home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

John Cole writes:

So if the Democrats want a truth commission, and the Republicans and Dick Cheney want a truth commission, why can’t we order up a double order of truth commission? Am I missing something here? . . . Make it happen.

Agree with John. I get the distinct feeling that the resistance mainly comes from the Obama Administration right now.

Speaking for me only

< DOJ Recommends 20 Year Sentence For Don Siegelman | Child Star of "Slumdog Millionaire" Now Homeless >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Old song and dance on health care (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Republicans already are saying a public plan would put bureaucrats, not doctors and patients, in control of life-and-death decisions.

    As someone who has been denied the care proscribe by my doctor, let me assure you that bureaucrats, not doctors and patients, are in control of life-and-death decisions. These bureaucrats work for the Insurance companies and not the government.

    Isn't it hysterical? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    How many times has your doctor ordered something and been denied it by someone with a nursing degree at best?  Not knocking nurses by the way.....just saying.....my doctor doesn't get the say in my life-and-death decisions. The person working for the insurance company does.  Who ever that is on any given day.

    Parent
    It goes both ways (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    after being my mother's medical advocate for the past 10 months, I saw the doctors order, and the insurance companies pay for, more useless tests than I would have ever imagined possible. Not because they would save or prolong her life, but because they generated revenue for the doctors and hospitals. Her health visibly declined with those invasive tests. Even hospice was the worst cross-selling group of non-compassionates we could have encountered.

    Most of what I learned, I learned from hindsight. I was able to help my mom greatly for the past few months, though. People need to get educated and direct their own healthcare. Insurance should never be allowed to stand in the way of the complicated and severe.


    Parent

    I'm saddened to hear (none / 0) (#90)
    by Spamlet on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:25:06 PM EST
    that you had that experience with hospice. I am a hospice volunteer and know that hospice doesn't have to be that way. Your mom was lucky to have you in her corner.

    Parent
    Because I lost my mom so young (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    my grandparents became very special to me.  Sadly I had three grandparents hospice within a three year period.  I have no regrets at all, was treated with so much respect and decency all the way around.  Just miss them like crazy sometimes but you can't fix that.

    Parent
    They are dancing as fast as they can (none / 0) (#93)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    Two mistakes were made by them that contributed to her passing sooner rather than later. Because she belonged in hospice, though, we are simply pushing for major changes and improvements in their service.

    The worst part was how many hours I had to spend doing their jobs and fixing their blatant mistakes instead of spending those hours with my mom. The hospital patient advocate is working on it, but they've proven they want to get their excuses in order first.
     

    Parent

    I'm sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#95)
    by Spamlet on Thu May 14, 2009 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    and for the lost time with your mother.

    Parent
    the republicans (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    have bigger fish to fry

    A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party."

    Parent

    What a hoot (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    the old stuff is not going to work this time (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    a sufficient number of voters have moved way past Harry and Louise.

    its all up to Obama.  why am I not comforted by that?


    Parent

    Pick your poison... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    insurance company desk jockey or government desk jockey...having been to the DMV recently I'm definitely not sold that government bueracrat is an improvement.

    Bottom line...get rich or get f*cked, same as it ever was...I don't know.  

    Parent

    I've fought with insurance companies so much (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    in Joshua's care, I'd like to fight the government instead for awhile.  Change up the fight a bit.  Keep it interesting.

    Parent
    I've been lucky... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    and blessed with good health...but I've had my battles with the bueracrats at the DMV and NYS Dept. of Taxation...its no prize Tracy.

    Maybe we should socialize medicine and privative the DMV for a trial run and compare notes:)

    Parent

    Difference is (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Dadler on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    One bureaucrat is making their decision based, bottom line, on profit; the other is making theirs not based on that bottom line.

    Not that it will be the case every time, but when it comes to health care, i'll take the non- profit model every time.  Provided, of course, that model is centered on patient care first and foremost.  If not, you're right, won't be any difference.

    Parent

    Yeah but... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    what if the government bueracrat is making their decision based on politics...can't that be just as bad, or worse?

    But like I said, I don't know, I expect the have-nots get f*cked regardless, if the business from the government is more lubricated lets go for it...I just hope we don't regret it, or see it immediately followed by an 18% tax on my beloved Coca-Cola:)

    Parent

    Dude. (none / 0) (#96)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 14, 2009 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    That's a pretty broad brush you're painting us govenment workers with.  The people I work with take our jobs of protecting the public very seriously.  And, IMHO, we're all awful darn good at it.  

    Don't get me started on those plumbing supply phone jockeys either.  :0


    Parent

    Hey, Mile...Congrats to the Nuggets. (none / 0) (#106)
    by easilydistracted on Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    We knew it would happen. Mark Cuban: what a tool. Anyway, busy summer for me coming up -- three weeks in Chicago starting Monday and I just learned today, I'll be home for three days and then its off to Charleston SC for three more weeks. I'm just thankful I'm working right now.

    Parent
    My prejudices are showing.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:50:08 AM EST
    apologies to all the dedicated government workers....too broad a brush, to be sure....and the plumbing supply industry bueracracy is no prize either, touche:)

    Parent
    interesting stuff (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    The Alinsky Administration

    Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: "It's true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers." He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, "The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father." If you win, no one really cares how you did it.

    Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama's decision-making; an Alinskyite's core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.

    Stellaaa--are you reading this? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    Not for nothing, but (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    What purpose is being served by continuing the complaints Re: Torture? We have lost that battle. The Republicans, without even building up a little sweat, have rolled us as easily as flicking a booger off their fingertips; and with about the same amount of respect.

    We have lost the torture battle, the economy battle, the civil rights battle, and virtually all of the Constitutional battles. Our Democratic Congress has been as effective in protecting us as the impenetrable Maginot Line was in protecting Paris.

    Obviously then, our strategy has been a dismal failure. Equally obvious is the fact that if we continue "digging" as we have, we will continue failing.

    Now, that would be great for the blogs, and the media, as it will provide tons and tons of fodder for the b*tchng brigade, but it won't help improve our country.

    Only one thing will give us a chance to stop the hemorrhaging; borrowing BTD's phrase, "pols are pols," we have to accept that Barack Obama is a pol, has rolled us, and will only respond to polls.

    We have to drive his pol(l) numbers down; 40% approval, or lower. To continue expecting him to "do the right thing" is insane, bordering on delusional. If we don't clear the crap out of our eyes, after witnessing the duplicitous campaign he ran, and his first several months in office, then we don't deserve the country we believe we should have. Stalin didn't beat Hitler by finding the "middle ground," but by being a bigger bast*rd than he was. We have to grab Obama by his scrawny little neck with one hand, and his g*nads in the other, and tell him how it's going to be. Since he won't act like LBJ, we should!

    All the lost battles so far were only the warm-up; I don't intend to lose the next one: "Entitlements." Make no mistake about it; that's the Grand Prize the Republicans, with Obama as their submissive Trojan horse; have in the center of their bull's eye.

    Low poll numbers never stopped (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    George Bush, so I'm not sold on that as a means to get what we want.

    Low poll numbers in Congress haven't measurably improved anything on that front, either.

    I have no ideas about how to push people to do the right thing, I really don't; letters, e-mails, phone calls - not working.  Stop sending money?  Not working, since I am not a huge corporation that can threaten to withhold hundreds of thousands of dollars if my interests are not at the top of the pile.

    I'll just have to keep venting, unless I decide to stop caring for the sake of my mental health and my blood pressure.  I have to tell you that it scares me that I can actually envision a time when I become like the rest of the know-nothing, care-about-nothing people.  

    Maybe ignorance is bliss.

    Parent

    I hear ya, but...., (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    G.W.B. had 9-11 blowing his sails in his first term; he did most of his damage in his second.

    and

    Congress, as a whole, has lousy numbers, but individually, incumbency wins out 95% of the time.

    Anne, my point was that Obama takes us for granted; he counts us as being in his pocket. A little scare, during his first term, and being mindful that a second term is nowhere near being assured, just might force him to take us a little more seriously.

    Like I said, we can't do anything about the battles we've already lost, but with the ease he's blown us off so far, and with "Entitlements" dead ahead, we just can't waste any time (to use Obama's words) looking backwards.  

    Parent

    If I make the argument - and I have - (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anne on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    that what is nearest and dearest to Obama is winning, and being idolized, maybe it does work to drive his numbers down.  Maybe.

    What I worry about with Obama is that I don't think he has any particular problem courting the adoration of Republicans - so as much as we could be withholding our love, if he can keep his numbers up by getting it from Republicans and conservative Blue Dog-types, he absolutely will.

    I think it's this feeling that makes me realize that we may be just screwed; I hope not, but the last thing Obama has made me is a believer - my cynicism level has never been higher.

    Parent

    I hope and pray (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    that I'm wrong, and that you're right.

    But getting Republican votes? Maybe a little lighter hand with the cooking sherry....lol

    Check out the Clintons; they could have cured cancer and discovered the secret to eternal life and you know how many Republican votes they'd get?

    [ 0 ] as in Zeeeero!

    Parent

    Ya know, I just can't shut up about McChrystal (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    and silence about military torture.  Anyone around here with military exposure EVER EVER EVER hear of anyone having any singular command for five effing years?  It's almost as if he had a command that couldn't be turned over to anyone else.

    Maybe nobody wanted it. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fabian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    If he was sitting on a radioactive command, it may be that no one wanted it.  Sounds like a great way to end your career.

    Parent
    You can suggest you don't want a command (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    certainly, but the military isn't a democracy.  At the end of the day you will take one of perhaps two or three options being offered you when you are an officer.  I'm certain that McChrystal isn't the only psychopath with rank in uniform either :)  About three years is the length for anyone to have any singular command, often less.  You don't get to "want" many jobs in the military......you just get your job :)  You can turn in your packet to fly or go to officer candidate school.  You can say you would like to do a particular something, but there is no promise of getting to do anything other than your duty.  Oh No....something is vile and tainted and nasty that this man has had to have this particular command for five years.

    Parent
    He has the dirt on some people? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    Bush and crew are great believers in loyalty.  If he could be trusted to say nothing, they'd leave him there rather than install someone who might ask too many questions or leak information to people who have the authority to start investigations.

    The military may not be a democracy, but it's as much about politics as anything else is!

    Parent

    McChrystal continued to run (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    torture interrogations after the Abu Ghraib scandal.  Probably the only entity that continued to torture in my name after Abu Ghraib broke. Not only is he not going to talk about what his boss had him do, he isn't going to confess to being a war criminal either.  Why does Obama have anything to do with this scumbag though?  Why is this torturing piece of rancid meat going to run Afghanistan for us now?  If Obama doesn't like him some torture or least turn a completely blind effing eye to torture, what the hell is he doing?  Does he have no scruples at all?  I mean I know he's a poll but he doesn't even have one?

    Parent
    MT, did you see this article? (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    NYT

    Sounds like the General walks/runs on water.

    In my view, the misinformation he condoned re Tillman should have sent him to the back of the line, if not out the door.

    Parent

    Gross.......I'll be skipping my dinner (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    and not because I want to avoid sluggishness.  Somebody needs to pull their heads out of their a$$e$.  Is this going to be like when they all signed the fricken Patriot Act?  Don't worry your pretty little heads about fine print, just know this is what we must have so everyone sign right here.  Ted Bundy didn't have any body fat either, was also a scholar, and was obsessed about the lives of his prey too.  I don't care if the General listens to books on his ipod.  So does my husband and he gets a time fricken out for torture, maybe even behind bars. We would come and visit and I would hope that he learned something!  Maybe a small emotional reality called empathy.  This is disgusting!

    Parent
    Oh yeah, and I can't help going on and on (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    but the Times puff piece says that he "spurred on" joint operations between different branches of the military and intelligence agencies.  Well I call probable bull$h*t on that schmooze cuz the CIA claims that after Abu Ghraib caught fire their operatives in Iraq were forbidden to have anything to do with camp NAMA!

    Parent
    Here's another... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    "This ain't your daddy's marijuana" article on increased potency from CNN....the growers of the world are kicking some serious arse, keep up the good work gang!  

    Now if we could get bankers to achieve like the growers we could maybe get 'em off the dole:)

    Maybe I should try some of the new stuff (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:46:27 PM EST
    Maybe I'll decide to not even try to walk if I'm that stoned.  Maybe I'll just pass out starving to death :)

    Parent
    Whenevey you're ready kid... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:38:53 AM EST
    it would be my pleasure:)

    Parent
    Pelosi (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in its use.

    Oh Nancy Nancy

    Earth to Nancy... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    what do you expect from the CIA and Bush admin. officials?  Forthright and honest?  Jeez...how long has she been in this business?

    Parent
    How long? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by SOS on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    To long apparently.

    Parent
    I was thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    it musta been her first day on the job if she fell for that one...and now she wants sympathetic understanding?

    "Blame Bush" only goes so far as an accountability deflector.  

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    if Mrs. Pelosi has any second thoughts about that "impeachment is off the table" chant.  The Republicans sure have no qualms about impeaching her, even if it is only as a witness.

    Parent
    Maybe the cons got something on her (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    whooooo man.

    Parent
    I'll say it again: the bluebook needs to DIAF (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:29:52 AM EST


    You need this (none / 0) (#4)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Thanks for relinking (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    I just did a search.  Looks we posted pretty much the same comments last November.  I didn't even remember that.

    Parent
    Your response reminded me (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    Try cornell's on-line manual (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bemused on Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/

      This is the best on-line citation manual I have found.

    Parent

    Will anything get said about our (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    military being involved in torturing or are we just going to talk about the CIA like they are responsible for it all?

    They're resposible for the worst of it.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    and have been doing it a lot longer as s.o.p.

    If we ever shut down the foreign occupations and return to our borders, the military won't be in a position to torture anybody...the CIA always is in that position.  And they've been doing it since the agency was founded...I think it more an abberration by military hands, or being done under CIA or Executive direction.  Disband the criminal CIA and replace it with a real intelligence service instead of a covert operating torture service and the "no torture" message will trickle down...I hope.

    Parent

    Obama is worried that (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    releasing torture pictures will "endanger" US Troops?

    On Wednesday, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson dropped a bombshell (h/t Heather):    
    what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 -- well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion -- its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

    If the rest of the world sees Bush and Cheney cuffed and guarded in a prisoners dock at their war crimes trials, that may be one thing that will save a lot of US Troops lives.

    Parent

    If Obama cares about whether we torture (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    or not.......why would he have McChrystal run his military show for him?  If McChrystal is completely innocent and transformed JSOC into something that wasn't torturing and making assassinations then let's get it out in the open or fire the nasty tainted special ops psychopath.

    Parent
    Does he care? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    I would think that when the media starts telling people that he wouldn't release them because he thinks that they would put U.S. troops at risk from violent reaction in the Mideast and Afghanistan, peoples imaginations are going to make them out to be even worse than they already are, and THAT will put U.S. troops at risk.

    He will be seen, with good reason, to be covering for war criminals even more than he already is...

    Parent

    Has there been any/much comment (none / 0) (#67)
    by sallywally on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    about McChrystal in the mainstream media or their satellites? His appointment seems really weird to me and as you said, get the truth out and probably get rid of him! He seems to me to be a really weak link in the foreign policy dept.

    Parent
    The stories available about his top secret (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    command of JSOC are stomach churning.  He's about the only person who served at camp NAMA that we actually know the name of, and that is because he ran the place.  Everyone else working there, even though they were military, were told to not use their real names and they went by first names only and never a last name.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#83)
    by sallywally on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    This is as bad as Cheney/Bush. I would like an article I could send to my relatives who were in the tank for Obama from the start. But even I didn't expect something like this.

    Parent
    Here's a decent one from the (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    Times in 2006 and this recent write up from Esquire.

    Parent
    Of course they did (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:19:50 PM EST
    The legal opinions were fixed around the policy, not the other way around.

    Parent
    JSOC was working outside of the CIA (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    According to Sy Hersh the only authority they reported to was Cheney and nobody else.  Hersh also claims that along with torturing prisoners for information, they were also making surgical assassinations.......teams of Delta Forces, Special Ops, Navy Seals.  And our new commander in Afghanistan ran JSOC.

    Parent
    Thanks for the info.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    The JSOC is muscling in on CIA turf...I thought torture and assasinations was strictly the CIA's bag....less ignorance, less bliss for me today...Thanks Tracy...I guess:)

    Parent
    My guess is that Cheney figured that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    the CIA isn't secretive enough these days and has too many eyes that talk.  After 9/11 though, a bunch of upset overly patriotic overly muscled jarheads in another country that you are running on the other side of the world........secretive is easier....heck the whole thing is almost a cake walk.  Looks like he guessed right too.  I wonder if this is why he is lapping the whole news network at the moment.  Is he afraid that the whole thing is going to come out mainstream soon and he has to convince us all that torture is alright before we hear worse stuff?

    Parent
    What about the "contractors"? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    I am very puzzled by why we were using contractors for interrogation.  Lack of properly trained personnel?  Plausible, but why were we relying on contractors who had no training in interrogation to do the job?  

    Maybe it was Bush's apparent official policy of hiring the most incompetent people he could find.

    If I were the military, I would be very upset.  They are in a worse position than the CIA - much more exposed and no State's Secrets to hide behind.  Plus they get the blame for the things that "contractors" did that they may have had no authority over.

    Now who in the military thinks that GWB was their friend?

    Parent

    Plausible deniabilty (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    They could interrogate with a wink and a nod from the government, but if it was found out that they used "harsh interrogation techniques", the government could always claim they went rogue and it was never authorized.

    Parent
    And this too.....gotta admit it works great (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    They can always claim they didn't authorize such a thing.  What happened to the contractor that was in a couple of the Abu Ghraib photos?

    Parent
    I also think they love to privatize (none / 0) (#73)
    by sallywally on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    anything and everything, so this hits another bird with that same stone.

    Parent
    Most soldiers are very (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    conscientious about obeying rules, they would never survive a military atmosphere if following rules was not one their personal strengths.  Soldiers who aren't wet behind the ears and people in the CIA also firmly know that torture is against the rules and they would ask too many questions or refuse to do it.  A contractor though.......even if he/she is ex-military or ex CIA....knows that he/she isn't bound by the same rules and he/she has been told what the job is and is obviously okay with doing what was about to be done.  They have no chain of command to answer to, no reports to file or paper trails that will be missed, and if he/she is in a foreign country he/she isn't even bound by U.S. laws.  He/She is in a foreign country though working for the U.S., so the foreign country's  jurisdiction over him/her can get real fuzzy too.

    Parent
    You will probably get a kick out of this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    I've finally heard some outrage expressed by a few conservatives about Bush.  How is it that they have become outraged and are now singing the praises of our new president overnight?  When Dick Cheney dogged Colin Powell the other day he pissed em all off big time :)

    Parent
    I don't see how anybody could like Dick.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    even if you were in lock-step with his crazy views...he just looks and acts like such a...well, Dick.

    Parent
    I have come to accept that some (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    folks in uniform will always look up to the dude or dudette who spits on them.  I don't understand it.  I only know it is.  Don't be smack talking Powell though damn it :)  He's let better people than you spit on him........Dick!

    Parent
    It seems as if (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    President Obama is  now adopting the Cheney doctrine on release of the torture photos--harm the troops, only a few bad apples, etc.

    Parent
    I now think he's protecting his new (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    man for the war McChrystal. Photos showing the military abusing detainees is going to place McChrystal's past "military experience" into a sort of limelight.  Questions about McChrystal after Abu Ghraib became muted.....focus was shifted elsewhere.  I wonder if any of the photos we were about to see were from McChrystal's Camp Nama?

    Parent
    Well, we sure are seeing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    a real power play.  When the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense are required to make a turn on a dime in the face of trial and appellate court decisions as well as  ACLU negotiations, it seems as if a  'shadow government' is calling the shots---one with a lot of wingers embedded over the years.  A coup d'etat can take on different forms and be expressed in different ways.

    Parent
    Why didn't Obama's team (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    vet this General?  Oh, that's right.  Gates is a holdover in whom Obama has the greatest confidence.

    Parent
    Tom Ricks claims that Obama has (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    a problem with letting his generals roll him.   He's made a terrible mistake in allowing them to talk him out of his drawdown plans in Iraq. Team Obama may have not vetted McChrystal.  I hope that's what it is.  I can deal with that......a great big oops. I hope this isn't a situation of Obama knowing what McChrystal has been up to and thinking he wants this man designing his Afghanistan strategy.  Gates is a creep.  He needs to go ASAP but I'll probably get a pony first.

    Parent
    Lack of experience, perhaps (none / 0) (#98)
    by nycstray on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:03:02 PM EST
    rearing it's ugly head? And why would not vetting be a big oops! vs downright irresponsible knowing what has gone on in the past?

    Parent
    I can deal with irresponsibilty (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    Heck, even I'm guilty of some form of irresponsibility (blogging too much, not doing a keenly aware job of separating whites and darks).....but I won't be knowingly hiring torturers for any household repairs around here.

    Parent
    FYI John Cole (none / 0) (#11)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    Cheney never called for a Truth Commission!


    Corie Blount... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    former NBA journeyman sentenced to a year for marijuana possession.  Link

    The judge was cracking jokes at his sentencing, regarding his personal use claims..."Cheech and Chong would have had a hard time smoking that much" he said.  

    Yeah...tyranny is a real knee-slapper, your honor.  

    Besides, 28 lbs. ain't that much...it could be for 2 years worth of personal use...or Blount really likes to smoke his friends out.  Regardless, in no universe does he need the chain and cage treatment.  

     

    Shoulda just made his own beer (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    Being the puritanically hypocrital nation we are, he'd be drunk and happy and free.  

    I still love telling people that a big part of the reason the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock was they'd run out of fresh water to brew their suds with.

    Reefer madness is alive and well.

    Now shut you and do those bourbon shots like a real American.

    Parent

    This Free American... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    does both!  But only one leaves me feeling like arse the next day:)

    Parent
    28 lbs ain't that much? (none / 0) (#81)
    by coast on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:20:35 PM EST
    It was actually 29 lbs.  And that is a pretty substantial amount of weed.  I doubt my friends and I had that much between us for a week of spring break festivities back in the day.  I think the nail in your "personal use" arguement, although plausible, would be the $34K they found in the house as well.  That much cash on hand is usually due to distribution, not consumption.  A year will go by fast though.  And after an 11 year career, he must be getting a pension of some kind so he should not have to worry about employment.

    Parent
    Cash isn't proof of anything... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    maybe he's like me and don't trust the bank, or he had a good run at the casino, or any number of things.  He was convicted of possession only.

    A year of freedom goes by pretty fast...in a cage, it feels like 10.  Yeah, his NBA career puts him ahead of all the non-pro athlete victims of tyranny, but that don't make it ok to lock him up like an animal.  Who did he hurt or victimize?

    Parent

    Actually he plead to possession only, (none / 0) (#112)
    by coast on Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    in return they dropped the two trafficing charges he would have faced if he went to trial.  Obviously his lawyer thought there was a chance he would have been convicted on all counts, otherwise why plea.

    I'll give you the year though.  I've never been in prison, so I certainly can't speak to what it feels like.  But a year is a whole lot better than what he likely would have faced if he did not plea out.  I'll have to ask my cousin who spent the last five years in prison how long he felt like it was.

    As for who did he hurt or victimize I can't say.  My take is that if your growing it yourself and using it for personal consumption, then it is certainly a victimless crime (other than possibly hurting yourself if you believe that pot somehow hurts you, which I don't).  But once you start buying and/or selling then I think that is where you've crossed the line and there are victims IMO.

    Parent

    If there are victims.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Fri May 15, 2009 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    they are victims of prohibition...not victims of Corie Blount.

    Luckily I've only done a stint in a holding cell...the longest night of my life.

    Parent

    I think we will eventually see some (none / 0) (#114)
    by coast on Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    form of legalization, hopefully sooner than later.

    Same here as for the holding cell.  I wasn't looking forward to seeing my father that morning, but that was our agreement.  Get caught, spend the night in jail (luckily just holding).

    Parent

    Bluebook? (none / 0) (#28)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    andgarden, you need to upgrade to the far more user-friendly (well, what wouldn't be?) ALWD. Much better!

    http://www.alwd.org/publications/citation_manual.html

    The problem (none / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    with that citation method is that it isn't adopted in very many courts.  I see briefs using that method once in a while locally, and it sticks out because the method prescribed for citing to our court of appeals is, in my view, wrong.

    Bluebook says:  (Minn. Ct. App.)
    ALWD says: (Minn. App.)

    In state district courts, nobody seems to care, but I would never use the ALWD method in an appellate brief or in federal court.

    Parent

    Nor would my school's journals accept it (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    My school (none / 0) (#57)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    wouldn't have, either.  U of Minnesota.  What school are you at?

    Parent
    It's in New York City (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    That's pretty much all I want to say here.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#99)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:08:24 PM EST
    mine was way back, graduated in 97.

    Parent
    Well, you have experience and a Saab! (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:28:40 PM EST
    well, I had a SAAB but marriage and economic realities later, I drive a Mazda commuter car.  Who knows what GM is going to do with the new SAABs.  The best ones were made up until 1993, anyway.

    Parent
    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    Shame, but life moves on.

    Now who's going to try a new Fiat. . .?

    Parent

    Unlike (none / 0) (#104)
    by eric on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    the partnership with Daimler/Mercedes, Fiat stands only to improve!

    Parent
    Because it was on TV recently: (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    GEORGE: My father had a car salesman buddy. He was gonna fix him up real nice. Next thing I know, I'm gettin' dropped of in a Le Car with a fabric sunroof. All the kids are shoutin' at me, "Hey, Le George! Bonjour, Le George! Let's stuff Le George in Le Locker!"


    Parent
    Obama weighing inefinite detention (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    of Gitmo prisoners here in the US

    The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    SNIP

    The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.

    Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.

    "This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.

    The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.

    The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

    However, the Senate is trying to block detainees from coming to US soil.

    US senators on Thursday were to debate a bill forbidding the use of new money to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists to ship any detainees to the United States.

    SNIP

    The bill would also stipulate that the money "can only be used to relocate prisoners to locations outside of the United States, and only if the Secretary has certified that prisoners transferred to other nations will remain in that nation?s custody as long as they remain a threat to the United States."


    like I said in another thread (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    pause for a moment and try to imagine the firestorm if this had instead said:

    The Clinton administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial


    Parent
    wow, that does boggle the mind (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    So bad (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    policy decisions get a pass I guess.

    Parent
    Not really so difficult Lindsey (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    "This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.

    If you happen to be following the Constituion of the USA, you don't hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely. Next question?

    Parent

    Has (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    Obama EVER fully thought through anything he's said? This is yet another flip flop. Once again he's too afraid to do what might be needed to do.

    Parent
    Two things (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    possibly a trial balloon on Graham's part, and also it's the WSJ.

    But the conservatives have laid down their standard, there certainly must be pushback from liberals on this.

    Graham...said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.

    Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.

    IMO, this is in part the legacy of letting the Bush legal team get away with writing memos that completely b*stardize accepted interpretations of the law.  Now the Obama Admin can decide to create  "new" courts.  How fun for them.  Let destroying the Constitution be a bipartisan game.

    Parent

    It may be the WSJ (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    But it was reported on a liberal blog I read

    Dissenting Justice

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    I just find that the WSJ always uses conservative sources in natl security articles - so you are usually reading the worst-case scenario as imagined by conservatives involved..  And for that they should be thanked, since their articles rev up the left.  Still I hope the WSJ is wrong...

    Who knows what's actually going on.  

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    Let destroying the Constitution be a bipartisan game

    Maybe it could be a drinking game?  Then we can be so messed up that either we don't notice anymore or we don't care anymore.

    Parent

    Explorer Scouts training: (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out "active shooters," like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses.  In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.  

    Excerpt from today's NYT, front page.  

    It's not exactly like (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    helping Granny across the street, is it?

    Parent
    When these kids finish their Explorer (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    training, they can just enlist in the U.S. military and ship out to the ME.  

    Parent
    Chrysler drops dealers (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    and skirts salary caps on executive pay, because they will now be classified as "Fiat Executives" .

    Just days after revealing a plan to that would allow the new Chrysler-Fiat partnership to skirt U.S. restrictions on executive pay by having some top Chrysler executives deemed Fiat employees, the automaker filed additional bankruptcy papers today that called for the closure of 789 dealerships -- a quarter of the dealers that sell the company's cars.

    Anticipating the closures, more than 100 dealers descended on Capitol Hill Wednesday to convince lawmakers that Chrysler should not close its businesses as a cost-cutting measure. Word that the very company seeking to keep them from operating their dealerships had found a loophole to pay executives more than $500,000 annually outraged the car sellers.



    Padres being swept by Cubs @ Wrigley. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    Heath Bell pitches the bottom of the eighth--on the road!!!!!

    Go cubbies!! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    Not much I/we can do to stop them. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu May 14, 2009 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    Good pitching beats lousy hitting.

    Parent
    Reading (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    NH Gov Lynch's statement on his commitment to sign a same sex marriage bill into law...The fact that Obama cannot pull something similar out of his @ss about gay issues makes me really wonder what kind of political genius he is.  Right now he is outclassed.