What next?
 

Right, but since many (most?) of the flights at Balad carry only the crew of the plane (and often a very small crew, as with the cited F-16), a comparison between Balad and an airport based on the number of passengers is nonsense.

There are people who want to stay in Iraq?


Sure, I probably am. But that's not a place to be wrong. And, wouldn't a non-US-occupied Iraq need an air force base? And isn't one thing we're supposed to be doing over there rebuilding stuff we broke?

In any case, does anyone really believe that maintaining an airbase hasn't always been part of the plan? Even if we had been greeted as liberators, the oil revenue had been enough to pay for US costs AND completely rebuild the entire country into a modern Garden of Eden and the Iraqi Republican party won a free and open election with over 90% of the vote and established a pro-Western, pro-Israeli, perfect libertarian government and their shining example lead the rest of the mid-east (and Pakistan) to follow their lead and even OBL saw the light and turned himself in? Of course there would still be a US AFB on Iraqi soil--in that neo-con fantasy, tho, the Iraqis would have insisted on our staying and paid us to stay to thank us for freeing them from tyranny.

What next?
 

The article starts with the airbase thing to try to make concrete -- no pun intended -- the fact that we're going to be there for a long time, the subject of everything after the first paragraph, not least because we don't seem to have any hope of fighting or diplomacizing our way out of the quagmire. I agree that the first paragraph isn't the best way to get at this issue, for a few reasons, but I suspect that the stylistic demands of writing for a periodical like Newsweek drove that decision.

eta: fwiw, I initially copied everything in the article except for that first paragraph, and then decided I might as well include it too.

What next?
 

Fine. And I'll assume that the target audience for that restatement of the profoundly obvious is the typical Newsweek reader. Could you explain how someone who takes the time to subscribe and and read a news magazine could need that explained?

And, if that mess of a first para was necessary for any reason, that explains a great deal of why "journalists" don't point out when something they are told is factually wrong.

What next?
 

given how flawed the first paragraph, what we should be asking is whether Ty even reads the stuff he posts. What would have suggested posting that? Is it like when I would post 10000 words ERISA articles? Dada?

The President gets him some more lawyers.
 

None from Chicago, perhaps explaining his lousy fiscal policy.

The Bronx is up, and the Battery's down.
 

Shouldn't you be at the Yankees/Pirates game with dtb?

What next?
 

Cracked runways are both a short- and long-term problem for an Air Force. That's not the best kind of example he could have used to make his point.

But despite Hank's bitching, it ws an interesting little piece. Newsweek used to be a POS news magazine though.
Is it better now?

S_A_M

Free Speech
 

Free speech can really suck. On the website for Hostel II site, to mimic the movie's premise, you can ask for a girl as young as 15, specify hair color, weight, etc., and then bid auction-style on the right to chain her up naked and torture the hell out of her till her death. http://www.hostel2.com Isn't that lovely?

Democrats for trade (hi Spanky!)
 

• Compared with the immigrant bashing that has dominated Republican presidential debates, Democratic presidential hopefuls have sounded sweetly reasonable. With the exception of the no-hoper Dennis Kucinich, none has pressed protectionist themes. There is no equivalent to the Dick Gephardt of 1988, who won the Iowa caucuses on an anti-trade ticket.
  
  Instead, the Democratic candidates are focusing on helping the economy's losers without restricting trade, which is exactly what they should be doing. John Edwards, the contender who sounded most protectionist in 2004, seems to have turned over a new leaf. He has admitted that trade benefits poor countries and has declared that arguments over labor standards should not be an excuse to obstruct liberalization. Meanwhile, Edwards has proposed a thoughtful health-care reform that would require everyone to buy insurance. He supports market-minded social programs such as an expanded earned-income tax credit and housing vouchers.

Sebastian Mallaby in the WaPo

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

• The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it suspects of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday.
  
  "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country," the court panel said.
  
  In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
  
  It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.
  
  He is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.
  
  Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, was held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.
  
  Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.
  
  Al-Marri's lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

AP

eta: The decision is here:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427.P.pdf

On pp 71-72, the court says: "[W]e can only conclude that in the case at hand, the President claims power that far exceeds that granted him by the Constitution. . . . The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention. Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them “enemy combatants.”" Good times.

George Will bitchslaps Fred Thompson
 

George gets down.

• Tulip mania gripped Holland in the 1630s. Prices soared, speculation raged, bulbs promising especially exotic or intense colors became the objects of such frenzied bidding that some changed hands 10 times in a day. Then, suddenly, the spell was broken, the market crashed—prices plummeted in some cases to one one-hundredth of what they had been just days before. And when Reason was restored to her throne, no one could explain what the excitement had been about. Speaking of Fred Thompson ...
  
  ***
  
  Because this campaign started so early, it may be shrewd for Thompson to bide his time until his rivals seem stale, and then stride onstage. But once there, the latecomer should have some distinctive ideas he thinks will elevate the debate. In a recent speech, Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."
  
  Kids, do not try to deconstruct that thought at home; this is a task for professionals. Thompson seemed to be saying that the suicidal maniacs besetting us are among us—are among the 12 million. And that although the maniacs are here, they want to kill innocents elsewhere ("around the world"), too.
  
  Well, Reagan, too, had his rhetorical pratfalls, and Thompson, a former prosecutor, must know how to sift evidence and formulate arguments. But as Thompson ambles toward running, he is burdened by a reputation for a less-than-strenuous approach to public life, and that opaque thought he voiced about immigration looks suspiciously symptomatic of a mind undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities. If so, a sound you may soon hear from the Thompson campaign may be the soft "pop" of a bursting bubble.

Good times.

Gattigap

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Damn ultra-liberal judicial activist Carter appointees! Don't they know we're at war?

S_A_M

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

N.B. -- Judge Motz, who wrote the decision, is a Clinton appointee. Judge Gregory, who joined the decision, originally was a Clinton recess appointment and then was appointed by Bush. Judge Hudson, the district court judge sitting by designation who dissented, was a Bush appointee.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

quick question: we catch M. Atta on Sept. 10. What would you charge him with?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I imagine on September 10, enough elements of a conspiracy for murder charge would have been met. April 10 may have been a little more problematic.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

It seems like if the guy is in a sleeper cell, they should be able to charge him with some kind of conspiracy, no?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Probably, though the evidence would have been harder to prove up. Though, I imagine it's the same evidence for "enemy combatant." Do they even have to prove anything up for that?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I think enemy combatants are by definition not US citizens or US residents, no? So they don't really have rights, especially when they are being held in the no-man's-land that is Guantanemo (not US soil, not foreign soil).

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

That is incorrect. The one has nothing to do with the other, I believe.

The notion that they have no rights has more to do with this notion that the President has unbridled powers under Article II that are not limited in any way by pesky details like the Fifth Amendment.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

unless one of them cracked (and we may actually have one in custody who didn't crack) what evidence would we have had? reality is he would either have been held under Ty's "no reason" or we would have had to let him go. box cutters packed in your carry on is not a crime.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

i can't decide if the no muffins and poor chip days make you smarter or dumber.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

If there was no evidence, why would we have been picking him up?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

we heard he was involved with al queda and we believed he had trained at a camp in Afghanistan. Could you list the crimes we could charge him with?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

If there's evidence of crimes, we should pick him up. If there isn't, we shouldn't. You can go away for a long time for conspiracy to murder. But you like these hypotheticals that assume that the executive is omniscient about threats to the country and yet powerless to do anything useful in a court of law. Both are belied by reality, yet you persist.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Dunno. Kinda depends.

Quick question: What evidence do I have?

Quicker answer: He is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, so I can turn him over to their secret police without much fear he'll ever come back.

S_A_M

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

the problem is that there are now people willing to do war-like acts of mass murder that do not tie into any particular country, and until the act of mass murder takes place there may often be little evidence. we got lucky with the LAX bomber because he decided to make the bomb in Canada and import it. for years the French were telling Canada to arrest him or kick him out*, BUT he hadn't done anything, other than be involved in training for a global jihad and all. Same with Atta.

Your point seems to be, to protect our freedom we have to let the next Atta roam free and even get on the plane. I suppose you could check his bags carefully or something.
See our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this- unless maybe if membership in al queda is made proof of insanity or something.

*gwnc disclaimer- I didn't mean that as Canada bashing. he simply had not done anything illegal. try to catch the PBS docu on the guy.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

You're still trying to spin a hypothetical where there is enough evidence that someone in the executive branch is smart enough to want to stop the guy, but not enough evidence that the courts will. You're telling a little tale about how we should trust the police when they tell you that someone is guilty and not leave it to the courts. It smacks of fascist propaganda.

In point of fact, there may be such instances. It's the price of living in a free society.

You say that "our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this" -- well then, propose a change in the law, instead of just putting the executive branch above the law.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

in fact I gave a real world data point for my "hypo" where authorities knew a guy was jihadi but left him on the street. and I also extrapolated that M. Atta had committed no crime until he hijacked the plane, and asked what we should have done.

The only one who "keeps" doing the same thing is you. You won't admit that the executive postiion you advocate would prevent us from holding M. Atta.

by the way calling someone's arguments "fascist" is getting close to a n automatic loss, no?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

So are you basically saying that anyone who someone thinks is associated with a group that we decide is a terrorist group should be rounded up and held indefinitely? This sounds more like Stalinist Russia.

ETA I watched Dr. Zhivago last night! Whee!

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Are you basing your little fantasy on the notion that Homeland Security will know better how to protect us than a judge, or is it all about the quantum of evidence required to convict someone?

As for the fascist thing, I said "smacks of." So rest easy. Your trains aren't running on time yet.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Okay, you choose to ignore the LAX bomber. I understand why you would because it kills your whole position. Judges intentionally let people they know are murderers go free based upon procedural glitches, so yes. Judges and juries can convict people if there is BARD evidence of a crime. The problem is that anything we can convict most of them of is probably a misdemenor. I understand your point, and I understand that you want the judge to let the murdered go. Most of America would rather both those things get fixed.

dude I repeat a blitzkreig on your ass about 5 times a week, you just look at the world from Uncle junior's eyes so you don't see it.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I hear many Italians liked on-time trains. Who woulda thunk it?

Just like judges, the executive branch can fuck things up, too. For example, consider what it did between January and September of 2001. Try to bake that into your fantasies about executive power.

Indeed, no one understands the victories you keep racking up in your fantasy world. It's rather sad.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

most of January clinton was still prez. but do you mean bush failed since he didn't go after al queda for the Cole and the enbassy bombings. I agree, in retrospect he should have.

from wiki:

• Once he entered the United States on June 3, 2000, through Newark, New Jersey, the CIA says its surveillance of Atta ended. It is unclear whether the FBI or some other intelligence agency monitored Atta's activities in the United States.

clinton came! so did the terrorists!

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Fine. Assume that the Executive Branch screwed up under both Clinton and Bush. It kinda messes with your fantasy world where all we need to do to protect ourselves is give up our rights so that the Executive Branch can imprison whomever it likes. Cue Penske to bitch about Elian and the Branch Davidians, etc. Did you learn about checks and balances?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

first, when you say an administration should have moved mountains in its first few months, you show your ignorance of how our government works. really, to the extent you are trying to have intelligent discourse you should stop that.

The "screw ups" were sins of omission. If we had grabbed Atta, we would have taken his rights, but several thousand people would be alive today. and what was it you thought Clinton/Bush should have done about Atta again? wait until there was evidence of a crime. That is, the moment he took over the plane.

And again, the LAX bomber, what should Canada have done about him?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

You think I'm talking about early 2001 to indict the Bushies for malfeasance, but that's not my point. My point is that you're willing to trash the Constitution because of this rich fantasy that the Executive Branch will be on their game and catch all the bad guys, albeit not with enough proof to ever convict them. You're spreading the fear that we can't trust the courts -- we need to put people away on the say so of the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. And we just have to take their word for it.

That's not how this country works. If you like that kind of safety, move to Russia.

Caught him.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

and charged him with membership in a bad organization? when you were indoctrinated into the dem party did someone take a short cut and not show you the movies about how McCarthyism was bad?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Actually we could have just revoked his visa and put him on a plane without much fuss.

The big problem is that on September 10, nobody would have conceived of what happened, and after September 11, some people seem to be believe that fear alone, without evidence or due process ought to be enough to allow the Executive to lock away anybody without allowing them to challenge the detention or see the evidence against them.

By the way, Hank, you have an engineering background, live in an area populated by a large number of people from the Middle East, and you seem to be far more preoccupied with terrorism than the average American. How do we know you're not one of them?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

No: conspiracy. Did HLS not teach you criminal law?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

wha? the LAX bomber acted alone. are you saying the mere fact of being associated with al queda is enough to convict of conspiracy to do all a.q. actions? or do you mean Atta. same question. conspiracy to do what?

THE Law School concentrated on less plebian things. I took a course on law of the solar system.
"Hypo: the gravity on Jupiter is 50 times that on earth. this would make it harder to steal property. Analyze what that should do to the sanctions for conversion."