Letters to the Editor
-
Please do comment on Joe Klein
one of his main beefs---in the midst of some strange equivalence between lefty blogs and the rightwing noise machine---is that you didn't pick up the phone to talk to him. If you don't have time to do it tomorrow, I'd be interested in hearing it later in the week. Thanks.
-
The delights of air travel
Glad to hear you made it in one piece, Glen. Please keep up the good fight. The days are always a little better illuminated when you post.
-
I wonder if it's too late
...for a concerted Draft Wes Clark '08 movement. Somebody on board here can undoubtedly elucidate why he'd be another horror-show, but back in ('04, was it?) virtually everything he said made sense to me.
-
On the Al Marri Decision
I read the first part. I found it very disturbing that a magistrate actually placed the burden of proof of innocence on Al Marri. How far have we fallen?
-
If I have a choice...
I'd rather hear more about items 1 and 3 rather than more Joe Klein. But then again, I haven't listened to the podcast yet (no audio at work) so maybe I'll change my mind.
But addressing the utter irresposibility of Lieberman's remarks remains high on my list as well as the status of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. (I couldn't help but notice that both the NYT and WaPo headlines concerning the ruling referred to him as an 'enemy combattant' though they both used scare-quotes as they did so)
-
Clark for president? No chance.
He blinks too much, remember?
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2004/02/02/blink/index_np.html
-
Glenn, if you use that word again, my head will explode -- literally
Glenn Greenwald, you are my favorite blogger. I eagerly anticipate your every column. I admire your lawyerly expositions and marvel at the thoroughness of your arguments. I laugh out loud at your pointed zingers and cheer when you aim your Mighty Gun of Sarcasm.
But I cringe at your overuse of the word, "literally." I understand the temptation, since it's next to impossible to accurately describe the parallel universe our political world has become, but my darling man, that word must go!
-
don't feed der kleintroll
You only encourage Joe. He writes things to purposefully tweak you and others, thus generating web heat.
Resist the temptation to feed the pundicrats. Or if you must, don't leave a trail of breadcrumbs back to their sad little sites. It's what they want; relevance.
It will be tough to critique them without linking to their evility, but hey -- you're the genius. You figure it out.
-
Joe Klein, attention whore
Frankly, I think it only gratifies Joe Klein to be the recipient of any sort of attention, from the blogosphere or elsewhere. It's been 'all about him' since he was revealed as the writer of "Primary Colors".
He's the Paris Hilton of Beltway media. Applaud him, decry him, it doesn't matter -- as long as you're talking about him.
-
In fact.....
Rather than compiling more evidence about JK's wankerhood, why don't you look a little harder into why Time magazine seems so willing to carry water for Scooter Libby in the first place. I seem to recall that they were somewhat in the middle of the leakfest as it was going down but I don't recall the details.
-
Sixteen hours on an airplane!
I hope you don't smoke.
For people who do smoke, I wish the airlines would have samples of nicotine gum or patches to hand out, especially in situations like your flight. They've banned smoking on all domestic flights (or at least 'lower 48' flights) on the reasoning that those flights are no longer than five hours (by the schedule) and you ought to be able to go that long without a smoke. But with enough weather or mechanical problems, a flight can double in duration. What's more, if a passenger who smokes is also frightened by flying, the extra worries created by whatever causes the delays can turn a dignified person into a blubbering puddle of protoplasm, desperate for a cigarette.
What a great time to be able to offer an alternate way to get a nicotine fix. "You can't smoke, sir, but here's a nicotine patch that you can try." Companies that make the patches should be offering the airlines free samples. Talk about a captive market.
No, I don't smoke. A few of my patients do.
-
Clark did a good job, but there is more work to do.
Clark's comments effectively pointed out just how reckless Lieberman has become. That is only one side of the battle, however. In addition to countering the sabre rattling, the battle to sort through the disinformation that will be dished out on Iran in the coming months will be tough. If even ABC News has found that a propaganda campaign is coming (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html) then you can bet it will be strong and ugly. Since Iran already is known to supply weapons and expertise in Palestine and Lebanon, sorting out information from disinformation will take some effort. Perhaps Glenn or one of the usual posters here can take on the challenge of building a database of accusations as they come out, along with some investigation into both the attributions in the original publication as well as any potential evidence to support or refute the claim. Each of us then will need to do all we can to distribute careful, supported analysis in letters to our local newspapers, friends and elected officials. The future of our republic is at stake.
-
regarding Al-Marri
Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy had this to say yesterday about the Al-Marri decision:
"My prediction: I tend to doubt this decision will stand. My very tentative guess is that either the en banc Fourth Circuit or the Supreme Court will reverse, holding that the AUMF is broad enough to authorize an Al-Qaeda suspect like Al-Marri and therefore the detention is authorized by statute."
In a later post he had this to say:
"That's why I think Al-Marri would be a repeat of Hamdi if it got to the Supreme Court. I imagine the Court holding that the AUMF is sufficient to detain non-citizen Al Qaeda members who entered the U.S. to execute attacks, and then moving on to what kind of Due Process hearing Al-Marri is entitled to receive to test whether he is in fact such a person. The Court would then remand for further proceedings based on whatever the Due Process standard turns out to be."
"Anyway, that's my initial take; obviously it's open to revision if there's something I'm missing, which is always a possibility. Finally, I should add that there is a possible way out of the Fourth Amendment holding described above: A court could hold that members of an Al Qaeda cell who enter the U.S. to commit attacks have no Fourth Amendment rights under United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez because they lack sufficient legitimate connections with the U.S. If so, then the cell members would not be able to invoke the Fourth Amendment to challenge the illegal hotel search, and the evidence could be admitted against them."
I would suggest that anyone with interest in this matter spend a few minutes looking over these posts at Volokh Conspiracy, and Jack Balkins blog, they offer great insight to this complex problem.