Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

i love zerohedge

this has been brewing for a while, but good on obama to stand his ground on this one, this is great:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/health/policy/administration-rules-insurers-must-cover-contraceptives.html

OCs, plan b, sterilization procedures, etc covered free of copay or deductible as of august 1

Giffords to resign her House seat. Good decision.

I endured an argument with a self-described lib friend last night who says he still trusts his government to determine who's a terrorist (and he works for a newspaper). I had to explain the Obama administration's delight in drone attacks on American citizens, the president's signing of the NDAA, and the Justice Department's curious attitude towards whistleblowers.

Re the contraception decision: I want to punch every single religious speaker in that article in the mouth and nose at least 4 times.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries

hmm

953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead.

Chicago machine-style!

Re the contraception decision: I want to punch every single religious speaker in that article in the mouth and nose at least 4 times.

― It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:20 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'we are unable to live with this' is v frustrating to hear

Yeah, I mean

But church groups said the exemption was so narrow that it was almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

Yes, that's right. You DO stay in "business" by serving people other than practicing Catholics, because that is your chosen JOB.

have we talked about the lol irony of Rand Paul's TSA detention yet

cuz lol on way to pro-life rally, objects to gov't making invasive search of his body

Delicious ironing.

x-post

I endured an argument with a self-described lib friend last night who says he still trusts his government to determine who's a terrorist (and he works for a newspaper). I had to explain the Obama administration's delight in drone attacks on American citizens, the president's signing of the NDAA, and the Justice Department's curious attitude towards whistleblowers.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, January 22,

I know a number of Dems who trust the government to determine who is a terrorist and believe that using drones is preferable to sending in Americans on dangerous missions to kill alleged terrorists. While they regret the loss of innocent lives, they maintain that the goverment does their best with their use of drones, and that the deaths that result are at least, not intentional killings of innocents like those done by the Taliban and various other groups.

come come, Mr Bond, you enjoy killing just as much as I do.

Dems trust the government because one of them is in the White House.

^^^

that sort of myopia about civil rights is plenty irritating. altho I am more sympathetic to the "drone strikes = better than troops" argument

they maintain that the goverment does their best with their use of drones

not intentional killings of innocents like those done by the Taliban and various other groups.

better those mountain-dwelling Pakis than our boys

Yeah, what do these crazy idiots want us to do, risk our military on the battlefield?

there are no battlefields anymore

and frankly I prefer the targeted use of drones to, say, the carpet bombing of cities, as was commonly undertaken in previous wars

I mean I know this calculus is brutal and wrong, but 20 dead innocent civilians is a marginally better scenario than the firebombing of Tokyo, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia

Love is a battlefield.

no one can tell us we're wrong

You guys have read the stories about inaccurate targeting, right?

wait are you saying robots make mistakes

glibness aside, yes I am aware but I don't see how that alters the calculus described above

I suppose it's cool that our boys and girls aren't the ones dying but we're making families miffed.

and survivors have sought revenge.

I wouldn't call it "cool", exactly

Obama to break silence on Al Awlaki killing.

The legal memorandum, portions of which were described to The New York Times last October, asserted that it would be lawful to kill Awlaki as long as it was not feasible to capture him alive—and if it could be demonstrated that he represented a real threat to the American people. Further, administration officials contend, Awlaki was covered under the congressional grant of authority to wage war against al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.

pretty much what I was expecting

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him. seems like that would have been less legally questionable.

it's funny how much stuff about treason is in the constitution

man that is so much hassle

xp

yeah well new nation born in a war and all that

stop corrupting the blood

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

at time of constitution's drafting some 1/3 of "americans" were loyalists of one kind or another right?

just seems to me like leaving the country and then advocating/actively working for its "destruction" is like the legal epitome of treason.

xp

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

hmm I haven't read this, but I'll take your word for it. Burr was an interesting dude... Vidal's book about him is hilarious

"two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable scenarios..."

http://www.retrohound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vlcsnap-2011-01-19-14h13m32s118.png

The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance, and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant, and must, therefore, be rejected. The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings.
On the first division of the subject two points are made:

1st. That, conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.

2d. That if this construction be erroneous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others until those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

dude what?

freedom from trial in absentia is like one of the most basic and important procedural protections there are! let me dig up the relevant lit

guys, remember: Shakes is still lobbying to be the secretary of defense in a Soto administration.

i'm never sure what people get out of these "at least he's not..." arguments. i suppose i'm glad obama's not doing even worse shit than he already is, but an illegal assassination program isn't exactly the only alternative to carpet-bombing pakistan.

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

xpp

shakey: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZS.html

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

yeah that's a whole other problem...