Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I am beginning to think, sir, that you are a complete fool.
Am I right or am I right? tweet! whistle!
honk!
I am beginning to think, sir, that you are a complete fool.
You are right, sir. Although my mother referred to me as "ninny". And that was on the best of days.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022123.php
November 21, 2008 Posted by Paul [Mirengoff] at 3:04 PM
[...] CNN also reports that retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones has emerged as President-elect's leading choice to become the national security adviser. I [agree] with Jim Geraghty's view that this would be a good sign.
JOHN [Hinderaker] adds: More good news: Obama reportedly will name Tim Geithner of the New York Federal Reserve as Treasury Secretary. If that report is right, it's an excellent appointment. [...]
- - Power Line Blog
Intelligent design may be absurd as a concept, but its political reality has a good chance of having your kids learning that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to work.
Likewise, race. I don't think an adult person exists who doesn't realize--by virtue of the impossible to quantify purity of their own race--that race is an illusion. However, racial classification has worked as a convenient political tool for centuries. It has worked so well, that there is no more rigid and defined societal marker than race, despite the fact that it is a completely baseless concept.
And those seeking to extricate themselves from its more nefarious effects, would do better acknowledging its political reality, rather than pleading for the world to don color-blind sunglasses.
Timothy, my dear comrade, please take a cue from an old hand. I, too, usually have nothing of substance to say. But I try to limit my sweet nothings to a couple posts a week, max.
Timothy, my dear comrade, please take a cue from an old hand. I, too, usually have nothing of substance to say. But I try to limit my sweet nothings to a couple posts a week, max.
It's a real struggle. I try, really, to limit my nonsense but usually fail. Nevertheless, your advice is worthy. I'll do my utmost to follow it.
And in sex ed, they'll learn that Adam and Steve were just roommates.
"Sir, I am an excellent correspondent, and if I failed to answer some question or other, it was the merest oversight. Resend to new email address:......""I trust this will end all suggested stains on my character or reasons for eschewing those painful fishnet hose."
I understand that to mean you have forgotten the question. Age and Mad Cow will do that to the best of us.
We shall see how excellent you are. Check your mail.
I'll be leaving in about 15 hours and a lot of that time will be spent sleeping and doing calisthenics so that I don't injure myself either looking up Pedinska's skirt or doing the Hully Gully while partly sober.
~
I was goggling Salon Personals: irish_honey. (trivia) Timothy3 may love the Song of Solomon bible reads? sip wasabi and goat milk?
Wee? there is nothing wrong with that.
then a accidental pop-up did happen.
why a http://Shine Yahoo!? I wonders?
I did not googled it, nor no did gargles.
I read `Sex in the Dentist Chair. Yahoo!
-by Adrea Frazer,`Good Housekeeping.
Nov 14, 2008-Shine Yahoo! Strange day.
http//shine.yahoo.com/chanel/sex-in-the-dentist-char-320013/;_ylt=AmYlui (whoopee)
Read it. You have interesting ideas as to what constitutes a war zone, a battlefield, and an armed conflict. Because of those, your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is flawed, it mimics that of the Bush administration in large part, except that they also argued the opposite of everything, not wanting, I guess, to leave any opinion unadopted.
The ICRC asserts that Geneva protections apply to all prisoners taken by our military, at least to Article 3 and to disclosure and hearings for the prisoners, the Supreme Court asserts the same, the courts of other countries assert the same. It would appear that only you, and possibly the Bush administration, believe otherwise.
What constitutes a war zone is something that can be declared by a high contracting party, or by the ICRC, but it is a physical zone, not something like "the whole world since we can be attacked anywhere". What constitutes a battlefield is a specific area within that war zone. It is extremely interesting that you assert a "new kind of war" in defining a battlefield to use the Geneva Conventions, then assert that "there are no new kinds of war" to dismiss one of the parties of the conflict as ineligible. With regards to the current conflicts we are involved in, Congress shares some of the blame for the lack of clarity, because of an extremely sloppy authorization of use of military force. Exactly who was responsible for its wording, I don't know, but Congress is responsible for passing it.
By the way, it was the U.S. that asserted to the Committee Against Torture (2006) both that the fight with al Qaeda was an "armed conflict" and that the Geneva Conventions applied -- in fact, the U.S. tried to assert that the Geneva Conventions trumped the Convention Against Torture under a doctrine of lex specialis during war, something with which the Committee did not agree. It was kind of the international version of boiling the entire Constitution down to only the phrase "shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" whenever a war was asserted.
I will concede that it would greatly improve clarity to ratify the additional protocols, but I've already said that in numerous fora. If we do not, then personally, I think we are bound by the fact that we have signed them, until we remove our signatures.
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a humanitarian, and do know something about and study humanitarianism as a result. And I have never heard that it has anything to do with attempting to squeeze inhumanity through the spaces in the words of the common articles in order to argue for a space where humanitarian law does not exist, any more than a Constitutionalist like Glenn believes that the Constitution has something to do with trying to find places like Guantanamo where the law does not exist. Does that make my point of view pretty clear?
I don't think there is a resolution to this debate, you don't want to believe the Geneva Conventions apply to all armed conflict, and those in charge of implementing or ruling on them believe they do. So I'd like, with your kind permission, to be relieved of further debating it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
