home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:18:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm a little late getting this up today, but I'm busy at work and so awash in paper I might drown. I need one of these, badly. [Update: A huge thank you to the generous reader that just contributed the money to buy the scanner. TalkLeft readers never cease to amaze me. This is so appreciated.]

In case I miss the news about whether Jack Abramoff has a plea deal, please fill us in. Also of note:

  • Raw Story: Abramoff's firm knew of the payments he received from ex-DeLay aide before the story broke.
  • Va. Gov. Mark Warner has two weeks left to order DNA testing in the case of Roger Coleman, executed in 1992. If he does, and if it turns out he was innocent, he will be the first known case of wrongful execution in the country.
  • Atrios on 2005 being the year of the President who believes he can break the law.

  • Check out Heretik's bloglift (y.i.c.t.p. thanks Skippy) -- I'm flattered he chose the same theme template I did for TalkLeft's bloglift.

I'll be back tonight.

< The Intersection of Bloggers and Journalists | Commenting Rule Update on TalkLeft >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    Yeah, I've been ogling those Fujitsu scan doogers for a while too. They're pushed pretty hard by Apple for Macintosh computers (which use *.pdf native viewers in the Mac OS...although I know you're a Windows person, TL)...you see them in Apple stores, etc. My office has a Kyrocera copier printer that also scans ~60 ppm into Adobe Acrobat *.pdf files...other than being black and white only, that rocks!...but yeah, a home scanning unit and a thermal paper label printer too would be nice!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by BigTex on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    YES! Bama and FL get the win! SEC > ALL!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    I found this info about GOP Congressman Sensenbrenner's position on military tribunals back in February 2002. In 2002 Sensenbrenner sounded like a left-wing ACLU member. According to Sensenbrenner:
    The accused will receive full and fair trials; they will be informed of the charges against them; they will have a right to qualified counsel; and they will have the opportunity to present a defense. In addition, anyone tried before these tribunals will be able to challenge the lawfulness of the commission’s jurisdiction through a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court. These are the fact about how any military tribunals would operate...We are taking the high road in a war being waged by extremists against not just the United States but against freedom, democracy and civilization.
    The GOP used to be for the right of habeas for detainees, before they became against it.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Have you guys seen this story? what does this mean? Bolton Testimony Revealed Domestic Spying [text deleted, this space is for comments. Also, please put url in html format or it will be deleted, it skews the site. I fixed this one]

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Has anyone seen this? Just more evidence going against the made-up WMD story. "A CIA operative later told Dr. Alhaddad's husband that the agency believed her brother was lying. In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned." [url deleted, not in html format]

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    you are welcome, talkleft! happy new year to you and yours!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    In a recent post, my friend PPJ requested an explanation on the status of thos held in Guantanamo. While (per PPJ) 500 have been determined by military tribunals to be enemy combatants, only 9 have been charged with a crime. Haven't you committed a crime if you are determined to be an enemy combatant? Here is my stab at an explanation. Being determined as an enemy combatant is analogous to being taken into the police station as a suspect in a crime. The difference is that in Guantanamo you can be kept in there indefinitely and they can torture you for information. The detainees include a large number of people who didn't participate in acts of terrorism but whose only crime is that they may or may not be guilty of having knowledge that we think is useful against the "war" against terrorism. Why do I say this? Because if they did participate in acts of terrorism (such as planning terrorist attacks) they would have been charged with committing a crime and only 9 of the 500 detainees have been charged. Anyway this is my unprofessional nonlawyer understanding of what is going on. If anyone with expertise in the law can provide a nontechnical explanation of this "discrepancy" both PPJ and I would appreciate it.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    Big Tex: Yes, "SEC > ALL," absolutely. In football at least. Kinda makes a mockery of the BCS thang, to me. Would either Texas or USC have gone undefeated in the SEC this year? No way either of them would have. College football needs it some fixin'.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    Is anybody here near Charleston, W. Va., and have any news about progress towards getting the coal miners out?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    My distingushed friend John Horse... My question was why we have only 9 mentioned as charged with committing crimes, while over 500 have received tribunals, reviews, etc., and convicted of the crime of being an Enemy Combatant against the US. My conclusion was, and is, that the 9 written about are accused of committing crimes in addittion to the plain old garden variety crime of being an EC. As to the comparsion my learned non-lawyer friend makes that being taken in as an EC - charged if you please - I can only say that it appears somewhat similar, except, of course, they do not have the same rights as American citizens. His claim that a "large number" of these people were not guilty of actual terrorist acts I find highly suspect and without any demonstrated foundatuon of fact. As to torture, I have been assured by other sources that our military no longer place women's undergarments on the prisioner's heads, thus bringing to close that most despicable act. (Damn John, we should be Senators.)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 08:30:13 PM EST
    Is anybody here near Charleston, W. Va., and have any news about progress towards getting the coal miners out?
    Edger, I live in south western PA (Go Steelers!) The mine is actually located in Tallmansville West Virginia which is about halfway between Pittsburgh and Charleston. Click here for a recent story. I am sure that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette's Website will have timely updates on this story.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by The Heretik on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:45 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I am flattered you were flattered. Seeing how sharped things looked here had me switching over to the new look in a matter of minutes. Thanks for all the support and good feeling and best to everyone here at TL community in the coming year.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 12:58:18 AM EST
    Newsweek is reporting the White House received a different briefing than Rumsfeld or the CIA regarding ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (specifically Atta in Prague) (via Laura Rozen).
    NEWSWEEK has obtained declassified copies of slides made for the briefing. [PDF copies online at Newsweek] There are three sets: a version for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one for the then CIA Director George Tenet and one shown at a White House session attended by the then deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's chief of staff at the time. The White House materials include a slide, not part of the other briefings, devoted to the alleged Atta meeting. (Rumsfeld and Tenet were told there was "one indication of Iraqi involvement with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11.") The White House slide, dated September 2002, cites publicized allegations from a post-9/11 Czech intel report that Atta met the April before 9/11 with Iraqi spy Ahmed al-Ani, and asserts the United States had "no other" intel contradicting the report.
    Isn't this a prima facia example of stovepiping designed to tell the President (via Cheney?) what he wanted to hear? This should be a huge story - it deflates the 'everybody got the same intelligence' idea. Not only did they not get the same intelligence, the DIA was intentionally hiding it's arguments from the CIA, erecting a 'wall' on intelligence of their own making. Is this willful blindness on Rumsfeld's part to stay out of the briefing, orchestrated by Cheney for the President's ears? Or just Doug Feith acting stupid?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:58:50 AM EST
    PPJ I think you raise a good question. What does it mean to have been determined an enemy combatant? Have you been determined to be guilty of a crime? If so, what crime or crimes? I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not saying that you are wrong. All I am saying is that I would like an opinion from someone who can translate the legal jargon on this.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:06:11 AM EST
    joejoejoe - Having attended/prepared far more "executive" briefings than I care to remember, I see nothing unusual that there are differences in the material. Each group within an organization have different interests and the information providers will react to their interests. In addition, many times various groups will receive copies of the briefings they don't attend as background. Whether or not this happened here is not known by Newsweek, you, or me. As for the meme that “Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld” misled, etc., that has been put to bed more times than a four year old the night before Christmas. John - To me the answer is straightforward. An EC is a person who is involved in attacking or supporting those who attack, the United States or its allies. This, by itself, is a crime. The purpose of the tribunals is to determine that fact. The Left has great difficulty with that, claiming that everyone should have the same rights as US citizens, or others covered under our law, such as people with green cards, visas, etc. Sounds wonderful, but makes little sense when carried to the logical end, which I have done several times. An EC who is also a US citizen retains the rights of a citizen. But as I have noted, again on numerous occasions, the penalties are much harsher. An enemy can be captured and restrained. Treason deserves nothing less than death. Charles - Tribunals were found constutitional by the SC. The fact that you may not like them means absolutely nothing. Sorry, charlie. BTW - Big Tex is one of the most polite people to comment here. Your comment to him is juvenile and was written only to attract attention.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by roger on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:23:53 AM EST
    Jim, Being an EC is a judgement of a person's status, not a crime. It only refers to membership in an organization. Plotting an attack would go to criminal status. There is a difference. Briefings may legitimately be different, but then you dont get to say that they were identical, at least not without lying. And BTW, everyone charged with a crime has the same rights under our system. Always been that way. So, from the above info, it would appear that 500 were "members" of an enemy "organization", while 9 actually planned, or prepared, or conducted, criminal acts.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:35:45 AM EST
    Roger - To the rest of us being an EC is a crime. The tribunal is to determine if the person is. Obviously "plotting," "fighting," etc. is part of that. i.e. Being captured in battle is proof beyond question. Again, tribunals were ruled constitutional by the SC for EC's in WWII. I don't think anyone has claimed "identical." They have claimed everyone had the same iformation, which could mean that it arrived at different times. But no matter, that claim is as dead as last week's scandal.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    An EC who is also a US citizen retains the rights of a citizen.
    Tell that to Jose Padilla.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by roger on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 12:55:31 PM EST
    Jim, EC is a status no matter what you or anyone else "considers" it. A thing is what it is. And as to the "rest of us" who, exactly, is "us"?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    Each group within an organization have different interests and the information providers will react to their interests.
    There are three sets: a version for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one for the then CIA Director George Tenet and one shown at a White House session attended by the then deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's chief of staff at the time. And these three groups would have different needs because..............? I mean, we're not talking about Financial vs. Operations/Maintenance vs. Human Resources here, are we? I could see the need for a military vs. civilian perspective, but three versions and a slide for the WH version doesn't sound kosher to me. Call me crazy, you have my permission ;)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    DA - Call you crazy? Me? Never. That's your view, my point was and is the same. We have three separate groups. Roger - Us is those who agree with me, which is a very large number. ;-) Parsing words changes nothing. EC describes people who have fought/plotted, etc. against us that have been tried and convicted by a tribunal. The "rest of us" consdier that a crime. Since they are not members of regular armed service of a country, they can also be defined as guerrillas. Historically those so defined were shot. charliedon'tsurf12 writes:
    Non-uniformed combatants were therefore clearly engaged in espionage and/or sabotage.
    So what are "non-uniformed combatants" doing now? Have you forgotten 9/11? Car bombs in Iraq? Wedding receptions in Joran? Trains in England? You write:
    It's horsebrit either way. They didn't have the same info. Not even close.
    Huh?? Let's look at the facts. From the Senator Rockefeller interview.
    WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate. But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    Charlie, can you please not reprint the comments you are replying to and just mention the commenter's name. They can scroll up to read it. Reprinting uses too much bandwidth. Thank you.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by roger on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    Jim, Reminds me of "Alice in Wonderland", "words mean what I say they mean". Not an argument to endear yourself to a lawyer ;-/

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    Roger - Your claim escapes me. EC is awarded to those who have been captured, tried by a tribunal and designated same.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by roger on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    Jim, They are "designated" EC, they are not "convicted". For one thing, if EC was a conviction, there would have to be a definate sentence. I doubt that anyone in authority would want that.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by roger on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 05:35:22 PM EST
    Jim, One other point, if being an EC was a crime, then all rights under the Constitution would be in place. Rules of evidence, right to confront witnesses, all of it. EC, being a designation, requires a lessor standard, like a civil trial, or a speeding ticket.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    Roger - I give up. But they are still EC's.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    PPJ: I give up. Uncle! Uncle! Now there's something you don't see every day. :)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:40:44 AM EST
    That's your view Yes, and the fact that you don't deal with the facts and reasoning behind my view is purely coincidental. As for your view being the same, if you ignore what I wrote, what other outcome is possible? We have three separate groups. I didn't dispute that. Could you show me where I was wrong in disputing the neccessity of having three separate presentations when there are only two considerations at hand, military vs. civilian? You gave a non-response that makes me think you're practicing to take over Scotty McClellen's position after his 19th Nervous Breakdown renders him hors de combat, but that's an unsubstantiated wild guess of the sort that only terrorist-hugging, freedom-hating, anti-American folks like me are entitled to make these days;)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    DA - So, what’s your point besides wanting to pick at a trivial point? charlie writes:
    Jimjim, Whatthefook does a piece of shiite whitewash dodge nonsense like silberman/robb have to do with anything?
    If you are going to deny a report by a Senate committee, be my guest. But if you expect to be taken seriously, try refuting some points with links that back up your assertion. Otherwise you're just someone screaming from the stands. BTW – Great style. Keep it up. Makes you look positively middle school. Eight grade? Seventh?

    Monday Open Thread | 30 comments (30 topical)