What can you expect from people who can argue that the word and "has a disjunctive rather than a conjuctive" meaning, [and therefore that the UN resolution 1441 didn't mean what it said it meant] as Yoo did in his opinion to Addington:

December 7, 2002-Memo from OLC [Yoo] to Addington, [Counsel for Cheney] “You have asked whether the Government of Iraq will have committed a “further material breach” […] in SCR 1441 if it makes false statements or omissions in the declaration […] of WMD programs. Paragraph 4 finds that false statements or omissions in Iraq's paragraph 3 declaration and failure by Iraq to comply and cooperate with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a further material breach. We conclude that false statements or omissions by themselves represent a material breach of the Security Council resolution […because the word "and" in paragraph 4 has a disjunctive, rather than a conjunctive, meaning.]

http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/documents/upload/010509OLCDoc-FurtherMaterialBreach.pdf

I am constantly reminded of the words of H. Dumpty:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’

On June 12, 2008 the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush struck down a provision in the Military Commissions Act, ruling that the denial of the right to petition for habeas corpus is unconstitutional.

Some of the majority opinion:

Officials charged with daily operational responsibility for our security may consider a judicial discourse on the history of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and like matters to be far removed from the Nation's present, urgent concerns. Established legal doctrine, however, must be consulted for its teaching. Remote in time it may be; irrelevant to the present it is not. Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives. […]

We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

The determination by the Court of Appeals that the Suspension Clause and its protections are inapplicable to petitioners was in error. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

The link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=06-1195

Just reading your short explanation helped me understand things a lot better. Thanks, I needed that.

Wouldn’t judicial review have to include habeas corpus? [Please bear with me—total neophyte with this stuff.] They said [above]

“Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.”

Also, can the word “and” be used with a “disjucntive meaning”? And, if so, what does that mean? Ms. Hughes never talked about that in 7th grade when we were diagramming sentences.

It’s late here, so I may not be able to respond until tomorrow.

Thanks for the article karr(sic). What RMP said. Derbig, it sounds like something you would write. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

bebop-o: contact Jebbie. [Thanks Jebbie :-)]

G’night, all

November 14, 2001-“Every day [Hussein’s nuclear sites] turn out a little bit of nuclear materials. Do we wait for Saddam and hope for the best, do we wait and hope he doesn’t do what we know he is capable of . . . or do we take some preemptive action?”-Perle He cited testimony from Dr. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi defector.

The Stovepipe, by Seymour M. Hersh, October 2003

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/03 [...]

According to the NYT article ondelette linked to earlier

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html?pagewanted=print

on Thursday Gazan authorities reported 758 people dead, including 257 children and 56 women. Israel says it has killed at least 130 Hamas fighters. That’s some precision! Nearly twice as many children as Hamas fighters.

Israel has agreed to allow a three hour “lull” or “humanitarian pause” every other day…so that Gazans can seek medical help and buy supplies.

How ludicrous is that? I just can’t think of anything to say.

According to the NYT article ondelette linked to earlier

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html?pagewanted=print

on Thursday Gazan authorities reported 758 people dead, including 257 children and 56 women. Israel says it has killed at least 130 Hamas fighters. That’s some precision! Nearly twice as many children as Hamas fighters.

Israel has agreed to allow a three hour “lull” or “humanitarian pause” every other day…so that Gazans can seek medical help and buy supplies.

How ludicrous is that? I just can’t think of anything to say.