Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"The irony, of course, is that the law requires a serious analysis of text, precedent, and history, and it does not serve the rule of law to substitute a smug sense of outrage for that kind of analysis."
Not the only irony last night.
Could you please give some understanding as to how you determined the "left/right instead of central" implication of GG's article?
I'd be really interested in hearing that, too.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/20/state-human-rights-bush/
State Dept: Bush’s Record On ‘Pushing For Human Rights’ Is As Good As Any Other President Or Country
State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack:
"I would put the record of this administration up against any American administration or any other government around the world in terms of promoting universal human rights . . ."
* * * * *
Real soon now, no doubt, one can expect the announcement of a special award from Amnesty International for Cheney, Bush, Addington, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al.
If Obama fails to hold Bush and the neocons to account for their brazen criminal activity, Rome is lost. He will continue to lack any moral authority in the world, and although the media will trumpet his morality, the people will know that he also, has no clothes. Obama needs to walk a fine line, but he must see that the principles of the rule of law are renewed, or anarchy will rear its ugly head in every corner of the earth. Re-establishing order can be accomplished in two ways. Cleanse the village to save the village, or reveal the truth of our system, and then try to fix it knowing all its flaws.
Which direction will Obama take?
With apologies to whoever first posted this:
Two cannibals are eating a lawyer. One asks the other, "Is this legal?"
pfah!
I Shall Smite Thee Down With Righteous Vengeance and Furious....
Excellent. You can't go wrong with a Pulp Fiction reference. Movies: the Bible of our time.
Two cannibals are eating a lawyer. One asks the other, "Is this legal?"
I passed this along to a relative and she said, "Boo."
I think that was an ixnay on the joke-ay.
... there will be a virtually unlimited number of potential interpretations of that data. Some will just be more plausible than others.
Frankly, my dear, ... Was Bush the only one who entered studying the floor and not shaking hands with those already on the first riser? From examining the clips Shaw has, I can't honestly say. It did appear to me that Bush did acknowledge, and was acknowledged by, some on that first riser, although, clearly, no handshakes were exchanged. I imagine one would have to still the film and examine it frame by frame to see where eye contact might have been made, or words exchanged. I think it's fair to argue that the cropped version of the film supports a theme many would want to accept. And, IMHO, by using a longer bit of film, Shaw makes a credible case for a different interpretation.
Yes, there are many possible interpretations. Bush may have put the word out that he didn't want to shake hands because there was no handy aide with a bottle of hand sanitizer around. But even his BFF Silvio Berlusconi doesn't seem to want to make eye contact. Barroso shakes hands with those before and after Bush but seems to look right through Bush. Only Gordon Brown seems to exchange more than a word with Bush and be willing to look in his direction. Angela Merkel clearly does not want to make eye contact with Bush and looks practically anywhere else. Zapatero seems to acknowledge Bush with a nod of the head but has his hands firmly behind his back to obviate any possibility of shaking hands.
I can't say anyone else's interpretation is wrong — there are too many factors that are unknown and may not be expressed by the film clip. But what the film clip shows is unmistakable: No one shakes hands with Bush; Bush does not offer to shake hands with anyone. Bush proceeds doggedly, for the most part with his head down as if he is indeed absorbed in trying to find his mark without tripping over his shoelaces, and exchanges remarks with perhaps two people of the seven or eight that he files past. Either it's all random and coincidenty, or else no one is interested in making a fuss over Bush and Bush is not interested in giving anyone any recognition. What happens is clear — how and why are different questions.
Clearly she has no, or too much, taste.
But does she like your Tombstone references?
my friend (and I say this losely), Jeff is merely saying that justice is NOT colorblind! Can you not (can't you) see that? I think you do. Left/right/central. Regard for human law is NOT dependent on you're artificial understanding of what RIGHT is! Friend, there comes a time in everyones life (Americans) when we have to decide: can WE live this way? I say YES. But only if we share an understanding of what legality is. This is what Jeffery Harrison was eluding too (in my opinion)>
Jeffrey P. Harrison/umbrage
Could you please give some understanding as to how you determined the "left/right instead of central" implication of GG's article?
I'd be really interested in hearing that, too.
Thank you for continuing to press the Brennan story. Obama's pragmatic-center politics should surprise no one who actually surveyed his career. I, for one, think it will be a huge relief to have someone so intelligent, competent and careful in charge, who is more concerned with solving problems than with ideology. But Brennan? This isn't about left-of-center or right-of-center. It's about core American values and constitutional principles, about human lives and suffering. Brennan's comments on rendition and interrogation should horrify us all, as should the prospect of Obama elevating him to a top intelligence post. For me, the most chilling was Brennan's comment, without any apparent queasiness, that kidnapping a prisoner back to Egypt would helpfully allow friends and family "to be part of the whole interrogation process." Really, Brennan? Care to elaborate? How exactly are family members brought into the interrogation process? With tea and cookies? That Obama is considering appointing someone so comfortable with the abuse and intimidation of prisoners--and their families--terrifies me. For the first time since volunteering for Obama during the primaries, I have taken McCain's advice and wondered, "Who is Barack Obama?"
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
