Dowd didn't even "crib" from Jeff Greenwald. And even though she first wrote about the Obama/Spock connection in February, Greenwald didn't crib from her either, because he cites Dowd and others. What both of them are doing is elaborating on the original idea of Obama=Spock. As stupid as that is.

So happy to not have had a mouthful of coffee when I read that.

Even the photoshop wouldn't lead me to think that Dowd cribbed from Jeff Greenwald. What's more natural than putting pointy ears on Obama when equating him with Spock? That's been done by several photoshoppers, at least as long ago as during the campaign: http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/be-logical-captain

What a bizarre conversation, when I'm supposed to be working.

This just doesn't seem right in Glenn's threads, unless it's Glenn who has control over what is deleted.

At the start of Wednesday's [House Judiciary Committee] hearing, Mueller was asked what concerns the FBI has about the release of Guantanamo detainees.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."...

He said there were also potential risks to putting detainees in maximum security prisons.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the World Trade Center site, then prodded Mueller to agree that such individuals could be safely kept in maximum security prisons in the U.S.

Mueller balked at Nadler's suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders have run their gangs from inside prisons.

"It depends on the circumstances," Mueller said....

So, our judicial system isn't good enough to deal with detainees and neither is our gang-laden prison system. We're just a nation of incompetents, aren't we?

Republicans urged Mueller to take the FBI's concerns to the White House.

"No good purpose is served by allowing known terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come to the U.S. and live among us," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee. "Guantanamo Bay was never meant to be an Ellis Island."

And our "leaders" are bald-faced liars. How could anyone be stupid enough to believe this?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY70uFHRVUGMADZgzik7MTK_VPaAD98A22KG0

Thanks for that! I love Simon Schama and I just ordered the book.

There's more about that decision here, including a link to the judge's opinion.

The US Supreme Court [official website] acknowledged in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [opinion, PDF] that the district courts would have to address and define the scope of the government's detention authority "as subsequent cases are presented to them." Other federal judges in the District of Columbia have upheld the "substantially supported" standard proposed by the Obama administration. {which this judge rejected}

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/federal-judge-rejects-new-government.php

Obama seemed to be talking about this a few minutes ago, though he didn't use the term. I read the NYTimes article last night and was appalled - people who can't be tried because of tainted evidence or other reasons - never being determined guilty in a court of law and who can be held...forever?

Here's an article I found about preventive detention from Human Rights Watch:

Dangers of a preventive detention law

The Supreme Court has rightly been wary of government attempts to make an end-run around the constitutional protections of the criminal justice system - the right to the assistance of counsel, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and, most important, the requirement that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated a specific criminal law that was in effect at the time of his or her actions. As the Court said more than 20 years ago, "in our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception."

In the case of sexually violent predators, the courts have carved out a narrow exception to this rule, and allowed detention of people who are both dangerous and suffer from a "mental illness or mental abnormality" that makes them unable to control their behavior. This second element is essential....

Supporting Al Qaeda or the Taliban may make a person dangerous, but it is not a recognized mental illness. And no one contends that Al-Qaeda members are unable to control their behavior, or are most appropriately dealt with through psychiatric treatment. So proposals for a new preventive detention law for terrorist suspects simply cannot be justified by reference to the sexually violent predator system.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/03/dangers-preventive-detention-law

Thank you!