Catching up

I slept last night. Not the best sleep, but sleep... lots of it, and no pressure facing me today (no wondering what new pile of crap we were going to have to turn into Russian, in no time at all... I think I had terrible dreams, but can't recall them. I do know that I passed out in the truck, when we ran an errand, and woke up, more than three hours later, parked in the driveway).

So I've been catching up on e-mail, and politics (it was interesting... of the 12 of us working the pit [we had two guys attached to Col Shev'chuk, and COl Johnson, they were in their own sort of purgatorio... fluent speakers, but doing simultaneous translation for 10-14 hours a day... ye gods and little fishes] we were, with 2 exceptions, Anti-Bush. Some weren't pro-Kerry, but none of us has any interest in Voting for Bush... one of us hates to see the news, because he was a recruiter for years... so far only one of the people he enlisted has been killed, but it has to weigh on him; more than my training people to interrogate weighs on me. I just got them jobs more likely to be sent to the Box, he's the one who got his people in).

So I was pointed to this today. Lew Rockwell. The description that went with the referrral was, "

Charlie Reese writes for the Orlando Sentinel. He's a Conservative
Republican who is anti-abortion, anti-tax-and-spend, loudly critical of
legislation by the judiciary, doesn't think much of multiculturalism or
secularism, has suggested Clinton "turned the Oval Office into a
whorehouse," thinks Ronald Reagan is the greatest thing to come down the
pike since canned beer, and voted for Bush in the last election. So, take a
look at his article which follows.

It's worth reading...


On other fronts, Orcinus has the last of his three part series on The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism here in the U.S.

And the report on Iraq said what I've been saying for years (it feels good, in a sad way, to have this confirmed) Hussein was pretending to have weapons because such a pretense made him look good to his supporters, and fearsome to his detractors, but the reality of it was he had none, and wasn't doing anything to get them back.

I still think he expected a rational policy on the part of the U.S., and was willing to let inspectors in, if forced, and then planned to say, "See, I told you I had nothing but you wouldn't believe me."

What he got was the present Administration, and he could have given Cheney, and Rice and anyone they wanted to bring along, a guided tour of the entire country, and we'd still have invaded.

The rest of the usual suspects are doing their usual good work, and the poll results at are encouraging.

If the lies Cheney told, and the way Edwards called him on things keeps being the things remembered from that debate, and if Bush reacts to the Town Hall one, the way I think he will, there is reason to hope for a victory, perhaps even a substantial one.

Respect for the law?

I watched part of the debate... I was less undewhelmed with the President than I usually am, though I didn't exactly thrill to his delivery, the way the girl who asked the question taxes and abortion was.... I don't think I've seen such a cross between calf-love and simpering lust in one place before.

But it was his comment on the Supremes which got me... He wants a, "strict constructionist" (which phrase makes me reach for my wallet, to make sure my pocket's not been picked), but his Justice Dept. seems to think the strict construction of the Constitution is for, "girlie men."

Viz: Scotus Blog

4:40 PM | Lyle Denniston

U.S. v. Detainees -- "No rights at all"

(This is one of a continuing series of reports on the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling June 28 in the combined cases of Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S.)

The federal government, in its first full response to the challenges to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has made clear how little it believes it lost when the Supreme Court last June gave the detainees a chance to seek their release. Relying as the Justice Department often has on a sweeping claim of presidential warmaking power, the 75 pages of legal argument filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday urge a dismissal of all the detainees' challenges with no relief whatsoever.

It goes on, basically arguing the point made by the office of the White House Counsel that the President has inherent powers which make this whole question moot.

A bit more, from the Blog

The basic legal point of the brief, of course, is that, now that a government response has been filed, the habeas petitions should simply be dismissed, as a matter of law, without even an evidentiary hearing. But, the brief goes on to argue that, if the District Court decides to proceed any further, "any role that the courts have in reviewing the substantive bases for the Commander in Chief's exercise of this authority to determine the combatant status of detainees is extremely circumscribed."

How circumscribed? The brief contends that, at most, "the only proper role for the court with respect to an enemy combatant status determination" is to rely with great deference upon the findings of the combatant status review tribunals that the military is now conducting at Guantanamo -- proceedings in which detaines have no lawyers. The Court, it says, could do no more than "confirm that a factual basis exists supporting the military's determination." In other words, it says, if there is any court review at all, the standard to be applied is that "some evidence" is sufficient. That, it assures the Court, will mean that "an individual is not being detained merely arbitrarily."

The brief also addresses the specific constitutional and statutory arguments that the detainees' lawyers have advanced, and finds each of them to be "meritless." Among its arguments is the assertion that, if the detainees have any due process rights at all, they are being satisfied fully by the status review tribunals at Guantanamo.

So the only thing the Court meant, when it said the detainees have a right to make Habeas petitions, according to the Gov't, is the right to make them... they can't have any expectation of actually having them heard.

I am afraid, very afraid, of what will happen if the present occupant of the White House wins this election.