HRC apparently changed her cloture vote to a NAY.

Anybody know if she voted NAY on the Bill, also?

Statements from her camp on this? Thoughts?

W.E.S. was *cough*, right?

HRC initially voted AYE on cloture, then changed her vote to NAY after she knew cloture was inevitable. Predictably Clintonian. She'll stage a successful insurrection in Denver, using these votes as leverage.

A pre-election "Terror" attack will take out McCain. The New True Repugnant candidate will arise. HRC will have proven herself "Soft on Terror" and Bingo!

It Can Happen Here.

Glenn, meganfta pretty well summed it up

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/permalink/ad5ae69a6044a020225582518cea660a.html

Me? I got nuthin'...

Did you catch this?

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/05/monarchy/permalink/c7f37281a6b138254c75c3e50bbb357b.html

or click sig

It's making me sick listening to you delineate the roster of SLOTEO's "abandonment of core principles".

I suggest everyone listen in, here

http://www.onpointradio.org/

n/t

Do you never tire of repeatedly demonstrating the you are an inveterate idiot by parroting inane talking points easily refuted by anyone w/ two functioning brain cells!?

Garner a little self-respect and STFU already.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_vetting_Dodd_in_VP_search_0711.html

Dodd as SLOTEO's VP?

click sig for linky

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/elk.html

or click sig

All interaction w/ it is counterproductive...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071003087.html

and

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-reefs11-2008jul11,0,4414034.story?track=rss

I think they are. (But not to the post, sorry)

I went to the aquavit website. It's rife w/ images of angelic women in diaphanous gowns. And when I click on 'em...

...nuthin' happens.

Ar the risk of outing myself as heathen - what do you guys use for the tomato base?

I actually tasted a *cough* mix the other night that was more than passably decent.

Zing Zang it was called.

...you would still RULE! Holy cow!

Amen.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-fisa-statute-in-pictures.html

Jack Balkin appreciates your efforts...

I'll tell you why the "Rule of Law" doesn't resonate w/ me. The War on Some Drugs has rendered non-existent my respect for the law, the legislative process, and law enforcement.

We have a system that is geared in its entirety toward institutionalizing the Rule of our Corporate overlords.

Individual Rights/Civil Liberties are simply not a consideration for the rulers.

What we need is a retreat to the core Constitutional principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

"Rule of Law" doesn't cut it.

Didn't you know that?

Fucking totalitarian retard. Go kill yourself.

As you've clearly articulated, apparently YOUR "Rules of War" include the commission of War Crimes.

Burn in Hell.

You and your piss-your-pants brethren can't adopt the tactics of those you decry quickly enough!

Like I said, you're a waste of Oxygen. Do us all a favor and go kill yourself.

So I obviously do not "generally" think about "the Law" in the abstract the way [at least some] lawyers do.

Thank you Glenn, and DCL1, for your comments. Taken under advisement. Yer right.

And Glenn, apologies if my vituperation has been unseemly. I just can't stomach the apologists, today. Lots of pent up frustration over the past few weeks. Sorry.

(via a commenter @ C&L)...

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

or click sig for linky

U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law

White House "Stops at Nothing" in Campaign Against War Crimes Court

(New York, August 3, 2002) A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court, Human Rights Watch warned today.

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.

"The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen the rule of law," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration is trying to punish them for that."

Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC's biggest supporters are fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises, such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.

The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.

Maybe somebody can tell me how the bolded part might work...