home

Friday Open Thread

Since I'm traveling today, I think an open thread is appropriate.

To set the mood, here's a Friday Funnies I received by e-mail:

In honor of Trent Lott's return to power, coffee shops are bringing back the popular "Trent Latte."

It's separate but equal parts of milk and coffee.

Also, Poor Man begins the pre-nominations phase for Golden Wingers Awards.

On the more serious side, check out Silja JA Talvi on how litigation over Christian programming in prisons is heating up and on the untold story behind taser deaths.

< Military to Ask For $127 Billion for Wars | Your Liberal Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Victories for the people (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    Absolutely GRRRRREAT news out of San Diego. Justice is prevaiailing over the pseudo moralistic racists that infest the 50th district, San Diego and it's racist neighbor Riverside County:

    Judge overturns Rental ban in Escondido (Clapton is relieved-his album will sell)

    Judge overturns MJ Compassionate Use ban

    These people (SD county Board and their sheep voters) are truly beholden to a few wealthy constituents who wish to foist their own immoral agenda on the populace using their wealth and influence, instead of their consciences. They waste tax money battling the will of the majority (prop 215) to appease a few bible thumping fascists. Meanwhile they vote in a lobbyist (Bilbray) who would like to put oil rigs off the Socal coast. Why should he care? He doesn't even live here.

    And it is nice to know that the justice system (HT to the ACLU, LOL)still remains somewhat intact. These racists have been shoving the "illegal" immigration issue down our throats to divert our attention from their failed war and the multitude of local SD profiteering defense contractors who murder people to make a buck.

    THANK YOU ACLU. NICE WORK TONY!!!!
    And my grateful appreciation to the judges for reviving my dwindling respect for the justice system in this country.

    Dutch to ban burqas (4.00 / 2) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    As much as I despise organized religion and the "beekeeper suit"...people have to have the basic freedom to dress however they wish.  Just as it's wrong to force women to wear them, it's wrong to forbid women from wearing wear them.  

    Shame on the Dutch...I thought their govt. had a better understanding of freedom than ours did...guess I was wrong.

    Is it really that difficult a concept, freedom?  

    REIs it really that difficult a concept, freedom? (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    Pretty hard to gain power over people unless you can  set limits on what they do, or convince them to set limits on themselves that you define.

    Freedom scares the crap out of insecure control freaks.

    Parent

    more torture, this time by the Dutch (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:12:51 AM EST
    German radio reports, in their noon news, that allegations have surfaced of "mishandling"* of Iraqi prisoners by Dutch soldiers about three years ago.  The practices alleged include subjecting the prisoners to bright light (for extended periods of time), loud noise or music, dousing them in water (but not waterboarding, yet), and some physical beatings.  The report continues, indicating the Dutch secret services are investigating.

    "A coalition of the willing", it's called.

    Willing to do what, exactly?

    This illustrates, as though we needed another example, that once the absolute lines against abuse and wrongful conduct are blurred, even a little, there is no line anymore, and anything is permitted.

    -

    * the word used is "Misshandlungen" - which translates as "ill-treatment", "mauling", slang usage as "manhandling", and as a legal term of art "assault and battery"

    So?? (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:35:01 AM EST
    With the exception of beatings, I say:

    So??

    Parent

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:08:35 AM EST
    No one expected you to get it.

    Parent
    VVV (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    Loud music? Bright lights?

    I'm calling the Feds. We need every mall in America investigated.

    Parent

    well, at least they have an election coming (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:40:30 AM EST
    next week, so maybe they can use their outrage to elect a parliament which will actually investigate.

    That diary has within it a link, reproduced here, which is to a Dutch language newspaper report.  I have a very, very, very limited facility in Dutch, but the English-language diary looks to have gotten the gist of the article's lede right.

    Parent

    but you've always been for torture (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:06:45 AM EST
    You can't mistreat prisoners, it is against the GenCons, and the Convention Against Torture, and they are VERY clear as to what constitutes torture.
    No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

    Continued exposure to bright lights, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, forced immobility, loud sounds, etc. are all damaging, some permanently.

    Parent

    Read it again, Sailor (none / 0) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    Operative words: "prisoners of war".

    Parent
    And since bush claims that this... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    ...is the most dangerous time in history and has declared "war" on terrorism, making captives "prisoners of war" your point would be?

    Parent
    "prisoners of war" (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    The phrase "prisoners of war" is a term of art in international law. It has a very specific meaning within the "GenCons" as someone else around here called them earlier today.

    Contrary to liberal myth, prisoner of war status under international law (Article 4(A) fo the Geneva Convention (III)) is only conferred on the following groups:

    (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces;
    (2) Members of militias and memebrs of other volunteer corps, including those of organzied resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict...provided that such fulfil the following (cumulative) conditions:
         (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his suboardinates;
         (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recongizable at a distance;
         (c) that of carrying arms openly;
         (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
    (4) Persons who accompany armed forces without being members thereof (e.g. journalists, non-military medics, etc.)
    (5) Members of the merchant marine and crews of civil aircrafts.
    (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist. (Levee en masse.)

    It should be noted that though the cumulative conditions binding irregular forces under (2) are not listed for regular armed forces, those forces are not absolved from fulfilling the same conditions. Under the Geneva Conventions, the only time the cumulative conditions are eased is in the case of levee en masse.

    That's why I pointed out the words "prisoner of war" in the Convention Against Torture.
    That provision will only apply to protect POWs. Unlawful combatants are out of luck. Furthermore, unlawful combatants cannot enjoy the benefits of civilian status (Article 5 of Geneva Convention IV).

    Parent

    you are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    We oocupied their country, they are protected.
    2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

    4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.


    But people like you love to torture, no matter how ineffective it is, you just get all squirmy inside at the thought of being able to damage people who your fearful leaders deem enemies.

    Parent
    No, I'm not. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    Your quotes from the 1977  Additional Protcol are inapposite. The individuals in question are covered by the conventions. Furthermore, section 4 of Article 1 which you seem to give especial weight only means that that type of war is included with those to which the rules I quoted earlier apply.

    The cumulative conditions exist to protect civilians and lawful combatants. For that reason, unlawful combatants do not get the same protections as the other groups.

    You are correct to note, however, that "you don't get to torture anyone, ever, period." Now, of course, if we could just define "torture."

    Parent

    Hissy fit (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:27 AM EST
    A few years back I commented that we desperately need to do exactly that. Define torture.

    A bunch of folks threw a hissy fit.

    Parent

    Responsibility and wilful missing of points (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    Accessory (legal term)

    Accessory (definition)

    Complicity (definition)

    Legalizing Torture:

    THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a matter of grave concern because the use of some of the methods that have been reported in the press is regarded by independent experts as well as some of the Pentagon's legal professionals as illegal. The administration has responded that its civilian lawyers have certified its methods as proper -- but it has refused to disclose, or even provide to Congress, the justifying opinions and memos.
    ...
    There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of "national security." For decades the U.S. government has waged diplomatic campaigns against such outlaw governments -- from the military juntas in Argentina and Chile to the current autocracies in Islamic countries such as Algeria and Uzbekistan -- that claim torture is justified when used to combat terrorism. The news that serving U.S. officials have officially endorsed principles once advanced by Augusto Pinochet brings shame on American democracy -- even if it is true, as the administration maintains, that its theories have not been put into practice. Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees.

    Accessory (moral)
    There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

    Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

    Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.



    Parent
    Wordplay... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    Disingenousness.

    People labelled Unlawful combatants are out of luck.

    Which is one purpose of the label. Oh, and to cover the a$$ of people doing the labelling.

    Has nothing, and everything, to do with law, and the avoidance of laws.

    Parent

    Unlawful combatants (none / 0) (#36)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    Edger, international and domestic laws of warfare have critically examined the role of combatants in order to categorize them as "lawful" or "unlawful" as far back as the Civil War (in the US) and the Napoleonic Wars.

    Your dislike for historical fact doesn't change the fact. Furthermore, that Bush 43 has done something doesn't make that thing novel or even rare. (See also, doctrine of pre-emption.)

    Parent

    I see... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:02:46 AM EST
    ...there is still not a point you can't miss when you try.

    Parent
    There is no such term ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    as unlawful combatant in the Geneva Conventions. It is a fiction, much like the 'doctrine of pre-emption' (AKA, shoot first, ask questions later.)

    Parent
    they were POWs (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    They were iraqi either iraqi civilians or prisoners of war ... and no, you don't get to torture people just because they aren't POWs, see CAT.

    You don't get to torture anyone, ever, period.

    Parent

    You can't argue with a law student... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    ...convinced of the rightness of his every opinion.

    IF we are truly at "war", than prisoners taken are "prisoners of war".

    To label them "enemy combatants" is a semantic dodge designed to lessen the appearance of illegalities in the bush administration.

    I don't buy into silly word games of no purpose other than to obfuscate the truth.

    Parent

    Repeat afrer me (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    Repeat after me:

    Loud music and bright lights are not torture.

    And I don't care who says otherwise.

    Period.

    Especially if it is pushed an organization corrupt and anti-US as the UN.

    Parent

    The operative phrase ... (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:58:30 AM EST
    ... for all of ppj's posts:
    And I don't care who says otherwise.
    Evincing a combination of 'calvin ball'* and 'la, la,la, I can't hear you I've got my fingers in my ears!'

    Torture, whether physical or mental, is quite well defined and includes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is a war crime.

    The only people who say different also say "extraordinary rendition" when they mean kidnapping; they say 'harsh interrogation techniques' instead of torture; they say 'the Geneva Conventions are quaint' when what they are really saying is that they have no intention of obeying US or International law. They say 'we adhere to the Geneva Conventions' when what they mean is 'we ignore the Geneva Conventions.'

    IOW, they are liars.

    * "People have asked how to play Calvinball. It's pretty simple: you make up the rules as you go."

    Parent

    It couldn't happen to a more (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:31:47 AM EST
    deserving recipient?  Or when is enough, enough?

    Dick Wolf's "Law and Order" franchise has just come out with a new episode, ripped from the headlines and coming to your hi-def screen pretty soon.  This episode, called "Albatross" revolves around an ambitious woman pol, angling to become the first woman mayor of NYC.

    But her husband, who's described as "very charming with a checkered past," throws a monkey wrench into her hopes when he's suspected of murdering his wife's mentor, a respected judge.

    Veteran Broadway actress Donna Murphy plays the [political] character, named Maureen, while Xander Berkeley, who starred in "24," plays the wayward [hubby] character, George, who's in the construction business.

    Insiders say Maureen illegally wiretaps her unsuspecting hubby when she suspects him of cheating on her with a longtime gal pal....

    There's also a limo driver who works for both Maureen and George and is caught in the middle - and may somehow be involved in the murder.

    The story, um, parallels the Jeanine Pirro saga, but, as the paper says:

    All of these plot points are purely coincidental, of course.

    Somehow, I think there's some poetic justice at work here....

    NEW YORK (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 07:46:52 AM EST
    Who's Jeanine Pirro??

    Oh yeah... NYC stuff..

    Well, you know us Red Staters and New York!!!!!!

    Parent

    Can we all agree that ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:40:24 AM EST
      the buzzword "meme" is officially passé?

    why bother with something so inconsequential? (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:41:43 AM EST
    If it's passe`, the cool kids won't use it anymore and it'll die a natural death.

    Parent
    MISTER President... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    This is funny, sort of. Well... if the subject weren't the holder of the office it would be, anyway:

    The Military-Industrial Oedipus Complex

    Actually, it still is. ;-)

    Election results (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    Well, all the votes are as counted as they're gonna get.  Claims of fraud have dissipated.  There are no more excuses to second-guess or what-if the returns.

    I have to say I'm disappointed with the results.  Independents failed to attain majority control of either the House or the Senate.

    Maybe next year.

    Me too.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    Every candidate I voted for lost...every damn one.  I guess the Green, Socialist Workers, Libertarian, and Working Families parties aren't too popular yet...lol.

    On the brightside...I retain my full "right to complain" rights since none of my horses won:)

    Parent

    If only they'd work together... (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    Just think what a Libertarian / Socialist alliance could achieve.

    Parent
    misdemeanor murder (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    Marine gets 21 months in slaying of Iraqi man

    Jackson was the third of eight servicemen charged in the case to plead guilty to reduced charges in the April 26 killing in Hamandiya, west of Baghdad. Prosecutors say the eight hatched a plot to kill an insurgent suspected of planting roadside bombs. They did not find their original target and chose Awad, also a suspected insurgent, instead.

    Navy corpsman Melson Bacos, 21, was sentenced to a year in the brig. Marine Pfc. John J. Jodka III, 20, was sentenced Wednesday to 18 months.




    The world watches and has already... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    ...figured out that America is no longer the country of honor, integrity, and the defender of human rights.

    We now kidnap, torture, confine without trial indefinitely, and order extra-judicial killings just like any other country with a despot for a leader.

    It will take a generation or more to restore America to its former glory, as long as we can keep evil men like bush/cheney/rumsfeld/wolfowitz,feith/yoo/bybee/abu gonzales from obtaining office or making crony appointments to place people like this in advisory positions.

    Parent

    30 yrs too late... (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    Ha Ha Ha...   Bush in Vietnam.

    Maybe he'll visit the grave of TL's righty posters favorite Communist, General Giap.

    Much like Reagan honored the SS dead at Bitburg.

    PS3 craaaazy. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Riots, mugging, and shootings at the PS3 launches. Finally, the causal link Hillary always wanted: video games actually cause violence!!!

    THAT'S a good one! ROTFLMAO! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    She won't be pleased (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    Right now, video games are just a bogey man.  Something she can take swings at without having to actually solve a problem.  I think her ambition is to take unconstitutional measures against the gaming industry, than blame the activist conservative courts for every crime committed by a kid who plays games.

    If it turns out that violent games really are a problem, she has to change her plan to actually try to solve it.  Much less useful.

    Parent

    PSP didn't cause the murders ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:28:50 PM EST
    thugs knew that the folks in line would have money. the robbery and murder was due to thuggery, not vid games.

    but you're just a clinton hater so no one would expect you ta actually have a point, just a prejudice.

    Parent

    Ah, jeez. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    C'mon Sailor, lighten up. I'm not a "clinton hater" just because I poked fun at the video-games-cause-violence meme. (Oh, there's that word again! ;)

    Parent
    GW, it was ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Sailor on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    ... an attempt at irony to show how silly that theme is when it comes from the other side, e.g. 'you're just a bush hater so nothing you say matters.'

    Parent
    Actually, the armed forces are sponsoring... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    ...very violent video games in an effort to brainwash our youth into believing that they can "join the army" and kill without conscience or penalty.

    What better way to train the future killers for America?

    Found this via TPM (none / 0) (#28)
    by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    "For twelve years, the Democrats have gotten away without leading, without offering an agenda, and without saying what they're actually for.  Now they will be forced to govern.

    "Under this Republican leadership, the job of the Minority Whip will no longer be to go to the House floor every day and lose.  Instead, each time we hold our team together and force the Democrats to vote like Democrats, we'll be taking one more step toward recapturing our majority in 2008.

    Where to begin?  Well, I'll leave it to you guys as I have to stop wasting time, enjoyable as it has been.

    What can you ever expect from the... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    republican leadership but lie after lie after lie (well, corruption, too, I guess).

    It should read like: "After twelve years of corrupt and dishonest rule by the GOP and in view of their crushing defeat in the last election, they will continue to lie, take bribes, indulge in wife-beating, child molesting, extramarital affairs, and endangering our troops needlessly while trying futilely to blame the Democratic Party for the failure of "conservatism."

    As they "hold their party together" without making any of the reforms desired by true conservatives they will be taking one more step towards another "thumpin'" in 2008.

    See ya tomorrow, aw.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by peacrevol on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    Hillary was on the commission that made everybody put the 'parental advisory' lables on their cds back in the 90s. she's one of those people that wants to spread blame on anything but the guilty party. that's why i dont think i'll be voting for her if given the opportunity. i might check into obama...seems like a reasonably intelligent person.

    i dont know though kdog, maybe we can get up some support by 08 to have a shot w/ badnarik or another libertarian who can step up to the plate a bit.

    I fear.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    it's gotta get a lot worse before people realize the two-party system is unable to offer anything but continued corruption, cronyism, and a govt. for every entity but the people.

    Parent