Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. – A.J. Liebling
{ Monthly Archives }
The NYT tallies the dead ahead of the 9/11 anniversary:
That means the final World Trade Center death toll will drop no lower than about 2,750, not including the 10 hijackers. Counting the 233 killed in Washington and Pennsylvania, it will remain the second-bloodiest day in United States history, behind the battle of Antietam in the Civil War.
Scott Adams has some evolution zit humor.
What Middle Eastern country is most diametrically opposed to US interests and values? Saudi Arabia, of course. I almost agree with Maureen Dowd that we should invade them ahead of Iraq.
Out-conveniencing convenience stores: ‘One bystander muttered about “dehumanizing technology,” but most oohed approvingly as the bin swung back to deposit the razors and cream….’
The clue that Robert Turner knows he hasn’t made the case against Jose Padilla being denied his 6th amendment rights is his use of “clearly” in the final sentence. (This works the same way as “frankly“, which Michael Kinsley pointed out is one of politician’s favorite words.)
The thing I don’t understand about conservatives’ claim that “enemy combatants” like Jose Padilla weren’t envisioned by the framers is how obviously the text of the constitution contradicts them (and these are normally the strict constructionists, no less). To quote Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Why did the framers so carefully spell out what was required for a treason conviction and that it couldn’t be lasting on the family (corruption of blood)? Because they were responding to the numerous abuses that had occurred in England of unfairly accusing and prosecuting political enemies, under the rubric of treason, while denying the accused the rights of due process.
I have little doubt that Jose Padilla is guilty of treason, although two witnesses may not be available. I think a conspiracy conviction could be achieved in a heartbeat. But I further believe that Bush and Ashcroft are subverting the constitution by denying Padilla his sixth amendment right to counsel on the accusation (not conviction) of being an enemy combatant. Someone guilty of treason (“levying war against the United States”) is clearly (just kidding about the adverb) an “enemy combatant”. And yet for a treason conviction, the Constitution explicitly required not just due process (such as the 6th amendment right to counsel) but the presence of 2 witnessess. If the framers meant to permit indefinite imprisonments under thr rubric of the commander-in-chief responsibility (Article II-2), why would they possibly have given only Congress the right to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus (Article I-9-2)?
In summary, I am flabbergasted and deeply disappointed that lawyers I respect can fail to see that they are selling out their professional responsibilities by trying to prevaricate as to how the Constitution means something different than it blatantly says about the due process rights of all citizens (especially those accused of treason/being enemy combatants), all to defend an attorney general and president who have no understanding of the way that due process of law underpins the civil society we hold dear.
Why are the state quarters so ugly?
Am I the only person who finds anything Olympic-related to be sleep inducing? The US Olympic committee narrowed the 2012 choices to NY and SF. I do love a little neighborly city bashing, though: ‘When asked about New York’s rival, Mr. Bloomberg said, “San Francisco is a very nice small town.”‘
The most powerful man in the world (Dick Cheney) finally explains why Hussein must go:
A nuclear-armed Mr. Hussein would “seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”
I think it’s more clear and correct to just say that Hussein is the only dictator who posesses and has used weapons of mass destruction and has previously attacked his neighbors. That also answers Saletan’s critique of Armey’s confusing doctrine. However, Cheney’s line that “a return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever” is absurd, given that the (initial, unfettered) weapons inspections destroyed ten times as many weapons as were destroyed in the Gulf War itself.
The ILECs feeling threatened in their primary voice business is a good thing for Pedestal, because it means they need to role out DSL to make up for lost revenues.
What is the only court in the US never to have heard a case? The Federal Intelligence Surveillence Appeals Court. James Bamford explains the answer, and calls Ashcroft’s enemy combatant nonsense worse than Kafka.
