Joan,

Everyone expressing outrage in the AP article is a lawyer representing Bagram detainees. It's their job to express outrage when rulings go against them. But it's astounding that educated citizens of the United States would expect that constitutional rights extend beyond US borders.

Bagram AFB may or may not be a US base; even if it's called a US base, that doesn't make it sovereign US territory. Even if it does, my earlier point was that US personnel at Bagram (or any US military installation) are not extended constitutional rights so why would anyone expect that non-military personnel would?

I did NOT suggest that military or civilian personnel have NO rights. But the article (yours and the AP's) was about a ruling on constitutional rights of prisoners at Bagram. Awful stories about how individuals were abused or killed because of violations of their international rights has nothing to do with supposed US constitutional rights being extended to them.

For the uninitiated, US military personnel give up at least their freedoms of speech and from unreasonable search and seizure. If you wish to argue this on technical grounds, please explain to me what other US citizen could be arrested and tried if they publicly express disagreement with DOD or Administrative leadership because they fully identify who they are? (For those who think that prohibition was imposed by the Bush administration, please be assured we were aware of it during my Vietnam Era service.)

As far as unreasonable search and seizure, go to any military base and read the large billboard erected at every entry gate. Then explain to me how being stopped and searched at any time for any reason does not subject you to unreasonable search and seizure. Sure, there are good reasons for that suspension of the 4th Amendment but keep in mind that our military personnel live much of their lives under that suspension.

And what other job in the US includes forfeiting your freedom of movement for 4 to 6 years at a stretch?

My first point in this exchange was that it sounds simplistic to expect that prisoners in a foreign place would be extended constitutional rights that their guards do not have. Apparently, the Administration agrees. That lawyers of the prisoners do not agree seems to me the natural order of things. However, the fact that left-leaning, progressive folks here have their britches in a twist over a narrow point of law in a long-standing, unresolved case less than 1 month after the start of an Administration facing herculean tasks untangling too many Bush messes to count sounds and appears to me as no less outrageous and hysterical than the garbage I've come to expect from Limbaugh or Coulter.

As someone who's time and legal knowledge fall short of what's needed to entirely follow this issue, my understanding is: Bush claimed broad and unfettered authority which his administration abused militarily, domestically and internationally. The Obama administration is now vigorously defending the most vulnerable barricade to judicial review of one of many Bush legal legacies. That has resulted in a lot of fire and smoke arising from the methods being employed in that defense.

Over the short term, I'm personally less interested in the outrage behind the methods and more interested in the motivations. Putting aside the simplistic cheap shots (Obama loves his new imperial powers, Obama is a stodge of the military-industrial complex, ...), what are the best-guess reasons for so vigorous a defense? What could be behind door #2 that, in the views of Obama, Bush, Holder, Mukasey, Cheney ..., can not be allowed to see the light of day? Alternately, what would motivate the new administration's choice other than an actual national security threat?

Yet you chased after the Iraq War? Where's the smarts or wisdom in that? Before the war, the case made for WMD was strongly disputed. Within months of the start of the war, it was obvious that those who disputed the WMD case had gotten it right and the government had it stunningly wrong. Oops. How many 1000s of coalition troops and 100000s of Iraqis have died since? But you're proud to have participated? Wow.

Here's the thing... you aren't going to know for another 10 or 20 or 50 years whether the consequences of the last 6 years will yield anything lasting worth even your pride. The history of the region would argue strongly against that.

This is news to someone?

California doesn't lead the way on this. Foie gras "farming" is scheduled to be banned in California in, I think, 2011. That will be the result of a hysterical campaign against one local producer, a campaign that included fire-bombing a local restaurant that planned to serve foie gras.

To the idiot who thinks Alex is a duck, you're an idiot.

She's not the one who trashed the Limbaugh name.

you're giving the finger to the credit-card companies; that you're facing a financial crash-and-burn and anticipating some from of bankruptcy relief down the road. I'm not current on how today's bankruptcies work (though I do believe the credit-card have been anticipating and preparing for this day) but, if you've done your homework, know what you're getting yourself into and haven't much to lose, then I entirely understand the whole "fuck it, I deserve this..." attitude. Yeah, there's probably some entitlement attitudes in play but so what? You sticking the credit card company with a fat vacation bill does NOT raise my credit card costs (unless I allow it to), so no harm there. And I'd be hard pressed to feel negatively toward someone gaming investment banks such that those banks end up receiving horseshit similar to what they've been shoveling at their customers for years and are now aiming to include the taxpayers. Enjoy the damn margaritas; make them top flight.

You can't EVER travel much of anywhere without facing the fact that life is harder for others than it is for you. Stop your whining.