Friday Open Thread

I've got court all afternoon so feel free to take over and direct the conversation.

< Note To The GOP: Al Qaida Leadership Is Not In Iraq | The "Moral" Case For The Iraq Debacle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ouch! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    "After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public," he writes. "For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."

    Yingling said he decided to write the article after attending Purple Heart and deployment ceremonies for Army soldiers. "I find it hard to look them in the eye," he said in an interview. "Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers.".....

    The article has been read by about 30 of his peers, Yingling added. "At the level of lieutenant colonel and below, it received almost universal approval," he said.

    WaPo  via Laura Rozen

    Squeaky - Page two (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    "For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."

    It is the business of our intelligence agencies, both civilization and military, to provide accurate assessments of the situation to their leaders. It would have been helpful if Yingling had provided some indication if this has been done, and that the Generals ignored it, before deciding to take his complaints public.

    Absent that proof I find his comments damaging to the morale of the services and question why he would do such a thing at this time.

    Having said that, I think senior command should immediately have a deep discussion with him to determine if he actually has a point, and if so, to fix it.

    Either way, I would guess his military career is over.

    I also find it interesting that he fails to mention the damage done by the Demos running an anti-war election campaign, makes no mention of the lack of support from Germany and France and the problems caused by the anti-war Left in general.

    This country has a long history of the military being commanded by civilian leadership. This type of comment during an on going war by a mid level commander is ill advised and almost unbelieveable.

    I would certainly hate to serve under some one that I know has problems with senior command, if for no other reason than wondering about his response to carrying out battle plans and strategies. Lt. Colonels and Battalion commanders
    do not always know the complete picture, and any hesitation is ususally deadly.


    Reality (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    This type of comment during an on going war by a mid level commander is ill advised and almost unbelieveable.

    Well someone has to say something. Yingling points out that there is a big exodus of people like him because the Generals are doing such a bad job. He plans to stay and hopes to be able to shake the tree rather than let the situation deteriorate any further.

    Reading between the lines it seems that Yingling is saying that the generals yeilded to political pressure and acted against their better judgement.  This, according to him, can only lead to failure.

    It is obvious that he is correct and we need to bring the troops home now.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    There are several routine and regular paths that LtCol Yingling could have used to make his points.

    If he has done that, then he could have resigned his commission in protest.

    That he did not speaks volumes.

    BTW - The Generals always respond to political pressure. Eisenhower in WWII, Patton in WWII, MacArthur in Korea, Westmoreland in Vietnam. And in most cases, from a pure military viewpoint, the results have been mostly poor.

    For example, Eisenhower stopped Patton in the Fall of '44 so that Montgomery could try and stop the V1 and V2 bombs hitting London when Patton could have punched all the way to Berlin and ended the war months early.

    Patton favored using the existing Nazi bureaucrats to run the day to day of post-War Germany, but replaced them with non-Nazis who had no experience and thoroughly messed things up.

    MacArthur wanted to nuke China, Westmoreland wanted to go into Laos..

    However, wars are fought for political purposes, not military purposes. The military has to be reminded of that from time to time. It appears that now is such a time in Yingling's case.

    The exodous he speaks of most probably is the result of the Surrender Party's wailing and whining. People don't want to get killed over a war that one of the political parties have pronounced lost for months and months.

    That you fail to see that is remarkable.


    Emporor's New Clothes (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:38:39 PM EST
    Iraq is an utter failure. All the people in the Military see this. Most of America sees this, Almost all of Iraq sees this.
    That you fail to see that is remarkable.

    At least the mid level career officers are not playing Bush's game anymore.


    Wow, I never knew that (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    America had a secret religion that practices human sacrifice.  So glad we have religious freedom here!

    Completely ignoring the facts (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:15:49 PM EST
    This type of comment during an on going war by a mid level commander is ill advised and almost unbelieveable.
    Yeah, well how about the Powell Doctrine and General Shinseki being fired for saying it would take several hundred thousand soldiers to secure iraq?

    And then of course bush kept firing generals until he had a pet one ... and even his pet Gen. Betrayus has said "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq"


    sailor (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    See my comment to squeaky.

    He said it though and he didn't (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    leave to say it.  His ill advisor isn't you huh?  Scares the hell out of you doesn't it Jim?  Next thing you know some other guy might get the idea to say what he really thinks and just stand there in uniform afterwards blinking.

    Tracy (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    Ao you seriously want the military making policy? Deciding if, when and where they want to fight??

    Have you ever studied the history of Rome?


    If you have studied the history of Rome (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    then you know that when the legions began serving specific leaders in a worshipful manner instead of serving Rome that was part of the downfall.  The legions fought each other.  The atmosphere of blind Republican loyalty you follow is exactly what led to Romes downfall along with Imperial greed that brought about expensive bankrupting wars not needed, and destruction of it's middleclass in favor of free slave labor which is cheaper labor.  Sounds exactly like the place your party is attempting to lead America.  America isn't Rome though and its citizens including a few in uniform aren't going to allow you guys to do this.

    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    No, the problen begin when the leaders started including the leigions in the political process.

    And that's what you are wanting to do. Or at least those that you agree with.

    Still can't get there, eh?


    In case you didn't notice, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    this Rome says it wants out of Iraq and our Nero said, "NO!" like a two year old spoilt child.  So one of the legions speaks up and says he desires to serve Rome and not Caesar and you are chapped about it?  And now I rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, see ya later Jimbo.

    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    And actually, our President was elected for a four term, and the Constitution says nothing about polls, listening to Surrender Parties, etc., etc.

    Too bad you keep thinking we are a Parlimentary Democracy instead of a Constitutonal Republic.

    Study some more history.


    Last year, some Christian/Right preachers were (none / 0) (#68)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:05:18 PM EST
    teaching the fact that Rome fell not becuase of the reason's you cite Jim but because Rome started Taxing only the Rich.

    I'm confused now. Who do I believe? You or those who are supposedly closest to God and therefore can speak his/her message?


    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    I advise you to study hard and believe what you think is right.

    Or you could just keep on reading moveon and spouting whatever talking points they tell you. That what you won't have to change, or engage your brain.


    You didn't answer my question (none / 0) (#74)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    Which is it? Do I have to believe you or those preachers who said Rome fell because Rome started to only tax the rich?

    Evasion tactics that you just conducted only prove you can not answer the question posed.

    Why do you bring up MoveOn? What makes you believe I spout a recorded message from them?


    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:59:07 PM EST
    Why do you think I am obliged to answer a stupid question that has nothing to do with the subject at hand??

    As I said. Study hard and make up your own mind.


    Jim haven't you studied the propaganda of this (4.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    Administration? They only listen to their Generals and make their decisions based on what the Generals inform them about.

    They supposedly don't listen to anyone but the Generals when it comes to making policy and they especially do not want elected officials making policy.

    Haven't you been listening? Only non-fired Generals are allowed to inform this Administration about anything that concerns foreign policy, war, and least important peace.


    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    If you had bothered to read my 8:09 comment you would have discovered the the civilian leadership has been telling the military what to do for years and years based on politics and firing thise who get lippy... even the good ones... see MacArthur..See Patton.... What a concept, eh??

    Imagine. The civilians telling the military what to do...

    Just when did you start thinking that was wrong??

    As for elected "officalS," I am confused. We have a constitutional republic in which foregin policy is given to the President. In fact, we even gave a law called the Logan Act about that very thing. Are you saying we have more than one President??


    Who knew?


    I can't wait to hear you preach the same lines (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    when the opposition party gains control of the executive branch.

    I'll be waiting for you to defend the non-Republican President at that time and his/her foreign policy decisions! And when that happens on a regular basis from you Jim I will give you an apology at that time. However, since I've seen your post about Wars in areas where there is no ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE FOR THE U.S. I already know that you will be a hypocrite when it comes to your own words and actions. Where is your outrage at the Congress during Somalia. The Surrenderepubs at that time didn't honor your verson of the LOGAN ACT.

    I guess this will be an issue 2 years from now when the executive power changes hands. I know I'll be watching your actions and I'm pretty sure there are others here that will hold you to your words as well.  


    Hey Jim (none / 0) (#59)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    I believe the President of the United States of America is looking for only one, tough, hawkish, person to become his WAR CZAR! Applications wanted!

    I highly recommend you for that position and you can, by all means, use me as a reference! As far as I know, that position still remains open and with your vast knowledge and tough on National Defense propaganda you would be a shoe in as a very loyal recipient for that position.

    Bonus: You shouldn't have much problem getting through the Senate Conformation hearings. I don't think (I might be wrong) but I don't believe you have stuck out that much in the World news for the past 30 plus years. So, the Senate wouldn't be able to attack you for any of your positions. Conformation should be a breeze for you!

    Just one question however, please tell me, were you ever a convicted felon that served under the Regan/Bush Sr. Administrations. For some odd reason many of those Felons now serve this President? If you answer yes to this last question...

    Oh, hell, you can still use me as a reference.

    Go get'm War Czar! Save the Cheerleader (Bush), Save the World!


    Freewill (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    I note your offer.

    Unfortunately I find that you have no influence, and I must say that after reading your comment, I understand why.


    I never implied that I had any influence (none / 0) (#64)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    I merely stated that you could use my name as a reference if you needed it. I fully understand your reasons for not using my name. It might reflect badly upon you by this Administration since only the loyalest of the loyalist can work under this Administration. Past experience not needed!

    You would make a great War Czar Jim. Unfortunately, there are not enough brave, tough enough on National Defense, Ex-Generals willing to take this position offered by the President and thus the position has remained opened longer than it should have.

    I believe that someone here at TalkLeft just might have enough influence or might know someone who has influence to get you a War Czar job interview.

    If enough people here concur, hell, we might even start an Internet partition, contact our elected Congress and Senate officials, and write to the President himself and recommend you for the War Czar vacant position.

    And remember....

    Save the Cheerleader, Save the World


    Freewill (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    I understood, but why would I want to use the name of someone with no influence as a reference??

    And since I have been hanging out here for four years, I think I can safely say no one else here has any influence with the current administration.


    And here I am a ROF struggling to keep the gold bathroom fixtures cleaned and polished in my palatial retirement compound.... perhaps if I move to N.O. and get elected as a Demo congressman $95K of cold cash will magically appear in my freezer..

    Cheerleader? Yes, it is better to stroke one match than curse the darkness... hat tip to whoever...


    There's millions more for you in California (none / 0) (#84)
    by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    I heard the Duke no longer holds his financial windfall. You might strike it rich there Jim instead of only settling for 95K in N.O. We're talking millions in ole Califonia!

    Stephen Hawking... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:57:54 PM EST


    I could have gone on and on.

    Lucky duck! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    That's cute (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    I just read... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:06:31 PM EST

    Her and her family will be leaving Iraq. They will be joining some three million or so other Iraqi refugees.

    What an effing waste.

    It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.

    I am glad they are leaving (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    All that I can say is that Bush had better be tending to these refugees!!!  They had better be able to leave with security and they had better be comfortably settled and stable!  I would hate to lose her and we don't have anything better to offer her.  We destroyed the stablization of her home.

    As far as I know... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    Bush does nothing for the refugees.

    Out of some 2 1/2 million, we have, I think, 500  in the USA, and are thinking of increasing that number to 5000.


    Iraqi Refugees (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    Are not allowed in the US.
    Only a few fleeing Iraqis have been admitted to the United States, which is a travesty.

    Worse, Iraqis who want to come to the US as refugees seeking asylum often face a catch-22 of being defined as terrorists because they have been victimized. For instance, if a family had a member kidnapped, and payed ransom, and then fled to Jordan and applied to come to the US, their having paid the ransom would be considered a form of material support to terrorism and they would be excluded!

    Juan Cole


    This is the largest crime ever! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    This is America's Holocaust. The fewer of them to fight us for the oil the better.

    H.Res. 333 (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:25:22 PM EST

    Ok, am I the only one that thinks it's funny that the resolution to impeach the VICE president is 333?  like.. he's half the beast?

    How dare (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    anyone demand anymore sacrifice: moderation in lifestyle, mandatory energy conservation, tax increases!! from those that have always sustained us all with their golden, trickle-down of beneficence. And, if they ask for the ultimate sacrifice in return for their largesse, a pox on the man who says chickenhawk!

    Desertswine (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    Thanks for the link. I usually check every day or so and was getting worried. I've been wondering when they would leave. I hope someone is able to help them in return for her excellent diaries from the belly of the beast. I seriously advise that no one here try to assist them.

    We have... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    created a true hell-hole for those people.

    The same guy (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    that thinks Islamic fundamentalists could take over the U.S, thinks "algore" is nuts.


    I would argue (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    that the dominate or be dominated paradigm has outworn whatever short-term usefulness it may have ever had and will eventually lead the very "destruction" that you and your and your esteemed client are refering to.

    re "detentions" and Miranda warnings (none / 0) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    I have a question for you law students and legal eagles out there.  The following scenario took place back in 2003 at Greenlake Park (in Seattle Washington) and the local jail, after I had been sunbathing nude at the park.  At the time, I thought the incident was constitutionally peculiar, but since then, I read more about Miranda warnings and "interrogative detentions."  Since reading about those again, I have come to suspect that the incident was constitutionally unsound.  Can someone tell me if so?


    By the way, on the subject of an "interrogative detention," tell me about the following event which took place in 2003 with me the sometimes nudist--

    Between the mid-90s and 2003, the Wash state leg changed the Wa state definition of indecent exposure in way that should have and in fact does permit more public nudity.

    In the summer of 2003, on seven occasions I was sunbathing nude at Greenlake, a public park.  On the 7th occasion, I was accosted by a policeperson
    who had had a complaint about my being nude.  (Not for public sexual conduct, but someone complained about my being nude, face down, sunbathing.)  After the policeperson instructed me to put on my shorts and I complied, he handcuffed me and led me to the vehicle.  He and another policeperson then drove me to the local police station and I was put in a holding cell.   At no point in this procedure up to this point was I told that I was under arrest and the police repeatedly questioned me about my being nude, my motives, my conduct and previous times being nude, etc.  I answered their questioned truthfully, while also directing the police attention to relevant Wa state law, a copy of which I had in my possession at the time of the handcuffing.  

    I referred police to the Wash state law as written, and explained that my conduct did not violate it as I understood it.

    The police didn't seem to familiar with the law, and seemed to want time to review the law, and to consult with their attorneys or superiors about the matter.  Of course, these events took place on a Saturday afternoon and the city attorney was not immediately available.

    After 1 or 2 hours in "detention," the policeperson opened my cell door and said, "you are under arrest," and gave me the equivalent of a Miranda warning, if I recall correctly.  I am unsure about the Miranda warning.  What I am sure about is that the words "you are under arrest," were given more than 45 minutes and perhaps as much as several hours after I was first approached by the policeperson and led away.

    Not that I felt my comments earlier to the police were coerced, but in retrospect, this doesn't seem like proper constitutional procedure to me.

    It seems to me that, to be handcuffed and confined involuntarily to a holding cell, while being asked questions without a Miranda warning, isn't that something that the Warren Court would have regarded as coercive?

    After we figure this one, we can work on a nearly identical incident with myself in 2004 in California, but one that didn't result in "You are under arrest."

    Curious (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    Weird. I wonder if Patrick or roy are around.

    I'm around, but have nothing useful to say (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    Does, "Dude, keep your frickin' pants on" help?

    Or "Where were you keeping that copy of the statute?"?

    Just in case your wonder stems from some misconception about my legal credentials: I don't have any.  I'm a software engineer, and unemployed to boot.  I can't even figure out how to get out of a speeding ticket.

    My wholly amateur impression from zaitzeff's story is that the things he's worried about seem like good things about which to worry, but that's the limit of my analytical hoodoo.


    Zaitzeff's a he? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:09:27 PM EST

    There goes my fantasy.


    I'm just amazed that (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    there is, apparently, a
    "zaitzefftheunconvicted" and a

    LOL (none / 0) (#33)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    same person.

    After I registered the first time and was logged in for a few days, I got logged out and couldn't remember my password or something, but I wasn't able to relogin.  So, I created the 2nd name for posting.

    As for being unconvicted, well, I think there are a few exasperated people out there, but they have better things to do than to think about me lots.


    I anwered this in the other thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:00:23 PM EST
     where you asked.

      Yes, it would appear you were detained and the interrogation was a custodial interrogation. If you were not Mtirandized prior to be being taken into custody (whether or not formally told youwere arrested) then you would likely have been able to have any custodial statements made suppressed. But, as I said, that may not have helped much if the police had evidence you were nude in public and in fact your statements sound to me more like your belief as to your legal defense than the evidence against you.

      If you go around (naked no less) carrying copies of laws and think your interpretation requires that method of promotion, knowck yourself out.


    is this the statute? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    RCW 9A.88.010  Indecent exposure.

    (1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.

         (2)(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this subsection, indecent exposure is a misdemeanor.

         (b) Indecent exposure is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense if the person exposes himself or herself to a person under the age of fourteen years.

         (c) Indecent exposure is a class C felony if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

    [2003 c 53 § 92; 2001 c 88 § 2; 1990 c 3 § 904; 1987 c 277 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.88.010 .]

      I'm not sure how you reason that statute does not make intentionally being naked in a public place visible to others illegal. now, if you had an infant with you in addition to the statute you might have had a decent argument if you hadn't also shed your shorts.


    Decon - Be careful (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    Having lived in Seattle for four years, I know that anyone who takes the clothes off outside, even in summer, is far too tough for you, or me, to mess with.



    why (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    is it cold?

    It rains all the time (none / 0) (#26)
    by rdandrea on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:16:20 PM EST

    Jen M (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    When we moved in around Sept the 1st it was 40 degrees F and light rain... Ten months later we were going to the airport around the 1st of July for a flight and the airport temp was 40 degrees with light rain.. they told us when we returned that we had missed both days of summer..

    They have what they call "green tomato summers." That means what you think it does. The tomatoes never get ripe. Puts a new meaning to pickle relish and fried green tomatoes. The vegetable du jour is always zucchini... raw, fried, soup, caserole...roasted... broiled.... baked...
    The first summer I planted 10 plants and the neighbors started hiding when they saw me coming..

    They do have great sea food, great wines, beautiful views and mostly very nice people....

    The ultimate insult is to be asked:

    "Did you move here from Caliornia?"


    sounds like (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:00:34 PM EST
    my kind of place

    Jen M (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    We moved from there to Denever...

    And Denver had this strange yellow orange ball in the sky..

    Both cities share my No. 1 favorite place in the world to live when you are young...


    he he (none / 0) (#31)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:34:19 PM EST

    the statute, and other things (none / 0) (#25)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    I had gone back to the area where I posted this originally, and at least at that time I checked, did not see a response.

    Anyway, yes, that is the statute for IE in Washington state.

    >I'm not sure how you reason that statute does >not make intentionally being naked in a public >place visible to others illegal. now, if you had >an infant with you in addition to the statute >you might have had a decent argument if you >hadn't also shed your shorts.

    because the federal courts and many of the state courts and DC courts all make a distinction between mere nudity and obscenity--and that such a distinction has been given application in state venues when it comes to IE charges.

    See Smith v California many years ago, and there are a half a dozen other similar cases around the country, but none yet in Washington.

    California has a number of clothing optional beaches, and the reason is that the California state law re IE bans lewd conduct, not mere nudity.  Some cities and county ban mere nudity on their parks and beaches, but on beaches and parks governed by Cal state law, IE is governed by the Cahill policy.  (Nudity is OK, unless and until someone complains, and then, the person who is nude is expected to clothe to stop the complaint, but no arrest if he/she does so.)


    Two prong test for Miranda (none / 0) (#53)
    by Patrick on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:38:51 PM EST
    is Custody AND Interrogation.  

    Custody, not necessarily formal arrest.  So it appear that prong was met, unless you agreed to "accompany" them down to the station, but the handcuffs will be tough hurdle for them to get around.


     interrogation - based on the nature of the questions you say were asked of you, I'd say that prong was met.  

    Yup it appears based on your scenario that Miranda was necessary BEFORE they said you were under arrest.  That's my $.02


    a small suit (none / 0) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    Well, if I wanted to irritate them a little and remind them of their constitutional obligations,

    could I go after them in federal court for damages and an apology?  

    It would be kind of nice to think that this misconduct was not going to be happening to other persons in the future.


    If it happened (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    in 2003 I'd think you'd be outside the time limits for filing a suit, but IANAL so you may want to consult one.  If it happens in the future, all you have to ask is, "Am I free to leave?"  If they say no, and continue to question you about anything other than your identification, or a few other relatively narrow lines of questioning that could be construed to relate to public safety, they have to mirandize you.  Failure to will result in suppression of any statement.  As for damages I don't know how much something like that would be worth.  I've never gone through it....  ;-)

    re Miranda and custodial interrogations (none / 0) (#29)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Well, if police can handcuff a guy, put him in a holding cell and question him repeatedly, before
    telling him he is under arrest or reading the Miranda warning, and call it a custodial interrogation or whatever, and if those statements are held admissible in other cases--not worried about mine--

    haven't we gutted Miranda v Arizona or whatever case that was?

    In 2004, I had another police encounter, this one in California, was cuffed and talking with police, who then after my conversation and their own private conversation, decide to let me go without arrest or charges or further investigation.

    If it happens in Seattle and in a rich suburb of San Diego--to me, it sure seems weird constitutional procedure.

    Frankly, I somewhat wonder if these police think they can cuff people without particularly good cause, look around for cause, interrogate, and if they find nothing, let them go.  Is that right?


    advice (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    Just reread and see that you have had two encounters..

    My advice to you would be to figure out why this is happening and change my actions.


    why zaitleff.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    and not the state?

    Maybe because: (none / 0) (#103)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    --  from a purely practical perspective, he does not have arrest powers and the state does?

    -- from a broader perspective, the "right" to be naked in public is a pretty "odd" issue to choose for civil disobedience and tends to trivialize the whole concept?


    Actually (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    I was thinking of the song...

    "I fought the law and the law won..."


    Are you getting in on defending . . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    someone from that big gang sweep in Denver yesterday?

    subpenas (none / 0) (#6)
    by killer on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    Could you (or your readers) comment on how congress can deal with DOJ refusing to honor congressional subpenas? IANAL, but if congress has no enforcement mechanism, it seems to me that all they can do is impeach AG and re-deliver the subpenas to the interim AG.  

    Ryan Dickson (none / 0) (#8)
    by HK on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    I wanted to mention the execution of Ryan Dickson yesterday in Texas.  Seems like Governor Rick Perry has gotten himself something to brag about; the total number of executions since he took up his post in 2001 have with Ryan's execution reached 153, which is one more than George W. Bush managed in the same role.

    Although I oppose all executions on moral and practical grounds, I feel particularly saddened about Ryan's.  He was barely an adult when his crime was committed.  It was 16 days after his 18th birthday.  His 14-year-old brother, who was with him at the time and is serving a 15 year sentence, testified against him.  I wonder what he is feeling now and whether having been brought to that stand and played a part in bringing his own sibling to his death he will be a positive member of society when he is released.  Those kids were let down by society; the people who should know better are us.

    I have put more of my thoughts and some links in a post over on the Mindful Mission website.

    Straight forward (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    It reads like satire (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    ...on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building.


    Strict gun control is a Leftist position, but so is opposition to the sort of draconian enforcement necssary to enforce it.  Which will hold out longest?

    (I'm aware that many people within the Left oppose very strict gun control, including JM, but it's handy to speak in generalities)


    Opposition to draconian enforcement.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    never stopped the "left", as represented by the democratic party at least, when it comes to drug prohibition...I don't think the "left" would lose any sleep over the tyranny a strict prohibition on guns would surely bring about.

    The "War" On Drugs (none / 0) (#16)
    by mack on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:39:39 PM EST
    U.S. cocaine prices drop, DEA data shows

    What a ridiculous waste of resources the "War On Drugs" has become.

    Truly stupid (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:06:08 PM EST

    Its nutty to measure success by elevated street prices.  Heck, every nerchant on the planet would like a successful effort like that aimed at their product.

    Why the disparity Abdul? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    I take it from your posts that you're a drug war fan...why is gun prohibition unacceptable and drug prohibition ok?

    Freedom is freedom ain't it?


    I'm not a fan (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:55:21 PM EST

    If success means making smuggling drugs more lucrative its nuts.

    RE: Truly stupid (none / 0) (#28)
    by mack on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:27:23 PM EST
    Are you trying to say that the government's measure of success and failure related to this program is truly stupid, or are you implying something else?

    IS this true?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    Under that heading, a bud sent this to me.. Is it true??

    The attached article from the latest "Stanford Report"(an alumni magazine) carries the following statements;

    "Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering(at Stanford's School of Engineering). "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol (e.g. 85% Ethanol - 15% gasoline ) poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

    "We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others formaldehyde and acetaldehyde," Jacobson said. "As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, ..... E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog and greenhouse gas."

    Maybe There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

    Where's Dadler??

    The whole article (maybe) (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    Here; Google News is awesome.

    roy (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:27:06 PM EST

    If it is true (none / 0) (#44)
    by killer on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    It looks like a bi-partisan gift to the corn industry.

    killer (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    However, ..... E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog and greenhouse gas."

    If that is correct, why should we be going to corn??

    Nuke reactors for enough electricity to charge the batteries.. That's what we need.


    re the Wash escort service (none / 0) (#51)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    So it turns out that one of the customers of the service of the Washington madam was a Bush administration official who was married at the time.  He had escorts who came and gave him massage, but "no sex."

    I have some questions about this.  Suppose the madam puts on the stand several clients such as this.  if they testify there was no sex, then that exonerates the madam.  If they testify there was sex and they paid for it, then, the jury could legitimately wonder why the madam is being prosecuted and not the men who are paying for the sex.  At least, if I were on the jury, I'd wonder about this.  

    And, the perception of selective prosecution is often a sufficient grounds for a jury to become uncooperative to the prosecution and refuse to convict.

    Who voted for this idiot? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:50:36 AM EST
    edger (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    You believe in Algore's version of GW and you think believeing in Satan makes someone an idoit??



    shorter ppj (none / 0) (#77)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    'believing in science is the same as believing in satan'

    Welcome to the Dark Ages of the rethuglican mind.


    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:01:52 PM EST
    GW is based on science???

    Oh, you mean consensus science.. like in..

    Everyone knows the earth is flat.


    yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    global warming is based on science. Just like DNA and astronomy and evolution.

    global warming is a fact, greatly accelerated by man, even bush concedes that.

    but to a salesman lies are the coin of the realm so it's not difficult to understand why you consistently deny facts and truth, no matter how many times you are proved wrong.

    p.s. Scientists never claimed the earth was flat. Only religious nutjobs and ignorant peons did that.

    The earth was calculated to be round and a very close measurement was made in 3rd century BC.


    sailor (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    but to a salesman lies are the coin of the realm

    Well, Algore is selling GW...


    I believe he was refering (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    to the ingenous theory that Satan is behind the immigration problem, oh disengenuous one.

    My only question is, why hasnt your fav preznit created a cabinet post for an Exorcism Czar; it'd be a likely real crowd pleaser for a good number of your fellow base members.

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    Hmmm, well, since my fav Presidents remain Jackson and HST two of he more notable Demos when being a Demo meant you don't surrender....I don't know...

    Could it be because he isn't Catholic and doesn't believe in Exorcism....??

    But we might get him to change his mind..

    What ya think?? Can't you just see green slime pouring out of Reid's mouth as the demons leave....

    You hold him and sailor can pour on the holy water..



    HST (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:29:37 AM EST
    Now if HST had been president, this country would be right on track.

    How much for a wack of that stuff, ppj? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    How much for a wack of that stuff, ppj? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    I met someone the other day (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:34:57 PM EST
    at a coffee shop who had one of these things.

    ...a low-cost laptop--the "$100 Laptop"--a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world's children [in developing nations].

    It runs a subset of Unix X Windows, has a body of nearly indestructible high impact plastic, a wireless network card, runs on batteries charged by a hand crank so it needs no outside power source, is a project of the One Laptop per Child association, and will be on the market in North America any day now, as well as other parts of the world.

    There is an image gallery here.

    Very cool.

    they couldn't (none / 0) (#89)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    "take over the U.S." but someday they might be able to destroy it. Tday,  are much stronger than Iraq and we seem incapable of truly "aking it over," but we have enough power to destroy it.

      It is hardly beyond imagination to envision a day when the BOP is much different and our enemies have the ability to create war here and destroy us.

      One of the dangers of some of the extremist views on the Left, is that despite the often very valid concerns about our projection of our power, we fail to acknowledge that there is a danger of becoming so weak we are on the receiving end someday and that the people who would be giving it to us are not nice people.

      I'd prefer a perfect world, but in this one, it's wothy at least considering the possibility that there are worse things than a USA which dominates.

    Ergo (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    The grounds for a Doctrine of Preemptive wars fueled by bedwetter fantasies.

    Self reinforcing bedwetter fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    creating a danger of the US becoming so weak the country could end up on the receiving end while at the same time doing everything possible to give someone reasons to take advantage of that.

    They wonder why people call them wingnuts, while all they have left is their incompetency defense.

    Weak Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    All it will take is a little pooch like toto to make the whole house of cards come crashing down.

    Especially if he keeps tugging at pantlegs (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    trying to divert and slow down people suggesting ways to fix the problem.

    I'm not sure whom (none / 0) (#96)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:49:17 PM EST
     my "client" is imagined to be, but simply calling something an "outworn" paradigm  is not rational debate it's avoiding it with "sez me" assertion.

     The idea that we can erase a threat by  calling it "fake" is dangerous and irresponsible. One can certainly make many very good arguments that our responses to the threat has been counter-productive in many many ways, but denying even the possibility that radical Islam is a present threat and if left unchecked could become a threat capable of destroying our system is so shortsighted as to be insane.

      All past regionally or globally  dominant powers have ceased be dominant except for us and there is no reason to think our time won't come. Often the causes were internal. Sometimes they were both internal and external and others external --losing conflicts.

      If you want to argue that we run a risk of destroying ourselves in our reactive measures to prevent being destroyed by others, I will wholly agree with you, but if you dismiss the potential for bering destroyed by others then I do no think you are in touch with life on this planet.

      The best solutiion, is, as almost always, somewhere in the middle -- in the vast area between creating a national security state and resolving all problems with force and suppression and pretending the only danger in the world is that we create and that if we just do nothing those that seek to destroy us will just change their own minds of their own accord.  


    What? (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    If you want to argue that we run a risk of destroying ourselves in our reactive measures to prevent being destroyed by others,

    It is pretty convoluted to argue that preemptive is reactive because we feel that there is a threat.

    Looking glass land. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    Non thinking, except to propagandize.

    Our time will come (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    but why forshorten it by making the legacy of our version of enlightened, democratic principals the endless world-wide trillion dollar pursuit of monstors and "protection of intersts" that, on top of the questionable contributions to stability overseas, has divided the country deeply?

    The continuation of that course will "destroy" the U.S more quickly than the inevitable attacks that the fanatics are supposed to be cowed into never considering.

    And yeah, I "sez" your Hobbesian paradigm has had it's day.

    Well, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:07:10 PM EST
     if you can convince the other %99.9999999 of the people on the planet to go along with you, we can build a campfire and sing around the circle.

      That you don't like the fact most  human beings remain brutish and choose not to be brutish yourself doesn't make the non-converts any less dangerous-- and, yes, that includes us.

     As for your first point, I said I would agree with you if you limited yourself that WHAT WE ARE DOING is wrong. just about the only thing that would be more wrong would be your prescription of pretending the threats do not exist.


    They exist alright. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    It's even well known where they originate these days.

    Here's a satellite photo.

    Decon (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    Show me where I "prescribe pretending threats dont exist": I dont remember thinking or writing that.

    Should I caricature your position and respond that no-Im-not-shopping-for-prayer-rugs?