I find it pretty offensive that you equate so off handedly "an act of violence" with "an act of dominance and submission.." and totally hilarious that you go from that narrow-minded perspective to accuse Bayard of a lack of "progressive-mindedness."

Power dynamics are present in every sexual relationship, whether or not you choose to see it. And I don't know if you've ever had a man's cock in your ass, but it is a rather submissive position to be in. The fact that you see it as "violent" speaks volumes about your own mindset.

I will now display my gaping ignorance of the American system of government: what is the next step for those who want to maintain a gulag for the designated enemies of the State? I am fairly sure there is no "appeal" of a Supreme Court ruling... is there?

Do all the Guantanamo prisoners go on trial? Is there any way to know who is there and whether or not they'll just get shipped off to Bagram or some similar black hole? Can Bush issue some sort of "signing statement"-like fiat and just ignore this as he has ignored every other constraint on his Decideriness?

Should I have paid better attention in Social Studies?

So, forgetting about more than 2,700 other victims, Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act is a pretty big deal.

Right. According to you, the best way to respond to a horrible attack on civilians is by jettisoning one of the cornerstone values of Western democracy.

My Uncle Joe didn't lose his mind on the Bataan Death March so chickenshits like you could throw away what he fought for.

Go hide in a corner somewhere. And do it quietly.

...what ever happened to

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

How weird that the people who drape themselves in the flag are the ones falling all over themselves to crap on our precious freedoms...

It's people like this that can lose Obama the election....

Do you have any values? Any values at all?

It's unseemly, if unsurprising, to see an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court waving the bloody shirt of 9/11, Khobar Towers etc. in an opinion from the bench.

Can there possibly be a more disrespectful way to treat the memories of the 9/11 victims than to trot them out every time the authoritarian right needs a justification for their perversion du jour?

how did we end up leasing this space

a 99-year lease, IIRC...

(google google google)

The lease was established in a 1903 agreement between the two governments, and its terms were modified in a 1934 treaty. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area, and argues that the Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

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

You're welcome.

why are you such an asshole?

Jaime, you add a lot to the discussions here, so I hope you take my response in that spirit. As a fellow habitue of this online space, I'm getting pretty sick of your continual need to tell everybody else what to post and what not to, how to word their comments, and generally being etiquette police for the comments thread.

It's tiresome. And, to throw your own words back in your face, I'm not the first person to notice this.

Good day to you, sir.

do we have an American right that is as radical as those Islamists who have a radical interpretation and application of sharia?

yes.

If I am to believe Senator Obama’s commitment to a Truth Commission-like investigation of the actions and activities of the Bush Administration...

Has Senator Obama publicly made such a commitment? I have never heard any report to that effect.

If true, this would have a profound effect on my judgment of the man. Please provide any information you have.

I'll certainly give credit where credit is due... that's a fairly "extreme" position in contemporary US politics. He's got about a dozen different ways in that statement to weasel out, though. I'm one of those who has pretty much given up on any hope of the political system policing itself, but I see no point in tearing down anyone who does.

The "Truth Commission" caught my eye, though, because I do feel that's pretty much exactly what we need if we're to have any hope of carrying on as a cohesive society. Maybe Chris C was just being imprecise in his description, which is no big deal. I do want to point out, however, that a South Africa-style Truth Commission -- an impartial outside panel, with a broad investigative mandate and the power to grant amnesty to truth-tellers -- is very different than what Obama is talking about here.

Please tell us the method of getting contact information for our Congressional officials

I'm hungry. Please give me the number of a good Italian restaurant in San Diego.

it is only because deep down, they don't trust the American people to stand behind them

Sorry, but that resembles nothing quite so much as the battered wife excusing her abuser's behavior. "I made him do it, it's my fault."

Codependence doesn't equal complicity, yo.

what would you suggest?

I always thought, rather, it was incumbent on the kibitzer to be specific. If one "can't answer (and shouldn't)," then what's the point? UR DOIN IT RONG? Revolution by LOLcat?

Have you people nothing to offer but hate, derision, and denigration?

That's pretty much the pot calling itself black...

Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Seattle... that's four!

Four cities!

Shut up, everybody! No free speech for you!!

I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed...

I might as well vote for McCain, if for no other reason than to try to teach the Democrats a lesson.

...because the last seven years have been so educational for them.