Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
Charlie wrote: > For a innocent citizen, a false accusation would not affect one > forever. But it could take a substantial portion of one's life up. > That, coupled with the explicit endorsement of torture methods such > as waterboarding (methods that the US itself pushed for banning and > prosecuted its users only half a century ago), makes me wonder what > the fuck has happened to the USA. GW Bush and the religious right. > A half-decade ago, I wrote here along the lines that the actions of the States rarely fully lived up to its aspirations, but at least it did purport to stand for freedom, liberty and human rights. > > Now, just five years later, the USA has thrown even that out the > window. It's a desperately sad day. For those few of us who saw the disaster that is Bush coming, it's only slightly satisfying to see that the rest of the country is finally understanding how bad our leadership really is; kind of like the weak satisfaction one must feel after an enemy finally starts to pull out of a city that it has captured but has left a burned out hulk. It will take decades to undo the damage that this administration has inflicted on the U.S. and the world. Doug back to cleaning and moving maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On 22/10/2006, at 6:26 AM, Dave Land wrote: If I read (e)(1)(B) correctly, you don't even have to be actually _determined_ to be an enemy combatant, merely _awaiting_such_ determination_, in order to have habeus corpus suspended, but you _do_ appear to have to be an alien... I'm not taking a side in this exchange, I just want to understand if this august body believes that this is the intent of this clause. You have to be an alien, yes. But if they say you're a UEC, and you're a citizen, you have no recourse to the courts to prove that you're a citizen until your status has been properly determined, and there is no time limit on that as far as I can see. While I think that the Supreme Court is likely to make this issue go away eventually, what the Military Commissions Act does is make it harder for cases like Hamdan to reach them. For a innocent citizen, a false accusation would not affect one forever. But it could take a substantial portion of one's life up. That, coupled with the explicit endorsement of torture methods such as waterboarding (methods that the US itself pushed for banning and prosecuted its users only half a century ago), makes me wonder what the fuck has happened to the USA. A half-decade ago, I wrote here along the lines that the actions of the States rarely fully lived up to its aspirations, but at least it did purport to stand for freedom, liberty and human rights. Now, just five years later, the USA has thrown even that out the window. It's a desperately sad day. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On Oct 20, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 21/10/2006, at 12:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote: This would seem to exclude citizens. However, it actually doesn't, because if you are declared a UEC because you have been deemed to have provided material support to terrorists (say you'd rented an apartment to the 9/11 hijackers), then you are one until you can challenge it in a court... oh. Now you can't, until the Government says you can. Why not? Where in the law does it say that habeas corpus has been suspended? In a bit you already quoted. If you are declare a UEC, habeus corpus has been suspended. “(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who-- `(A) is currently in United States custody; and `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” If I read (e)(1)(B) correctly, you don't even have to be actually _determined_ to be an enemy combatant, merely _awaiting_such_ determination_, in order to have habeus corpus suspended, but you _do_ appear to have to be an alien... I'm not taking a side in this exchange, I just want to understand if this august body believes that this is the intent of this clause. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Liberty means never having to say things aren't going well
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21statistics.html U.N. Says Iraq Seals Data on the Civilian Toll By WARREN HOGE UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 -- The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the country's medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable. The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society. Concern over the numbers of civilians who have died in Iraq has risen sharply at a time when organized attacks by insurgents are swelling the numbers of victims and when a new report from a team of Iraqi and American researchers shows that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion. Mr. Qazi, a former Pakistani diplomat, says that the order to let the prime minister's office take over the release of the numbers came down a day after a United Nations report for July and August showed a serious upward spike in the number of dead and wounded. The leader of the Health Ministry in Iraq appealed to be allowed to continue supplying the figures to the United Nations but was turned down according to a subsequent letter from the prime minister's office, Mr. Qazi's cable said. The existence of the cable was reported Friday by The Washington Post. Feisal al-Istrabadi, Iraq's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said he had not seen the cable and therefore could not comment on its specifics. "But what I can say is what the prime minister is aiming for is to have one voice reflecting accurate information about the statistics of those who are dying every day," he said. "So, the concern was that the Ministry of Health, which has had accurate figures to date, be the official source of the information. "It is trying to avoid a situation where different agencies, which may have different perspectives, put out sets of numbers that are, in fact, not as accurate as they should be." The most recent United Nations report, published in September, showed that 3,590 people were killed in July and 3,009 in August in violence across the country. Compiled by statistics from Baghdad's central morgue and from hospitals and morgues countrywide, the report posited an average death rate of 97 people per day. The United Nations reports have been cited by independent researchers as reliable indicators of the incidence of violence in Iraq and were not disputed by the Iraqi government until the September report that showed sharp rises in the figures. In his cable, Mr. Qazi described a process by which his office tried to compile the most reliable statistics. He said that initially his office had been able to overcome Iraqi government reluctance to release figures by obtaining statistics from the Health Ministry's Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad. The institute records the number of unidentified civilians killed violently whose bodies are taken to the morgue in Baghdad, but not those killed violently whose bodies are taken to hospitals and later handed over to families for burial. Therefore, Mr. Qazi said, the institute's figures represented only "an indicator, albeit imperfect, of the growing number of civilian victims in the capital." To come up with a more thorough account, Mr. Qazi said, the United Nations combined the institute's findings with figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health, which records those killed or wounded as a result of violence from hospitals across almost all parts of the country. Mr. Qazi noted that the figures "may have contributed to an increased international awareness regarding the severe consequences that the conflict in Iraq is having on civilians." The cable said that following the release of the last United Nations human rights report on Sept. 20, the prime minister's office "expressed doubts" about its accuracy. The next day, the Ministry of Health was told that it should no longer release its figures but instead channel them through the prime minister's office. Mr. Qazi said he learned of this on Oct. 12. Mr. Qazi said the United Nations would continue to seek figures from the Department of Operations at the Ministry of Health and "use our contacts to see what measure of verification may be possible." ~maru Is any comment really needed? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 7 NFL Picks
Last week I was a solid 10-13, going to 59 - 28 for the year and picking up three games in my annual battle with my Dad.I'm only four games back now.. I get credit for the Upset Special this week after Carolina beat Baltimore, to go to 4-2, but obviously the real upset was down I-95 where the Titans upended the Redskins. San Diego at Kansas City - The Chargers and Philip Rivers amazingly continue to look like they're for real, and the Chiefs are simply hobbled without Trent Green under center. Pick: CHARGERS Green Bay at Miami - The Dolphins are one of this year's biggest disappointments to some people, so I'll go with a mild upset in the Packers coming off their bye week. Pick: PACKERS Detroit at NY Jets - I don't know if last week's result was a function of the Bills being very bad, or the Lions finally starting to grasp the Mike Martz offense... on a hunch, I'll go with the latter.. Pick: LIONS Pittsburgh at Atlanta - The defending Super Bowl Champs finally hit on all cylinders last week against the woeful Chiefs.. They should blitz the heck out of Michael Vick, and really set the Falcons reeling. Pick: STEELERS Hmm.. Four road teams in a row.. Philadelphia at Tampa Bay - The Eagles have lost two games this year, both on the last play of the game.The Bucs shouldn't be able to get that far against this team. Pick: EAGLES New England at Buffalo - I really want to see an upset here, I mean, really, I do... the Bills did all-but beat the Patriots in Foxboro in Week 1, right? That Patriots simply have a better QB, a better offensive line, a better defense, a better RB, better coaches.. They're just better. Pick: PATRIOTS Jacksonville at Houston - The Texans will probably win another game or two this year. This just isn't one of them. Pick: JAGUARS... Yikes! Seven road teams in a row! Carolina at Cincinnati - The last three weeks the Bengals have suffered a stunning loss in Tampa, a bye week, and a blowout loss to the Patriots. I can't see them losing three in a row.. This one might even be a romp. Pick: BENGALS Denver at Cleveland - The Broncos have very quietly given up only one touchdown this year... of course that one touchdown was in a game that they won! Pick: BRONCOS Arizona at Oakland - There's a chance that the Cardinals could implode after losing to a Bears team that scored *three* times on defense and special teams while giving up *six* turnovers! On the other hand, the Raiders have already imploded. Pick: CARDINALS... two more road teams! Minnesota at Seattle - Finally, a home team that I can pick.. Pick: SEAHAWKS Washington at Indianapolis - The Redskins are reeling, and in desperate need of a win. The Colts meanwhile, have been surprisingly vulnerable , not really blowing anyone out this year, this side of the Texans. The Redskins feed Clinton Portis the ball thirty times, keep it close, and pull out a surprise win. Pick: REDSKINS UPSET SPECIAL NY Giants at Dallas - The Giants have one of the best pass rushes in the League, and should be in Drew Bledsoe's face all night.The Cowboys will quickly find out that romping over the Texans doesn't solve their problems. Pick: GIANTS Wow. 11 road teams this week! I hope I'm right! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Dan Minette wrote: > My understanding is that, if Parliament were to pass such a > law, there would be no legal reason that courts could declare > it null and void. In the US, they could. Further, they > could, and often do, rely on precedence in interpreting the > constitution to do so. That's the sort of subtle interplay > that I didn't think was clear to non-Americans. *g* As Charlie pointed out, precedents are a relatively common feature of the theory and practice of jurisprudence. My Dad is a lawyer, as is my brother, and so are five of my uncles and aunts. So even though the notion of precedents might be a subtle distinction for some, but it is one I not only grew up with, it is also something I studied in different courses in college and university over a number of years. What you might be unaware of is that the Indian constitution adopted the notion of judicial review from the Merkin constitution. So not only can our courts declare laws as null and void, they in the 1960s and 70s enshrined the priciple of keeping the basic structure of the constitution* sacrosanct, and thus beyond constitutional amendements. It was a necessity as the procedure to amend the constitution over here is less rigid than the one followed in the US. Moving onto the question you asked, namely how this law changes the situation, or at least why I believe it does so. Justice Luttig's opinion in the Jose Padilla case has already established the precedent that US citizens who are UEC can be held indefinitely without charges and trial. This law, in making a distinction between UEC and Alien UEC, provides the legal basis for designating citizens as UECs. The petition filed on Padilla's behalf in the Supremem Court earlier this year challenged, among other things, the President's authority to make such a designation without solid proof. The President now has the legal authority to designate citizens as UEC, and you already have the precedent regarding the treatment of people thus defined. * the basic structure doctrine encompasses the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, a republican democracy, the separation of powers, the federal and secular nature of the polity, and individual freedom of the individuals. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Charlie wrote: > The new law means there's no review at all. Can't you see how > insidious this is? Yes, under most circumstances I'd be inclined to > agree that *in practice* it's difficult to use this law to screw a > citizen of the USA... but it can stuff a citizen good and true for a > couple of years. And the economic and social effects are likely to last longer than that. And since we are all being so cheerful and festive [well, *I* am, what with typing with hennaed hands], Happy Diwali. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
