Politics As Usual - Page 210

Hank Chinaski · 06-28-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the Spartan
FWIW, the WSJ headline says:

SUPREME COURT RULED the Bush administration may hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges in its antiterrorism fight, but said the detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

Fuck detention. We should just start beheading these guys on the battlefield.

Nixon should have come into the Senate hearings guns blazing. That brave American did that shit then, he'd of taken out the Hillary problem before we knew we had one.

I mean he had the pardon coming and all anyway, might as well use it.

Sidd Finch · 06-28-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the Spartan
FWIW, the WSJ headline says:

SUPREME COURT RULED the Bush administration may hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges in its antiterrorism fight, but said the detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts.

"Challenge their treatment" seems awfully narrow. The articles I read suggest that the USSC said detainees can challenge the fact that they are detained, not just the conditions of detention. Hard to believe the ACLU and CCR would be claiming victory otherwise.

Atticus Grinch · 06-28-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Huh? Fifth amendment? In Gaza? In Pakistan? Afghanistan?

I think you missed the joke in my post.

Hank Chinaski · 06-28-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think you missed the joke in my post.

I sort of realized that about 2 minutes after posting, but then I thought the first part of my post could be seen as a set up to the joke in my second part. that is, I flip-flopped. Still its a loss.

41-5

the Spartan · 06-28-2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If only Bill Clinton has been so aggressive about pictures of him in those running shorts . . . .

Really! What in the hell was he thinking.

sgtclub · 06-28-2004, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the Spartan
Really! What in the hell was he thinking.

I think she broke the board

Atticus Grinch · 06-28-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Your punch line is off. A "vest" in british english does mean "undershirt" in american english, but a "wife beater" has no pits to stain. My guess is a pit hair revealing wife beater.

The free market has generated a wondrous variety of wife-beaters, some of which have pits to stain (see, e.g., Sonny in original GF).

But I concede my mental image was indeed off, as was yours.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-28-2004, 04:09 PM

Between this and this, it sounds like a lot of shit is about to hit the fan re the Niger uranium.

Atticus Grinch · 06-28-2004, 04:13 PM

Maybe someone who knows more about Iraq can answer this question: Are we building permanent military bases there? If so, how many?

Say_hello_for_me · 06-28-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe someone who knows more about Iraq can answer this question: Are we building permanent military bases there? If so, how many?

You being you, I have to ask for clarification. By "building permanent military bases", do you mean merely building semi-permanent structures for at least the current or near-term use of the military? If so, yes.

By "building permanent military bases", do you mean bases specifically intended for use by U.S. troops in a permanent sense, along with the intent to house the U.S. troops at such bases in a permanent sense? If so, it depends on how you define permanent.

sgtclub · 06-28-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Between this and this, it sounds like a lot of shit is about to hit the fan re the Niger uranium.

Do you quite understand what Josh is saying about? Is he going after FT or someone that planted the story to FT?

Gattigap · 06-28-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you quite understand what Josh is saying about? Is he going after FT or someone that planted the story to FT?

The latter, I think, although I'll grant you that in order to get even that far, I needed two readings, coupled with small words and visual aids.

The Larry Davis Experience · 06-28-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
By "building permanent military bases", do you mean bases specifically intended for use by U.S. troops in a permanent sense, along with the intent to house the U.S. troops at such bases in a permanent sense? If so, it depends on how you define permanent.

In other words, there might be someone out there who defines permanent in an infinite or eternal sense, and they would get a "no" answer, but for the rest of us who have read Ozymandias and realize that a permanent base would be more accurately termed "a base the US would use even after its troops are no longer the supreme military entity in Iraq", the answer is yes?

Hank Chinaski · 06-28-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Between this and this, it sounds like a lot of shit is about to hit the fan re the Niger uranium.

Have you read the Voelker interview re. the kickbacks? That is some shit about to hit, right?

Atticus Grinch · 06-28-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
By "building permanent military bases", do you mean bases specifically intended for use by U.S. troops in a permanent sense, along with the intent to house the U.S. troops at such bases in a permanent sense? If so, it depends on how you define permanent.

I think the distinction you draw is already addressed by the use of the term "base" instead of "camp."

What I meant was, are we building bases a la Ramstein, Aviano, and Okinawa --- as in, "We're pouring concrete, but of course when the threat against which we're protecting has subsided, I'm sure we'll all go home."