So... explain to me how what they're arguing is any different from martial law?

Seriously, if the President's powers are unlimited, just as long as it is asserted that it's in the "war on terror" (sic), exactly what is left of democracy? Or the Constitution? Or inalienable human rights?

(crickets chirping...)

Posted at April 3, 2008 12:41 PM in response to Yoo: Warrant Schmarrant

So... let's say then we have a narcissistic sociopath leading the country. Just sayin'. He has, in effect, no conscience to shock, and thus anything he does is vitally necessary "for the security of the nation" and "within his powers as Executive." Or just because he feels like it, and there is no other power or governing branch with the authority to stop him.

That's just one chilling angle.

They claim the President has absolutely unlimited power in war-time. They also claim the President has the defacto right to launch wars and keep them going. Thus, they are claiming America essentially has an elected dictator.

The other chilling part is how casually absolute guilt is presumed on the part of any old poor schlub picked up and turned over to the US. Every one of them is for-sure a terrorist? Every one of them has vital information for which torture is justified? And even if guilty, what does it say about a nation, a people, that they engage in the most abhorrent of acts?

The self-assured and utterly banal way in which pure evil is justified with lazy reasoning and moral relativism disgusts me beyond measure.

Posted at April 2, 2008 10:59 AM in response to Today's Must Read

Aye...these are not exactly the actions of an Executive who plans not to be in office this time next year.

I mean, seriously -- they've gotten away with stealing elections, selectively prosecuting political opponents, imprisoned people without charges, started a war based on lies, spied on citizens without warrants, and authorized torture.

There's nothing I'd put past them at this point. Rigging more elections, engineering an 'emergency', suspending the Constitution for the duration... etc.

I know it's depressing to contemplate these things are even possible, but a generation ago, the mere whiff of the torture thing would've brought down the government and had people rioting in the streets. All I hear is the sounds of crickets and a sheeplike citizenry obsessed with American Idol.

Posted at March 5, 2008 11:58 AM in response to Today's Must Read

The telecom companies wouldn't get sued if they were acting lawfully -- and all it would take for that is if there was a legally granted warrant.

But even the rubber-stamp FISA court wouldn't grant a warrant to hoover up every piece of email, every website browsed, every phone call, every text message -- but that's what Bush and his Total Surveillance State wants.

A terrorist is someone who employs fear and terror to further their political and social agendas. I submit that's exactly what Bush, Cheney, and the GOP have been doing. Terrorizing America.

Posted at February 15, 2008 12:44 PM in response to Bush Beats Drum... Again

So... what is to stop Bush from issuing an executive order, as C-in-C, amending the AFM to allow torture? "Nothing in the AFM shall be construed... blah, blah, blah ... to restrict the use of enhanced interrogation techniques... blah, blah... as legally ordered through the chain of command... etc."

Of course, this bill will still get a veto, as Bush can't stand to have his "ah-thora-tah" (ala 'Cartman-speak') the least bit questioned.

America has fallen so far from the ideals of my youth...

Posted at February 14, 2008 12:54 AM in response to Reid: Bill Is Opportunity to Condemn Torture

As others here have noted, having a security clearance does not prohibit one from mentioning having it.  That question can come up all the time for perfectly legitimate reasons, and answered.  For instance, I've run across job listings for employment or contractor positions, specifically stating, "must have current gov't security clearance."

If someone is going to be seeing sensitive information on a regular basis, it is not uncommon for that person to receive a specific clearance.

Confirming as well, just because one has a clearance, does not mean one suddenly gets access to all kinds of unrelated information.  Secure comparmentalized information doesn't work like that.  You only get access to that which is related to your work -- the classic 'need to know' basis.

Anyway, I think this clearance thing is a red herring.  If it shows anything at all, it's merely that Miller was a darling favorite of someone (or several someones) in a position to authorize she be cleared.  Probable favoritism, yes; sinister conspiracy evidence, doubtful. 

Posted at October 16, 2005 11:34 AM in response to Miller's Security Clearance

Regarding the drunk vs. not-drunk debate--  I'll be honest, I've not heard the man speak on TV in a year or two at the earliest.  All I can say is that when I began watching that clip, the first thought that crossed my mind was, "Why is he slurring his words?  And he looks like he can't even keep his eyes open."

If he wasn't drunk, at the least I still feel he was badly impaired in some way. 

Posted at August 5, 2005 9:53 PM in response to My Theory: Act III Continues to Unfold

I downloaded and watched the video from Crooks & Liars.  Even before the segment reached the point where Novak invoked the bovine epithet, I thought he looked noticeably impaired.  His eyes were half-closed most of the time, his speech was slurred, and his sentences borderline incoherent.

Lack of sleep?  Too much allergy medication?  Stress?  Who really knows, but he didn't seem well at all.

Posted at August 4, 2005 3:54 PM in response to Novak