The US Supreme Court ruled that war tribunals are not legal regarding the detainees of Gitmo. This made things a real mess. What SCOTUS did not do is give any guidance either. So, if they can not be tried as prisoners of war, and they are not US citizens, and they are not protected by The Geneva Convention, what is the proper jurisdiction? I don’t really fault SCOTUS for coming to the conclusion they did, they’re a little more experienced with law than I am. However, given the legal and political complexity of the situation, I think they should have given some guidance. The only option immediately available is to try them under court martial procedures. This makes no sense to me. Additionally, it could take years. A lot of people are complaining keeping them there is inhumane. However, several have committed suicide as opposed to being returned to their legal home. So, simply kicking them out appears inhumane as well. Sending them back to Afghanistan or Iraq just simply re-arms someone trying to kill our soldiers, so that’s not an option to me either. Congress will now attempt to correct the laws that SCOTUS says makes trying them as prisoners of war illegal. To me it is totally irrelevant. If SCOTUS has taken the position it has, I have no doubt that they will strike down any adjustments to the law that allows for war tribunals. Why, I don’t know. However, SCOTUS seems to hint that trying them under any real circumstances is illegal. IMO, they want Gitmo closed. Anything less than that will meet resistance. What to do with the people sitting there is not something they seem to want to deal with. And to me, that’s where the real problem lies. Regardless of legal wrangling, what is the best thing to do with those soldiers who were trying to kill ours? Until someone comes up with a better idea, I say leave them there.
29
Jun
What part of seperation of powers do they not understand? How about states’ rights? This is the single stupidest stunt I think I’ve ever seen a city council do. Ever. And think about this Berkeley, I live in rural Kentucky.
Now, usually when a group of small-minded people misuse their elected position to espouse their own personal views, it’s becasue they really don’t have a clue what they are doing and don’t care. That should tell ya something voters of Berkeley. It’s one thing to be perceived as the liberal capitol of the US. It’s totally another to look like a collection of blithering idiots. And trust me, I know what they look like.
Joe Scarborough this totally wrong opinion piece this morning:
The Senate has just finished a heated debate of flag burning, an act that some Republicans say is an attack on American troops. Democrats blasted back, saying the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning was pure politics. Ultimately, the amendment failed by one vote.
Whether Republicans were playing partisan politics with the flag issue is open to debate, but few can argue that this constitutional amendment would actually impact many Americans lives……
Still, if the White House and congressional Republicans pulled off a political stunt, it was a popular one. A poll released this month shows that 56 percent of Americans support a flag-burning amendment, while 40 percent oppose it.
And like the marriage amendment that went up in flames last month, this flag-burning proposal is an example of George Bush and Karl Rove setting political traps for Democrats, who can now count on being painted as the party of gay marriage and flag burning.
Not exactly the best way to win back Red State America.
George Bush and Karl Rove didn’t invent this tactic. Not even close. Just a very cursory research would reveal that the modern effort to ban flag burning gained momentum with events occurring in 1989. Since that point, it has been introduced EVERY SINGLE CONGRESS.
So, Joe, it is blatantly incorrect to say this issue is an example of Bush setting traps for Democrats considering the legislation predates Bush by OVER A DECADE. And, since it’s so easy to figure this out, it leads me to wonder why it is SOME people like Joe Scarborough don’t allow comments or trackbacks on THEIR posts?
I’ve got mine open. I’m more than willing to take the heat.
Probably because I’m a lot more confident I’m right than Joe is.
27
Jun
Here’s the story:
Investigators were trying to determine Tuesday whether Rush Limbaugh violated a deal with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case when authorities found he had a bottle of Viagra that was apparently prescribed to someone else.
Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. Customs officials found Viagra in his bag, but his name wasn’t on the prescription, Palm Beach County sheriff’s spokesman Paul Miller said.
Limbaugh’s lawyer, Roy Black, said the prescription was written in Limbaugh’s doctor’s name "for privacy purposes." The conservative host was released without being charged and investigators confiscated the Viagra, which treats erectile dysfunction.
CNN takes things a little different:
Rush Limbaugh could see a deal with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case collapse after authorities found a bottle of Viagra in his bag at Palm Beach International Airport. The prescription was not in his name…..
Customs officials found the Viagra in his luggage but his name was not on the prescription, said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.
Miller said the alleged violation could be a second-degree misdemeanor. The sheriff’s office was investigating and will soon turn the case over to the state attorney’s office, which had no immediate comment Tuesday.
Now, if you read the Fox story a little further, it quotes this:
It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party’s name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County.
So, Fox, via a spokesman for the STATE attorney says it’s probably OK. CNN quotes a sheriff’s deputy who says he could go to jail. Gee, which one do I trust?
Bottom line, really, who cares? If the media pursues this as they did his other little problem, they’ll have to explain in great detail WHY he needed the Viagra, and Rush will tell us in great detail what it did for him.
Now, I’m here to tell ya, that’s more than I ever need to know.
( And, to see how serious this violation is, look over there on my Google ads. I bet you’ll see about five ads so you can buy it online. Discretely. )
This is eye-opening:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/
I got an 85. I passed. I’d be curious as to how many people who come here did NOT pass it!
Nikhil Rao at Homeland Stupidity pens an excellent artivle on the health care debate. Basically, how free should the market be?
I like the points made there. However, "let the sucker beware" works fine and dandy with used cars. However, when you’re dealing with addictive substances, the game changes IMO. In the case of tobacco, it was free market forever. Then the US and other places decided it was such a horrendous thing that it sued the producers and ostracized anyone that had been legally allowed to get addicted under free market terms in the first place. If we’re going to allow all drugs to be over the counter, we’d better be prepared to deal with the consequences. If we’re going to allow unlicensed doctors, then we need to be prepared to deal with consequences. etc. etc. etc. I’m not in favor a completely free market in medical services. The consequences of abuse are too severe. However, there are some rather simple steps that can be taken to push the medical community closer to free markets. Namely, the Certificate of Need process intentionally limits the number of providers for any given service. What’s the point in that? If they qualify, let them do it. If the funding’s not adequate, the providers will quickly figure that out.
That’s a quick and easy start if you want freer medical markets. If the CoN process were eliminated, then those one-stop clinics would be of a LOT more value.
Ask your state reps what the point of the CON process is in today’s market. I bet you’ll love the answers you get. ( I’d like to see them here. )
Here’s the story:
(Peter King) To me, the real question here is the conduct of The New York Times. By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies. This is a very effective policy. They have compromised it. This is the second time The New York Times has done this.
And to me, nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. And The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.
And I’m calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We’re in time of war, Chris, and what they’ve done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act.
Now, although I don’t buy the “who elected them” argument. I will argue that the stories they’ve been publishing of late do serve the enemy more than the US. And, that’s not a small issue. The wiretap flap was purely an issue created by NYT. It did not really inform anyone, and it was reported incorrectly and caused a lot of headaches for the country at large because of that. So, one had to question their motives. They were more than willing to present PART of the story, but not the entire thing. Now. we’ve got the monitoring of international money trails. Folks, there is nothing new about this at all. This isn’t something that just popped up overnight in secrecy. So, why is it suddenly newsworthy? The SEC has been monitoring funds since 1933 or so. Don’t think for one second that they don’t. Especially if that money was coming from a country we’re at war with. You think the Federal Trade Commission hasn’t been keeping an eye on financial trails to organized crime? The FBI’s been doing it for YEARS to track drug dealers. So, all of a sudden, the New York Times comes to the conclusion that we’re doing the exact same thing against terrorists that we’ve done against organized crime and drug dealers for seventy years and THAT is a major story worth exposing and compromising our ability to execute?
Bottom line, I don’t think these exposes the New York Times have been running are being run in the best interests of the country. Therefore, the New York Times has some other reason for running them. Be it contempt for President Bush or selling advertising, it doesn’t matter. The argument is already being made that Peter King has no right to question the media because of the First Amendment. However, if INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE at the NYT are doing this for some other reason than relaying news to the masses, then those individuals IMO have abandoned the protections the First Amendment provides them as “the press”. The Supreme Court, in the case of the wiretap stories, found this to be as true as shouting “FIRE” in a theater. Individuals were prosecuted and questioned as to their motives although the NYT itself was not.
This story is not quite as enticing as the wiretaps. And, I don’t think it’s going to get the attention the wiretap flap did. However, once again, the New York Times will get a LOT of attention. And, IMO, that attention is merited. They’ve got another agenda on their mind than the well-being of the country. Just as the media as the unfettered right to question our government, we have the unfettered right to question media. When the New York Times finally gets that point, then maybe we’ll get investigative reports that have us in mind moreso than their own personal agendas. Then, the real meaning of “the press” will return to the New York Times.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Peter King and fully support his request that they be investigated for violating the Espionage Act until they can justify what other reason they had to run this story. IMO, compromising the national security of the United States to belittle and undermine a President they don’t like is nothing more than shallow self-serving treason. The very last thing it is freedom of “the press”.
Updates:
- Some people, including Homeland Stupidity, are questioning whether or not this revelation by the Times might have disrupted the program. To me, that is so NOT THE POINT. The point here is what the intent of “the press” was. He also worries about “mission creep”. A viable concern. However, that’s a legal issue that can and will be discussed later. As much of a concern as he expresses over the internr of Homeland Security, I have even more over the ethics and intent of the New York Times. It’s up to the press to keep the government in check. Who is expected to keep the press in check?
- Expose the Left has video of Peter King’s statement along with the New York Times reply ( in a comment ). There are also a ton of comments. Some are quite good.
- My friend Dirty
Dingus also has an excellent take. He is referencing an incredibly long dissection of the events from Hugh Hewitt. Hugh questions their motives as I do. However, - Michelle Malkin basically dissects the people involved and the responses.
- Austin Bay IMO most likely got it right in their very simple deduction: “The Times, apparently, told the story because it could and because it thinks it can get away with it.”
- Stop the ACLU wants them prosecuted as well.
Basically, the New York Times’ response to the issue has been worse than the article written.
Here’s the lead volley:
Gigot: Welcome to "The Journal Editorial Report." I’m Paul Gigot. Of all the problems facing congressional Republicans this November, voter frustration with runaway spending is one of the biggest.
And the reply:
Flake: Politically it’s a huge problem. We’ve always sold ourselves as the party of limited government, and it’s very difficult to be perceived as that when you’re earmarking bills like this: bridge to nowhere, swimming pools in California. It’s just crazy.
Now, I’m not going to go into why it is that Paul Gigot feels Jeff Flake is qualified to assume this is national problem for Republicans. That’s not my point here. My point is Flake is just 100% wrong. The reason is very simple: all politics is local.
Now, I’m sure you’re wondering what I mean by that. It’s just as simple, "what have you for ME lately" trumps national issues. Nobody cares if the national debt inches up another million dollars or so IF that million dollars benefits them. Get it? It is expected by the average guy for his Congressman to bring home the bacon. That guy expects his Congressman to taking money from everywhere else and bring it home. If his Congressman fails in that duty, he’s got a problem. That’s when Congressmen start relying on national issues to buffer them FROM the local people.
The national debt is an issue. However, it’s not nearly as critical as some people make it out to be. To me, it’s a bigger problem when Congressmen like Flake don’t realize why they are where they are. The House of Representatives is designed to localize federal government. The US Senate and the President are designed to protect the best interests of the country at large. The problem people like Flake present to me is they don’t understand those roles the Constitution put in place. He thinks he’s the President, not a Congressman. Flake should be asking for billions and billions for the people of his district. The Senate and the President should be bringing that number back to within budget. The problem we have as well is the Presidents and Senate for the last 25 years have abdicated that role.
That’s not a Republican or Democrat issue. IMO, that’s the media not taking the effort to research and think this issue out and instead relying totally on the word of the Congressman. Most of which who can’t bring home the bacon.
Now, think about this for a second. In the late 90′s, the economy was booming. The Republicans took over the House with a Democrat President. The House demanded a balanced budget due to the charges of the media. The President capitulated. The budget was balanced. The economy sank in a recession for about three years. A new President came in, over-spent the budget for a couple of years, the economy recovered. So, debt is not purely a bad thing. It’s an extremely valuable economic tool. Don’t let those who refuse to play the game convince you otherwise. There’s just sore losers who want to take their ball home.
A while back, I did a thingy on the recently revised estate tax legislation that did pass. Namely, I predicted a slaughter of wealthy individuals in the year 2010 based on that legislation.
They must have read it. Congress just revised the estate tax legislation to eliminate that one year bonanza for heirs in 2010. It did other things too.
Kids, put away those guns.
This document is too important to trust people to go look for it and read it. So, here it is in its entirety:
Now, this memo was requested by Rick Santorum. However, the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could have had access to this information at any time since it’s been de-classified. Given the generic nature of the information presented, I can’t see where it would have ever had any reason to be classified in the first place. I am also not sure exactly how that external list was created. All I do know is the people that have screeched the loudest that there were never any WMD‘s in Iraq are now shooting Santorum for being a messenger. The question I have for them is why didn’t Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid feel compelled to let you all know that you have indeed been had. Only thing is, it was never Bush that was lying to you, it was Kerry, Pellosi, Reid, and now Murtha. Those two have known there were chemical agents in Iraq since 2003, degraded or not. But yet, for three years, they have continued to state assuredly there were NO WMD’s in Iraq and that it was all made up by Bush. You guys can’t have it both ways. Proof of WMD’s is proof of WMD’s. Just because they’re not of a certain age or make and model does not degrade the fact that there are WMD’s in Iraq. Now, the problem is freedom of speech is tantamount in the United States. Idiots can claim anything they want without fear of repercussion. That’s not the point. The point is, Hussein made a deal with the United Nations that he would destroy ALL WMD‘s, degraded or not. He tried to shoot US and UN planes out of the air to keep us from proving they were there or not. He was telling the world there were NO WMD‘s even after the US entered Baghdad. The entire time, before, during, and after, there have been WMD’s of poor quality. There’s your real lie people. Degraded or not, that’s exactly what Bush was saying he had. And, for Pelosi and Reid to know this the entire time and still stick to their “Poor poor pitiful me, I was lied to.” is the BS. The fact Santorum delivered the letter to the public has nothing to do with the content. The fact is, those are WMD’s and have been for a LONG time OBVIOUSLY.. The fact is Hussein said he destroyed it all. Fact is Pelosi has agreed with and sided with Hussein throughout the entire ordeal, believing his story over our President’s knowing full well there was evidence contradicting Hussein and her story. Now, the evidence is there for the world.
Go ahead, shoot the messenger. It’s the only shot you all have left. And, what amazes me, is how cocky they are shooting the messenger. Not one single person there has wondered why Pelosi or Reid didn’t feel the need to clue them in. Guess they’re smart enough to know the Kos Kids ONLY shoot messengers. It’s so much easier than addressing the real issue. I imagine a lot less nauseating as well.
