romney’s Ford Follies.”
Comment by hacker bob
First, Iran must a decade from building a functioning bomb. So Bush cultist should calm down, but I guess they wont cuz it is a perfect excuse to still be afraid of everything. About the “lie”, nobody must have lied so much than Bush admin…still you dont say too much about that. I know, your jod doesnt allow it, I understand. (this wasnt sarcastic).
Second, who is pushing Iran to become more militarized when in the neighbor country, 14 permanent bases are being built?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:42 amThis is the old american tactic to invade, occupy or bomb countries. US threaten them, those countries invest money on weapons instead of social services, that country goes bankrupt, people starve to death, that country is accused of being a menace to US interests, world peace, whatever, and finally UN bends over and you have a new US military adventure. Of course, the Soviet Union did exact the same things with its neighbor countries, for the sake of being balanced. Again, I wont be tired of repeating, you just see CONSEQUENCES, you have to see the CAUSES, otherwise you will be chasing ghouls, muslims and commies your entire existence providing big profits to war companies.
hacker bob sez:
Well, as long as we’re in Fantasyland, why not ask for ALL weapons to be disposed of, so we can all live in peace and harmony until the end of our days?
(OK, so my suggestion isn’t very realistic. But neither is yours.)
That’s just plain ridiculous. Weapons have utility as deterrents…they don’t need to be used to be useful. The U.S. and the Soviet Union stared each other down for quite a while during the Cold War, but neither side made a move, because they knew that to move was to insure their own destruction. BTW, likening a nuclear weapon to a ‘toy’ shows a shocking lack of perspective on your part…perspective that fortunately wasn’t lacking in the world leaders on the Cold War era.
Anyone else amused at he U.S. pointing out the decitfulness of another nation? Anyone?
Well, seeing as how they’re at best a decade away from a functional nuclear weapon anyway, perhaps the ‘rest of the world’ will not exhibit the hysteria regarding the situation that our administration is deliberately fomenting.
OK, that’s just plain asinine. President Ahmadinejad knows full well that if Iran pulls something like that, the country will be converted into a plain of radioactive glass about 11 minutes later. Why can’t you understand that maybe, just maybe, Iran wants a nuke to serve as a deterrent against a hostile United States, who possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons, as well as against a hostile Israel, who has an ‘undisclosed’ number of U.S. supplied nukes at its disposal?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:46 am#34 dlet,
The term “unawful combatants” was not created by the Bush administration. It is a legal status that has long been recognized by U.S. and international bodies. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin (1942) described “unlawful combatants.”
“By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”
February 13th, 2007 at 11:49 amYour ignorance is showing again. How many times do I have to educate you to the fact that we were signatories to the Geneva Conventions?
I say “were” because the MCA effectively derrogates the United States from the Geneva Conventions.
Hacker bob, how does it feel, as a soldier, to know that the United States has tacitly withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:49 amThe Green Zone will likely be “ground zero” for a lot of Iranian missles.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:52 amFor example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin (1942) described “unlawful combatants.â€
Comment by Exley
I will only repeat what an UK sport journalist said:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am
In order to sell books he’s going to have to throw somebody out of the lifeboat.â€
Oooh, Oooh, I know, toss Darth overboard!
February 13th, 2007 at 11:55 amStill citing Quirin again, Exley? At least you’re dogmatic in your ignorance. I discredited that argument months ago, yet you persist.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amJuan, my fellow left wing radical
I think you and Bob actually agree here. He is not refuting that it is Bush policy that is causing nuclear proliferation. (see comment # 11, 15 and 16). But like you said, Bob, can’t actually directly agree with that since he is sitting at his desk “in uniform”, although I encourage Bob to openly criticize WHILE in uniform, you have our support Bob!
I can’t beleive Bob actually said: “I am against ANYONE having Nukes. I think they should all be disposed of.”
can you clarify here Bob, does “anyone” include the U.S.?
this is what makes Bob a Progressive Conservative
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amExley,
When you first talked about detained alien unlawful combatants you meant only unlawful combatants? Well in that case I will just have to pay closer attention to what you think you actually mean than what you write.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amAnd finally: Arm the frickin’ laser beams. “Dozens of dolphins and sea lions trained to detect and apprehend waterborne attackers could be sent to patrol a military base in Washington state, the Navy said Monday.â€
Attn: Divers at Mukilteo State Beach park.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:57 amDon’t go in the water.
Hacker bob, how does it feel, as a soldier, to know that the United States has tacitly withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
What, no GC’s!!!! Let’s roll, baby./sarcasm>
Seriously, the GC’s do need to be applied. As I have said before, either the Constitution OR the Geneva Conventions need to be applied. To not allow either is just assinine in my opinion. With that, we can not hold anyone else acountable if we are not in compliance ourselves.
It, for me, creates a very confusing situation.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:58 amThe Green Zone will likely be “ground zero†for a lot of Iranian missles.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
DING DING DING-give this man a cigar!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAnd how do ordinary muslims who were ‘bountied’ by Afghan warlords fit the description of unlawful combatants? Where were the “enemy lines” drawn? How is their civilian clothing not a uniform, when they wear only civilian clothing all the time?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSheeeiit, Exley, you are really stretching it this time.
My hip waders may not be sufficient, may need ladder, tall, tall ladder.
The quote about Iran is misleading. The actual text of the EU document says, “At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme.” This is a far cry from “Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it,…”. The former says that they still need to “acquire the capacity”. The latter suggests that they have this capacity and are busily accumulating weapons-grade material. The EU document also says that the current stumbling block is the level of Iranian technology, not the effect of international pressure. This EU document cannot be legitimately used to support the idea that Iran is currently an immenent nuclear threat.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm51 Seriously, the GC’s do need to be applied. As I have said before, either the Constitution OR the Geneva Conventions need to be applied. To not allow either is just assinine in my opinion. With that, we can not hold anyone else acountable if we are not in compliance ourselves.
It, for me, creates a very confusing situation.
Comment by hacker bob — February 13, 2007 @ 11:58 am
careful bob, you’re in uniform…
or are you going “watada” on us?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pmcan you clarify here Bob, does “anyone†include the U.S.?
Comment by karlX
Yes, anyone includes the U.S.
I am aware of many of the lies of the current Administration. I am also aware of the enablers to those lies. Also the many “unproven” things. If you read some of my questions, occasionally you will see me “connecting the dots”. But before I can take certain actions, I have to be 100% right, or I am 100% F*cked.
I have already said I support the Office of the President of the United States. That is an office, not the man. The man pisses me off more and more each passing day.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pm#54
February 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pmnice peter, you should send your comment to TP staff, this “post” has effectively been “unspun” by you, good work
or are you going “watada†on us?
Comment by karlX
Nope, not going “watada”. I am currently engages in a military action under direction of the United Nations, remember?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmBnF, I realize your paralegal classes probably did not cover Quirin, but maybe you should give it a read sometime.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pmNo one on Earth is, or will become, crazy enough to use nukes. Our own ballet with the Soviets and all the testing that went along with it has been more than enough to demonstrate that nuclear conflict is suicide for whomever might initiate it. Anyone recall “mutual assured destruction”?
Those countries still pursuing the technology do so in response to their neighbors who have it (India begets Pakistan, China/Russia begets N. Korea, and Israel begets Iran). Most of those are downwind of their would-be targets or aggressors. No one with scientific knowledge of the technology is so stupid as to discount the hazard of fallout, hence none are stupid enough to piss into the wind a cancer-causing stream.
The American public is stupid enough, however, to believe that other countries are even crazier and more stupid than ours (which is a huge stretch), and ignorant enough of science not to see the obvious reasons that nuclear weapons will only be making headlines as hypotheticals.
These “mushroom cloud” arguments that get bandied about by Republican’t apologists and self-styled protectors of liberty are the biggest canard of empty rhetoric ever used to manipulate public opinion. Too bad the public is so ill-equipped for shovelling bullshit out of the way of progress.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pm58 Bob
no, i have never heard the details of you “deployment”
February 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pmStrict ethics limits on executive-branch officials is the only way to go and it needs to become so imbeded in the constitution that there is no question. Congress should also do something about the responsibility a President has in telling the truth. Even when not on trial or when being interviewed by a prosecutor, lying should be a punishable offense. When it is done in the exercise of official capacity or while in office, punishment should be severe and not lacking.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pm#49 dlet, I do not understand your confusion. Alien (or non-citizen) unlawful enemy combatants have never enjoyed habeas corpus protections.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmo dear god. armed dolphins and sea lions. of course the only thing worse than each is an alliance between the two. its only a matter of time now, we’re doomed.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:37 pm63 Ex – pedantic (and slightly dishonest) as always – there was no such animal as “unlawful enemy combatant” until the master propagandists at the Executive Branch manufactured them of whole cloth, mud, and straw (something Alberto G. learned to do as the descendant of scrappy Mexican immigrants).
Nice job though, of defending our “right” to declare the civilian citizenry of any nation our enemy, and then treat them worse than if they were part of a real uniformed army (which might actually constitiute a threat to us outside the fevered imaginings of some think-tank masturbator). Why is it again, that no one trusts us anymore?
As it stands, we can all swell with pride knowing we’ve locked up some teenage boys and tortured them for years, which is all any freedom-loving people can do when they’re caught up in a fit of hysterics, right Ex?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#45 Juan,
You seem to be under the misapprehension that only the United States recognizes the status of unlawful combatants. That is incorrect. The Geneva Convention of 1949 draws a distinction between lawful combatants who are entitled to P.O.W. status and unlawful combatants who are not entitled to such status.
Under the 1949 Geneva Convention, combatants entitled to P.O.W. status are those that:
Have been commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Carry arms openly; and
Conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#65 Tom…You are incorrect. I suggest you take a look at posting #42 and the passage from Ex Parte Quirin, a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the tem “unlawful combatants” is used and defined.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pmi’m unimpressed that an exception was turned into a rule to serve the convenience of a radical few.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pmAlien (or non-citizen) unlawful enemy combatants have never enjoyed habeas corpus protections.
The term “unawful combatants†was not created by the Bush administration. It is a legal status that has long been recognized by U.S. and international bodies. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin (1942) described “unlawful combatants.â€
Comment by Exley
Can you give any examples of this (Quirin) being used by the US to detain someone (before Bush)?
Just one will do.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHello? [tap, tap] Is this thing turned on? Exley?
February 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pmUnder the 1949 Geneva Convention, combatants entitled to P.O.W. status are those that:
Have been commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Carry arms openly; and
Conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Comment by Exley
How often does this still happen?
February 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pmI guess the little feller had someplace else to go. Oh, well, mayhap you’ll bring your example when you return.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:20 pmGEORGE W BUSH : NOT ONLY ARE YOU A CURSE AND A DISGRACE TO THIS NATION …YOU’RE ALSO A PEST! EVER SINCE YOU DISHONESTLY CREPT YOUR WAY UP TO THE WHITE HOUSE LIKE A WORM NOT A SINGLE SCORE!!!! WHAT HAVE U DONE RIGHT CHIMP? FILTHY BEING THAT FEEDS ON GREED, DISHONESTY, WAR, AND DEATH! DEVIL WORSHIPPING WAR JUNKIE FREAK (CHRISTIAN : YEAH RIGHT! SKULLS AND BONES FRAT RAT!) (RECOVERED ALCOHOLIC : YEAH RIGHT! YOU’VE BEEN SPLURGING ON THE FINEST BOOZE WHILE YOUNG PEOPLE DIE EVERYDAY BEACUSE OF YOU!) (LIAR : ABSOLUTELY!)
February 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pmGRIM REAPER WILL BE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR SOON! THAT WILL BE A VERY HAPPY DAY FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD!
Barfly,
Quirin was a decision that upheld the authority of the president to create military tribunals to try unlawful combatants, including a U.S. citizen. The unlawful combatants, who were Nazi saboteurs, were convicted by the military tribunal and executed. Quirin remains good law, having never been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you are asking whether there have been any subsequent trials by military commissions against unlawful combatants since World War II and before Al Qaeda’s attack against the United States on 9/11, I do not know. Perhaps there were military commission trials against unlawful combatants in the field during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, but I know of no specific cases off the top of my head.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pmTenet should jump the bush ship, return his Freedom Metal to “we the people”and try to right America. But somehow book sales will get in his way.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHave been commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Carry arms openly; and
Conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Comment by Exley
Any burglar with a concealed knife or gun is an unlawful combatant, then. Why there are only Muslim types in Gitmo? Wait, better. Why is Gitmo in Cuba? Oh, a better one, Why doesnt Cuba has a permanent base in the US?
As always, Ex, your verbal law diahrrea cant answer the simple moral or human question about your government´s doings.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:07 pmJuan, Don’t be embarassed that you did not know that the Geneva Convention of 1949 lays out specific criteria from who is entitled to P.O.W. status and who is not. That is why I am here. To teach people the ignorant.
As to why it is only “Muslim types” (to borrow your rather bizarre phrasing) at the Guantanamo detention facility, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are radical Islamic extremist groups. Since they are who we are fighting, it follows quite naturally that the detainees would be overwhelmingly Muslim….Who would you expect to detained in a conflict against Islamist terrorist groups? Norwegians?
Try again, Juan.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:17 pmAs for this rather silly attempt to make a point, Juan: “Any burglar with a concealed knife or gun is an unlawful combatant, then.”
Wrong again. The Geneva Convention of 1949 applies “to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”
Juan, I implore you to actually read some relevant materials before you post…Otherwise, you are going to keep making the same type of mistakes.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm(to borrow your rather bizarre phrasing)
I maybe phrasing “bizarrely”, but your government is waterboarding them. You criticize me but not your government? mmm… I really dont know how that mind of yours work.
Who would you expect to detained in a conflict against Islamist terrorist groups?
What about Saudis or Pakistani…I mean not just the individuals, but the government that supports them. Again, hypocresy, why Saudi Arabia or Pakistan hasnt been condemned by US to support proved terrorist groups? Well, the first one has a lot of oil and the second one has nukes, so yeah, Im guessing they wont be part of the Axis of Evil (sic!).
Norwegians?
February 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pmComment by Exley
Whenever your government tells you that Norway is the next country to hate, you will be there in the first row.
Juan, Don’t be embarassed that you did not know that the Geneva Convention of 1949 lays out specific criteria from who is entitled to P.O.W. status and who is not.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIm still breathing, dont worry.
Seriously, the GC’s do need to be applied. As I have said before, either the Constitution OR the Geneva Conventions need to be applied. To not allow either is just assinine in my opinion. With that, we can not hold anyone else acountable if we are not in compliance ourselves.
It, for me, creates a very confusing situation.
Comment by hacker bob — February 13, 2007 @ 11:58 am
I have already said I support the Office of the President of the United States. That is an office, not the man. The man pisses me off more and more each passing day.
Comment by hacker bob — February 13, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
GOOD. You should be. The “man” has tossed the Genevea Conventions out, along with the Constitution.
The soldiers I admire and respect the most are the ones who are brave enough to speak out against the “man” and his illegal and immoral war. They risk much in speaking their conscience.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pm#79 Juan, I am quite sure there are Saudi and Pakistani members of Al Qaeda who were captured in Afghanistan and are now detained at Guantanamo.
Secondly, you argue that because Saudi Arabia has oil, it would never be included in the axis …..But Iraq and Iran, who were named as part of the axis, do indeed have oil.
You are really not making much sense here today, Juan.
But I am glad you are still breathing. You are a decent chap. You have just been sadly misinformed throughout your life.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pmOh, this is going to be good. How will Mr. George “Slam Dunk” Tenet make the Left love him? I’m looking at Cheney. Tenet is going to whisper sweet nothings into the Left’s collective ear and they will forget all about him being the guy who brought us the Iraq intelligence failure.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pmEx, are you going to argue the case for the legality of use of torture as well?
February 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm83
February 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pmgimme a break seixon; bush and co had made invading iraq a priority long before they started selecting appropriate “faulty intelligence”
KarlX,
Absolutely not. Torture is not only immoral, it is illegal under U.S. and international law.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pmComment by Exley — February 13, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
LAME.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmComment by Exley — February 13, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
WRONG AGAIN
February 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmComment by Exley — February 13, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pmStill citing a case that doesn’t apply. Good thing you’re not a lawyer, you’d be paying some heavy sanctions to the Court by now.
Perhaps there were military commission trials against unlawful combatants in the field during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, but I know of no specific cases off the top of my head.
Comment by Exley
So, your answer would be no, to your knowledge, there have been no other persons detained because
February 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pmof the decision. So in the sixty or so years since the Nazi saboteurs , no one has ever been detained using Quirin as precedent. That tells me it is not so cut-and-dried as you alledge. In sixty years, of political crises of every stripe, no president has previously seen fit to use it, regardless of whether you knew about it or not – because if any other administration had used it, the Bush administration would have been Johhny-on-the-spot to cite them as precedent). At least be that honest, and admit it isn’t so clear-cut.
And now for a little bit of that “old time religion”:
News site touts student’s claim ‘God spoke everything into existence’
The website World Net Daily is highlighting a claim by a college student that he can prove a divine entity “spoke” Earth into being.
“If God spoke everything into existence as the Genesis record proposes, then we should be able to scientifically prove that the construction of everything in the universe begins with a) the Holy Spirit (magnetic field); b) Light (an electric field); and c) that Light can be created by a sonic influence or sound,” WND quotes the student, Samuel J. Hunt of Western Kentucky University, from his website, http://www.scienceprovescreation.com.
Hunt, who has published a book documenting his findings, claims there are currently taught lab experiments “that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order,” says WND.
He asserts that sonoluminescence, an emission of light bursts from liquid-immersed bubbles imploded by sound, as proof that “aligns with one of the earlier descriptions of the creation” in Genesis, specifically when God said “Let there be light.”
WND ties Hunt’s claims to verified research on sonoluminescence at institutions such as UCLA and the University of Chicago.
Hunt, whose reported majors are pre-physical therapy and nutrition/dietetics, told WND that “he was spurred on in his work because the advanced physics and other courses he was taking were advancing propositions that sometimes didn’t match up.
“The further I went,” he added, “the more my questions seemed to be being answered in the Genesis record.”
A purported press release hyping the student’s book said, without quoting sources, “Even now, the Darwinists are taking up arms. After reading only a short quip of Hunt’s wisdom they’re talking about ‘a good book-burning,’ ‘paradigm shifts,’ ‘eating crow’ and the threat of losing more scientists ‘to the other side.’ One Darwinist went so far as to say they are not ready to respond to this if it gets out into the ‘wider arena.’”
WND is described by one source as “an American conservative online news site,” yet the site itself asserts that it is “an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism.”
His abstract states, “An examination of the sequential mathematical and experimental dual proof of the Genesis record of origins underlying the institution of all that is in the universe – from waves to matter to the mind.”
Hunt said science has been proving the Genesis account in classrooms for centuries, “in spite of the fervency to promote evolution and big bang theories.”
A student at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Hunt said his questions started very simply. “I asked my professors in physics and chemistry, ‘What if I could scientifically prove that all matter was spoken into existence and that all matter could be manipulated by sound just as Genesis says? Wouldn’t that mean God exists and created the universe?” he asked. “Nobody’s ever done that before,” was the response.
His goal is to bring a unity to the Christian community, “just like the founders of our nation expected and wanted from the Constitution.” The documentation of his processes, Hunt believes, could end debate. “People want to know the truth, to have something to stand on that’s not trickery and deceit,” he said. “This gives people something real to touch, hang on to.”
If the Holy Spirit is in my refrigerator door magnets, should I pray to them for guidance?
February 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThe United states of America possesses tens of thousands of nuclear weapons…
…enough to destroy the earth a hundred times over…
…Israel possesses hundreds of nukes…
…and Iran getting one nuke is a threat?
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
…common sense is (certainly) at an all time low with heavy trading…
February 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pmwell judging by your moniker, your beer is in there, so….
February 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm#93 was for #91 comment by barfly
February 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pmBarfly,
Assuming you are right, the use of military commissions and detainment of unlawful combatants has not taken place since World War II because up until 9/11 there has been no need for their usage, not because either is a discredited or illegal practice.
For example, during the Korean War, UN forces were combatting uniformed members of the North Korean and Chinese military. Thus, they were lawful combatants and those captured entitled to P.O.W. status. Moreover, to my knowledge, unlike the Nazi saboteurs and Al Qaeda terrorists, no agents of North Korea or China were plotting to enter the United States to blow up or otherwise destroy American landmarks, buildings, factories, etc.
Similarly, during the Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers captured were members of an established military and in uniform. Thus, under the Geneva 1949 convention, they were entitled to be and were treated as P.O.W.s Additionally, as with
Military commissions and designations of unlawful combatants are tools that are sanctioned by the law of war and international law. The decision to use legal tools are dictated by the nature of the armed conflict. Those tools were necessary in World War II because of the nature of the global conflict and the use of spies and saboteurs by Nazi Germany. Those same tools are necesary in the global conflict with Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and those who may operate in the United States to plot terrorist attacks do not wear uniforms, carry their arms openly, or conduct their operations in accordance with the law of war, as required by the 1949 convention for P.O.W. status.
Each armed conflict is different. The legal, political tools and weapons used to fight such conflicts similarly varies. Military commissions and the designation of unlawful combatants were not necessary to fight the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Kuwait due to the nature of the conlict and the tactics employed by the enemy. Conversely, the nature of World War II and the conflict against Al Qaeda does call for the use of such legal tools due to the specifics of each conflict.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmwell judging by your moniker, your beer is in there, so….
Comment by karlX
Hello? Barfly? I have others to do that sort of thing for me.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pmWow…Seeing it posted, I note that posting #95 really got long-winded. Sorry about the lengthy post. I will try to be more succinct.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pmthere has been no need for their usage, not because either is a discredited or illegal practice.
But now suddenly there is a need? The Chi-coms used infiltrators. And they weren’t dressed in uniforms. Did we capture some? You bet. Were they tried under Quirin? Nope. Nor were they executed. Look it up, I have to go to work now.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pmIf the Holy Spirit is in my refrigerator door magnets, should I pray to them for guidance?
Comment by Barfly
Hell no, tell them to say “Let there be a gin and tonic”.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pmWow…Seeing it posted, I note that posting #95 really got long-winded. Sorry about the lengthy post. I will try to be more succinct. Comment by Exley — February 13, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
That would require either expertise, or you ignoring your own circular logic. Neither will likely occur as an improvement to your intellect. You have neither the capacity nor the training to argue on the subjects you seem to like.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pmMoreover, to my knowledge, unlike the Nazi saboteurs and Al Qaeda terrorists, no agents of North Korea or China were plotting to enter the United States to blow up or otherwise destroy American landmarks, buildings, factories, etc. Comment by Exley — February 13, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Yet we retain Afghan and Iraqis that match this same criteria. Thanks for debunking your own childish argument. Sigh. You have so much desire, and so little ability to think rationally and put it to use. Were you dropped on the head as a baby, or were you born without the capacity to reason?
February 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pmThis is Mr. “Slam-Dunk” Tenet’s chance to DEEP-SIX CHIMPya and Torticola Cheney and the rest of Bushland Uber Allies and PULL THE RUG RIGHT FROM UNDER THESE CREEPS–But do you think that this COWARDLY CREEP Tenet will do so? NO SIREEE! Tenet was TOO SCARED EVEN TO CONFRONT Cheney and CHIMPya with their lies and call them to account for LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC and PLOTTING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND CONGRESS–Tenet is a SCARED LITTLE WHIPPED PUPPY–God, if he had ANY INTESTINAL FORTITUDE, HE WOULD GIVE CHIMPya and Torticola Cheney WHAT FOR! You still have a chance, George Tenet–DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pmAh, another Exley assertion debunked. Isn’t that now 0-9?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pmYup, Exlax was pantsed again today….
February 14th, 2007 at 1:05 amNice try, boys…Yet you fail again. I note that you intentionally and dishonestly disregard that fact that the captured Al Qaeda fighters that are at Guantanamo did not meet the criteria for P.O.W. status and are therefore rightly classified as unlawful combatants under the law of war and Geneva Convention of 1949.
Heh! It amuses me to see Barfly, Terry, and VVDFU oh-so desperately try to make their arguments when they know none of the facts. It amuses me to see you three embarass yourselves like you do.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amHeh! The more I read VVGFU’s inane posting #101, the more laughable it becomes. Clearly, he does not understand the difference between P.O.W.s and unlawful combatants. Moreover, he makes (yet another) factual error when he implies that Iraqi P.O.W.s are being held at Guantanamo.
Try again, boys. (But do a little reading first…I’d hate to see you humiliate yourselves again).
February 14th, 2007 at 11:16 amDanica Patrick
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 18th, 2008 at 7:14 amMy House Wont Sell
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pmInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 3:24 amNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:52 ambrenda strong
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 21st, 2008 at 7:09 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pmAdSense Money Maker
Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:33 pmPayday Loans No Fax
March 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pmTom
Please contact me.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:24 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pmparalegal training
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:12 amAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 6th, 2009 at 5:23 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pmThe truth about Arbonne Skin Care Products…
Arbonne International is one of the best companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne International skin care products are developed in Switze…
May 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm