Housekeeping

[pecunium]

So... the recent posts on torture have caused a small number of people to add me.

Welcome. I can always use the company. Feel free to comment, link, refer, etc. I do have some rules, but by and large, this is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard, so long as you aren't rude to the other guests.

Which isn't to say you can't be heated, emotional, etc. Past performance may grant certain leeways, etc. It's my place, and my rules, and that's pretty much the lot.

It's not all politics all the time. I've been, of late; in fact, not doing a lot of, "substantive" posts. Pretty pictures and the occasional rumination.

So, put up your feet and set a spell.

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Come for the politics, stay for the pretty pictures :-)

Re: Housekeeping

[eagle]

I'm one of the new adders, and am here largely for the pretty pictures. :) But your recent writing on torture has been fantastic too; thank you very much for your perspective.

Re: Housekeeping

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The pretty pictures won't be dominant forever. Once I get my life back in order I suspect I will be more engaged with the world in general.

You can find writing on photography at my other website Terrence Karney Photography

Comment requires registration (and I need to nag my backend about making registry more obvious. Click on a story header to get the regsiter button).

[twicet.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the welcome. I can't remember which route I took to get to you, it was for the politics but I love the pictures :)

[vanmojo.livejournal.com]

Hey TK...

Here's my basic take. I think I agree with the Obama DoJ's opinion on non-prosecution of CIA/DoD agents who might have engaged in what you and I clearly recognize as torture...

They're take, and again, I think I agree... an prosecution of these individuals would constitute a violation of Article 1, Sec. 9... no ex post facto law.

The problem is that at the time, there was very little clear legal definition of what was or was not torture. In the absence of Congressional action (and how many times could you write that statement in connection with the last eight years) the DoJ memos actually constitute executive/administrative authority.

This was actually one of the first things our new Supreme Court ruled on back in 1798 in a case called Calder v. Bull3 U.S. 386 (1798) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386).

To go back and retroactively rescind that authority would set a bad precedence... it's one of the few powers the Bush Administration *didn't* attempt to seize for itself, retroactively prosecuting people for doing things they didn't like.

I don't like this, but if we have anything with this new administration it's a respect for the rule of law, even if that rule may let some of these scumbags off the hook...

Their superiors though... that's another matter. I am concerned that we are going to soon find out that Dick Cheney's special Bs had American citizens on their hit lists... The ex post facto law might not apply to POTUS, vPOTUS or the gang that actually cooked up this scheme, though, and certainly it makes travelling through some European countries a bit dicey for some of these folks...

Thoughts?

mojo sends

[thera-flu.livejournal.com]

I did come for the politics and found the pictures a welcome surprise. Thank you!

[shikzoid.livejournal.com]

Spitting on the cat, however, is strictly frowned upon.

Re: Housekeeping

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I need to nag my backend
You may need to clarify this statement.

On second thought, maybe not.

Re: Housekeeping

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The tech-support/coder, i.e. the backend of the site; opposed to the content, which is the frontend.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I think there is no question of ex-post facto, because we have several laws on the books which deal with torture, and war crimes, and they were the reason these memos are trying to parse out some wiggle room in the applications of torture.

There is clear congressional action on the subject (quite apart from Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions being law in equal standing with the Constitution, so long as it is not repudtiated).

What we have here is an argument that basically runs... "the President's lawyer says it's legal, so you can't touch me."

Which is bad precedent.

Re: Housekeeping

[harimad.livejournal.com]

You're not going to let actual facts get in the way of a bit of amusement, are you?

[robertainnc.livejournal.com]

I thought I popped in and said hello when I added you--but just in case I didn't--Hello! Red Silk Robe recommended you, and I have really been enjoying reading your posts.

Thanks!

And none that call at Liberty Hall/Come out where they went in

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

You know that the phrase Liberty Hall always make me think of this (http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~giolla/oysterband/LH.html), right?