Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Even under the most narrow reading of the constitution as understood in 1789, the founders would not likely have thought that the principles embodied in the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments were advanced by foreign, covert prisons.

I don't think that the founding fathers would have ever imagined that foreign nationals covertly working to kill US nationals would get protection from the US Constitution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
We are talking pulled pork, yes? That stuff (generally - I'venever been to the place you mention) is a gift from God.

I think there are some observant jews and muslims that would take issue with that.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think that the founding fathers would have ever imagined that foreign nationals covertly working to kill US nationals would get protection from the US Constitution.

By protection all we are talking about is due process and avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment.

I think many of the founding fathers would have, at the least, expected to treat foreigners of high birth or who were officers in the opposing forces with such respect and protection. Many would have extended that treatment to all foreign combatants. That is not to say they would not have hung them after the trial.

Remember, these were people who were actively engaged in risking their lives fighting for the principal that all men were endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. That is "all men" not "Americans" or "citizens".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I work in healthcare, as have a lot of members of my immediate family . . .

Perhaps I do too. How do you know?

Originally posted by Penske_Account
. . . and I have to say that it is really uncool and insensitive to make jokes about mental illness, especially since I am actuallywrestling with med compliancy on a daily basis, as evidenced by my posts.

I knew it.

Anyhow, you apparently need to toughen up to better withstand the hurly-burly of modern political discourse.

S_A_M

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

nononono
We are talking pulled pork, yes? That stuff (generally - I've never been to the place you mention) is a gift from God.

Spanky
I think there are some observant jews and muslims that would take issue with that.

As anyone who has ever tasted decent pulled pork knows, that is just proof positive that their God is false.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm not sure that they would have thought that the constitution applied in the locales in question.

I have no idea whether our Constitution applies to our conduct there, and don't particularly care.

In my view, it should be stopped both because: (a) I think it is a bad policy for a number of practical reasons, and (b) what I expect occurs there is simply morally wrong and in violation of the UMC. [I would be glad to be proven wrong on that latter point.]

I thought you were a big fan of natural law reasoning, Penske.

S_A_M

[dtb]

Originally posted by nononono

Though I really can't imagine looking at one of those pictures and thinking, oh, I want *that* and who cares what it's attached to.

The "what it's attached to" is key.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Perhaps I do too. How do you know?


I knew it.

Anyhow, you apparently need to toughen up to better withstand the hurly-burly of modern political discourse.

S_A_M

Easy there. He agreed with the wag who decried the tag of "Scalito" as racist.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
As anyone who has ever tasted decent pulled pork knows, that is just proof positive that their God is false.

Is it acceptable or considered a travesty to top a pulled pork sandwich with slaw?

(I do not know the rules on this exactly, but I know that tastes good.)

[dtb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
As anyone who has ever tasted decent pulled pork knows, that is just proof positive that their God is false.

it's the same God

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What ultimately fascinates me about stories like this is that - although these black sites are only "known about" by a handful of officials both here in the US and in the host country - this author, as well as countless others, sure seems to know a hell of a lot about them.

Bush will never find the leakers, so we'd better appoint some prosecutor to investigate.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think that the founding fathers would have ever imagined that foreign nationals covertly working to kill US nationals would get protection from the US Constitution.

I don't think the founding fathers were much for the idea of ruling colonies from overseas -- even penal colonies. Torturation without representation?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I also predict that history will regard the Bush administration's terrorist imprisonment approaches to be a nadir not only for american foreign policy but also for its role as the leader of the free world. Although it may ultimately be something of an historical footnote, like McCarthyism, it will be a noted one.

McCarthyism is no footnote.

The terrorist imprisonment issue will be a footnote in a text college kids will buy and never open. It'll be discussed by people who think Joan Baez would've made a great senator.

Understand this - Americans are nothing if not utterly self-absrobed and completely self-righteous. You think anyone other than a few crazy liberals give a flying shit what happens to prisoners at Guatanamo Bay? NPR won't even talk about it in a few years.

The story has no legs. The Times doesn't even give it any ink anymore.

No. One. Cares. And no one ever will.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Captain
Remember, these were people who were actively engaged in risking their lives fighting for the principal that all men were endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. That is "all men" not "Americans" or "citizens".

Nor is it "all white landowners." There was a certain disjunction between theorem and praxis.

That said, I am not convinced that they believed that the rights enshrined in the Constitution were said inalienable rights.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
it's the same God

Which makes me wonder why the Muslims hate the Jews so. I mean, there is a shared hatred of pork to bond over, no?*

*Among the observant. I don't know a single Jew who doesn't eat bacon... excluding a couple of friends who sswitched from Reform to Orthodox out of boredom or temporary insanity (the Orthodox rules make Catholicism look easy).