http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Congress on Wednesday that he envisioned keeping five combat brigades in Iraq as a “long-term presence.”

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Mr. Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “When I speak of a long-term presence, I’m thinking of a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces.”

H.L. Mencken : A sound American is simply one who has put out of his mind all doubts and questionings, and who accepts instantly, and as incontrovertible gospel, the whole body of official doctrine of his day, whatever it may be and no matter how often it may change.

I think Shooter242 is a Sound American.

Tom Engelhardt on the American mega-bases in Iraq:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt341.html

Think of this as the greatest American story of these years never told – or more accurately, since there have been a few reports on a couple of these mega-bases – never shown. After all, what an epic of construction this has been, as the Pentagon built a series of fortified American towns, each some 15 to 20 miles around, with many of the amenities of home, including big name fast-food franchises, PXes, and the like, in a hostile land in the midst of war and occupation. In terms of troops, the President may only have put his "surge" strategy into play in January 2007, but his Pentagon has been "surging" on base construction since April 2003.

....And that, of course, is what makes their missing-in-action quality on the American landscape so striking. Yes, a couple of good American reporters have written pieces about one or two of them, but most Americans, as we know, get their news from television and – though no one can watch all the news that flows, 24/7, into American living rooms, it's a reasonable bet that a staggering percentage of Americans have never had the opportunity to see the remarkable structures their tax dollars have paid for, and continue to pay for, in occupied Iraq.

This is the sort of thing you might expect of Bush-style offshore prisons, or gulags, or concentration camps. And yet Americans have regularly and repeatedly seen what Guantanamo looks like. They have seen something of what Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq looks like. But not the bases. Perhaps one explanation lies in this: On rare occasions when Americans are asked by pollsters whether they want "permanent bases" in Iraq, significant majorities answer in the negative. You can only assume that, as on many other subjects, the Bush administration preferred to fly under the radar screen on this one – and the media generally concurred.

Emphasis added. I'm hoping GG will comment.

If the above you have just said is true, then how can we leave them without a fully functioning government? It would ensue anarchy, would it not? So you are making the argument we should stay then?

"You don't have a fully functioning government, and so we can't leave" was one of the typical excuses the colonial powers gave to their colonies.

The point about them being captured in their homes, not being captured shooting weapons on a battlefield, is that the risk of error or worse is higher, thus heightening the need to have the Government prove the accusations are true before locking them away for life.

Actually, isn't it true that all the government has to do show it has reasonable grounds to hold the prisoner, and not prove the accusations to be true? E.g., obviously every habeas corpus hearing for people accused of murder does not turn into a murder trial.

Since the government has to explain why it is holding the prisoner (the prisoner aided so-and-so who was a suicide bomber) it gives the prisoner's counsel a chance to prove, e.g., that so-and-so is no suicide bomber and is alive and well.

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz

---

Moreover habeas corpus is no guarantee of no mistakes

From Wikipedia:

"A writ of habeas corpus, Murat Karnaz v. George W. Bush, was submitted on Murat Karnaz's behalf.[12] In response, on 15 October 2004, the Department of Defense published 32 pages of unclassified documents related to his Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

On 30 September 2004 Tribunal panel 5 confirmed his "enemy combatant" status.[12]"

----

"It is still astonishing that no one has pointed this out in terms of Sadam and the missing WMD. How could he prove that he does not have WMD anyway?"

The procedure was for Saddam to allow surprise visits by UN teams at any location of their choice in the country. It would never constitute proof, but it would allow desired degree of confidence, depending on how much effort the inspectors were willing to expend.

Sheesh! All I mentioned was the process (kind of like GG's article) and not the outcome; the process of how one would prove a negative about WMD.

---

Someone wanted Yoo's ratings: here they are -

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=581083

Many are quick to decry the invasion of Iraq, but seem to be ignoring one of the most salient facts establishing precisely why it was a crime. Believing the deck to have been stacked against Hussein does not go far enough, because despite being rigged, Hussein actually succeeded in complying with both the UN resolution and Bush's ultimatum (well, not the revised ultimatum, issued on the eve of war, to leave the country).

Maybe you can see the significance of this oft-overlooked fact?

Yes.

Since it bears repeating, I quoted the whole thing for the one word answer.

Thanks, GG for helping lead this fight.

As of posting, the amount raised is $91,427

Any way of getting Senator Clinton and her band of diehard supporters onto our anti-amnesty bus?