Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
eta: If I understand the bill correctly, it means no habeas corpus for anyone held outside the country. Which means the government can detain someone as long as they like, for whatever reason they like. That's absolutely nuts.

Why is that nuts? Did you think the founding fathers ever in their wildest dreams thought that the protections of the constitution would apply to enemy combatants?

The only reason why enemy combatants have any rights is because of the Geneva convention. If the country where the prisoner is from has a problem with how we are treating their citizen they can complain using diplomatic channels.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The US military is not a Holiday Inn. They are not going to hold someone found "innocent" indefinitely.

I see the hypo as flawed.

Also, no, I don't think we should be affording additional Constitutional protections to foreign nationals held on foreign soil.
In your hypo, let the government of this "innocent" worry about him and get him released via diplomatic channels.

:td:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
:beer:

:dance2: :dance:

[SlaveNoMore]

Oh, joy!:

Media map gives wrong directions on incomes
Stuart Buck and Megan McArdle:

WASHINGTON - It often gets dicey for readers when journalists, who are rarely math majors, play with numbers and then publish misleading or mistaken conclusions. It happened Labor Day when the Detroit Free Press published a horrifying map showing huge losses in household income across America. Horrifying and totally wrong, that is.

According to the map, between 1999 and 2005 median household income had fallen in 46 states, sometimes by double digits, plunging by 6 percent in the U.S. as a whole.

We knew incomes had fallen slightly since the peak of the technology bubble. Labor markets have remained soft, and the cost of non-wage compensation such as health care, which is not included in income calculations, has been soaring. But the declines shown on the map were shocking. The Free Press claimed that nine states, with a total of 75 million citizens, had seen median incomes plummet by roughly 10 percent.

More surprisingly, these figures didn’t match those in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, or CPS, which showed that median household income in the US had fallen only 2.8 percent — and had risen in around 20 states, not four. Where, we wondered, had they gotten their figures?

An e-mail exchange with the journalists gave us the answer: They had taken their 2005 numbers not from the CPS, but from the American Community Survey, a new research product that is scheduled to replace the detailed “long form” census collected every decade. But they hadn’t taken the 1999 figures from the ACS — in fact, the ACS is so new that it didn’t even publish nationwide data for 1999. Instead, the journalists had taken the 1999 income figures from the official 2000 census.

Some statisticians already will be shaking their heads in dismay; different surveys, taken at different times and asking slightly different questions, often produce very different pictures of the economy. If the journalists had checked the helpful section of the Census Bureau Web site called “Using the Data”, they would have discovered this warning: “Users should exercise care when comparing income figures from the American Community Survey with those of Census 2000.”

They might also have found another Census Web page warning that “[E]stimates from any one survey will almost never exactly match the estimates from any other (unless explicitly controlled), because of differences such as in questionnaires, data collection methodology, reference period, and edit procedures.” Or had they Googled “Comparing the ACS and the Census,” they’d have discovered a helpful document on the comparison problems, available from multiple state governments. It calls the two income numbers “not comparable.”

With good reason. A 2003 report by census staff indicated that median incomes from the ACS were much lower than those from the 2000 census: 4.4 percent lower for the United States.

What does this mean? Simple: If you start with income from the 2000 census, and then compare it to income from the 2005 ACS, which we know tends to be much lower because of survey differences — you’ll find a much greater decline than really was the case. Much of the reported 6 percent drop — probably more than half — comes from comparing apples to oranges.

When we wrote this up on our blogs, many conservative readers attributed the misleading figures to liberal media bias. But it is more likely ignorance than malice. Every year, scores of fledgling journalists pour out of liberal arts programs. Though many will need to pick through mountains of statistics in search of the truth, few have been taught the skills to do it.

They quickly become victims of advocacy groups pushing skewed statistics. Through ignorance, they may also start manufacturing their own flawed numbers. Since number-crunching beats (such as business and finance) are generally viewed as a tedious waystation en route to more interesting beats, few are enthusiastic about developing these skills. And their editors may not be in any position to help them.

The problem is compounded by the fact that journalists who do know how to read a balance sheet, run a regression, or analyze economic data, can generally get a job that pays a lot more than journalism. Some stay in the field out of love for their work (journalism is a really great job), but in our experience some of the best flee to greener pastures.

Even worse, as mathematician John Allen Paulos is fond of pointing out, Americans are often too innumerate to analyze statistics printed in the newspaper. America’s schools haven’t given its citizens any more ability than its journalists to analyze the information that floods our lives. We would call it a case of the blind leading the blind, but the comparison is inappropriate. Blind people know they can’t see.

Stuart Buck, an attorney whose articles have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, who blogs at The Buck Stops Here.

Megan Mcardle is a journalist who covers economics and blogs at Asymmetrical Information

link

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Spanky
:td:

:cheers:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh, joy!:




link

:shock:


:sportswav

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I did answer the question very directly you just don't like the obvious answer

Slave said: Because I, for one, did not realize that the Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus applied to foreign nationals on foreign soil.

You said: Never mind what the Constitution says. Why should it matter? We know he's innocent.

I said: If they were completely innocent they should be let free. Does that answer your question?

Then you said: No, my question was whether they should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus.

My answer: No - it has nothing to do with the constitution or with the domestic legal system.

I didn't answer the question - give me a break.

I thought the definition of "it" would be obvious considering the prior dialogue. It = a case where you have a foreign national on foreign soil. And as already stated before the consitution does not apply.

My question was, if they're innocent and the government continues to hold them, should they be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Not, do they have the right under the law as it is, but should the law give them the right. I thought you were ducking the question, but perhaps you didn't understand what I was getting at.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is that nuts? Did you think the founding fathers ever in their wildest dreams thought that the protections of the constitution would apply to enemy combatants?

The only reason why enemy combatants have any rights is because of the Geneva convention. If the country where the prisoner is from has a problem with how we are treating their citizen they can complain using diplomatic channels.

I think it's crazy -- and I think the founding fathers would have thought it crazy -- to empower the executive branch to seize and hold innocent people indefinitely without any sort of judicial review. The writ of habeas corpus exists for this purpose. The framers understood the dangers of unbridled power.

And again -- I'm not arguing about what the law is. I'm arguing about what it should be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) I don't see anyone holding up ALL Senate business and reading from a phone book.

Because the Senate rules no longer require it. That was the Senators' choice.

2) You know as well as I that filibusters were never intended to hold up floor votes on nominees. Yet you apparently have no problem with this usurpation of the nomination process, in contravention of the Constitution, by a Senate minority.

The Senate gets to make its own rules. This is countermajoritarian. What's odd is the number of Republicans who never saw a problem with this until a few Bush appointees ran into trouble.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
My question was, if they're innocent and the government continues to hold them, should they be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Not, do they have the right under the law as it is, but should the law give them the right. I thought you were ducking the question, but perhaps you didn't understand what I was getting at.

Not to speak for Spanky, but I think we've both said repeatedly (i) no, the government should not be holding truly innocent people indefinitely, but (ii) assuming they were - and this is a major, major assumption - no they should not be entitled to habeas corpus nor should the law be expanded. He has other non-judicial means of recourse, such as a plea from his foreign ambassador.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The US military is not a Holiday Inn. They are not going to hold someone found "innocent" indefinitely.

I see the hypo as flawed.

Then there's no need to change the law in the way that the Administration is proposing, right? So why are they proposing this?

Also, no, I don't think we should be affording additional Constitutional protections to foreign nationals held on foreign soil.

Who said anything about constitutional protections? The writ is the way you get to court. It's not about substantive rights. It's just a way to say in court that the government is holding you and should not be. The writ predates the Constitution by about four centuries.

In your hypo, let the government of this "innocent" worry about him and get him released via diplomatic channels.

If he's really innocent, why should his freedom depend on his government's interest and clout? Aren't we better than other governments?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh, joy!:

link

Off my corner, ho.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The Senate gets to make its own rules. This is countermajoritarian. What's odd is the number of Republicans who never saw a problem with this until a few Bush appointees ran into trouble.

Call me crazy, but when did a Republican minority ever filibuster the nominee of Democrat POTUS?

Seriously, give me a single example,

Abe Fortas in '68 was a 4 day talkathon - and was essentially irrelevant as he would never have received 51 votes in the first place.

Here, the Dems are blocking the vote only because they know they'll lose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not to speak for Spanky, but I think we've both said repeatedly (i) no, the government should not be holding truly innocent people indefinitely, but (ii) assuming they were - and this is a major, major assumption - no they should not be entitled to habeas corpus nor should the law be expanded. He has other non-judicial means of recourse, such as a plea from his foreign ambassador.

Why are you opposed to checks and balances? If the government is holding an innocent man it knows to be innocent, why should he have to depend on the interest and persuasion of his ambassador?

Its un-American. If you believe that the government should not be holding innocent people indefinitely, you should believe that said innocent people should be able to do something about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Call me crazy, but when did a Republican minority ever filibuster the nominee of Democrat POTUS?

Seriously, give me a single example,

Abe Fortas in '68 was a 4 day talkathon - and was essentially irrelevant as he would never have received 51 votes in the first place.

Here, the Dems are blocking the vote only because they know they'll lose.

I have no idea. But it's not like the rules are new. And there are all sorts of ways in which the rules thwart the will of the Senate majority.

etc "power" to "will"