I''m working on it.Date: 1/26/2009 6:11:28 PM
Author: MoonWater
I will only laugh at your suggestion that I''d be able to laugh at anything you wrote! Are you freaking kidding? Some folks around here (ahem, I won''t say any names lol) drool over your posts and your BIG BRAIN. We bow to you! ''We''re not worthy! We''re not worthy!''....now...Karen needs to get to work on her sneakiness...
Wow. I just read the article about this in the WP.Date: 1/25/2009 10:45:35 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Not that those of us paying attention [on both ''sides'' for that matter] didn''t see this coming, but there are almost no words for the anger I''m feeling about this right now. I am for lack of better words SO PISSED that they have been irresponsible enough to hold people for years with no comprehensive and complete files of evidence against them. This needs to be fixed stat. It''s embarrassing that a world superpower is conducting itself in such a lax and irresponsible manner.
As anyone who is facebook friends with me might have noticed, I''ve been saying it all along: Be prepared for the closing of Guantanamo to las more than a year. The legal nightmare has only just begun. It''s not that Obama is backpedaling, but that the situation is insanely complex and in even worse shape than any of us even suspected. Okay, well, to be fair I sort of suspected.
ETA: While I want to believe and so far do think that Obama has done an excellent thing in prioritizing the closing of Gitmo on his agenda, I will be absolutely the first person to call him out if it looks like he''s doing something stupid. I know it might not seem like it from some perspectives, but I am all over this guy with criticisms every day of the week. If he makes a mess of it I will yell loud and clear and hopefully everyone else will too. I have no reason to think that he will mishandle the situation, but this is something that needs to be done exactly, 100% according to the book if we are *ever* going to maintain our presence in the international community as a legitimate world power. We need to clean up our act.
Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray, according to some former officials, who said military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.
In a court filing this month, Darrel Vandeveld, a former military prosecutor at Guantanamo who asked to be relieved of his duties, said evidence was "strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks."
Seems like it, doesn't it?Date: 1/27/2009 2:59:40 PM
Author: ksinger
Wow. I just read the article about this in the WP.
In one federal filing, the Justice Department said that 'the record . . . is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case.' In another filing, the department said that 'defending these cases requires an intense, inter-agency coordination of efforts. None of the relevant agencies, however, was prepared to handle this volume of habeas cases on an expedited basis.'
Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray, according to some former officials, who said military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.
In a court filing this month, Darrel Vandeveld, a former military prosecutor at Guantanamo who asked to be relieved of his duties, said evidence was 'strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks.'
He said he once accidentally found 'crucial physical evidence' that 'had been tossed in a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten.'
Now tell me, if the evidence is so bloody hard to find and compile, how in hell do we KNOW these guys needed to be locked up in perpetuity?? Oh wait, Rummy was running Defense...yeah that's it. Makes me just sick. Inter-agency turf wars. No organization. No rules. Not even ONE man-sized safe to store evidence in. And in the end, probably no real evidence. They never intended to do anything but leave these guys in prison until they died. Hey, just toss 'em in there. Let the next guy clean up the mess and the fallout.
Grrrr!
BUT...to make yourself feel better and take your mind of of things, go HERE.DH is there right now...I need to pry him from the stupid computer.
I''ll be reading some of them soon. How odd that you linked Seton Hall Law.... I have a personal connection to it...Date: 1/27/2009 3:47:43 PM
Author: Ellen
Seems like it, doesn''t it?Date: 1/27/2009 2:59:40 PM
Author: ksinger
Wow. I just read the article about this in the WP.
In one federal filing, the Justice Department said that ''the record . . . is not simply a collection of papers sitting in a box at the Defense Department. It is a massive undertaking just to produce the record in this one case.'' In another filing, the department said that ''defending these cases requires an intense, inter-agency coordination of efforts. None of the relevant agencies, however, was prepared to handle this volume of habeas cases on an expedited basis.''
Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray, according to some former officials, who said military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.
In a court filing this month, Darrel Vandeveld, a former military prosecutor at Guantanamo who asked to be relieved of his duties, said evidence was ''strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks.''
He said he once accidentally found ''crucial physical evidence'' that ''had been tossed in a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten.''
Now tell me, if the evidence is so bloody hard to find and compile, how in hell do we KNOW these guys needed to be locked up in perpetuity?? Oh wait, Rummy was running Defense...yeah that''s it. Makes me just sick. Inter-agency turf wars. No organization. No rules. Not even ONE man-sized safe to store evidence in. And in the end, probably no real evidence. They never intended to do anything but leave these guys in prison until they died. Hey, just toss ''em in there. Let the next guy clean up the mess and the fallout.
Grrrr!
BUT...to make yourself feel better and take your mind of of things, go HERE.DH is there right now...I need to pry him from the stupid computer.
I heard this guy, Prof. Mark Denbeaux, on Rachel Maddow maybe a couple weeks ago, and again last night. I was really struck by what he had to say. Interesting numbers on the recidivism rate (low) from him. The video is what I wanted to link, I''m in the process of reading the other links.
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/Guantanamo_Reports.htm
I think I argued some pretty persuasive solutions, if I do say so myself. Dangerous criminals are dangerous criminals, and we have plenty of places to put dangerous criminals on US soil where we can abide by our own constitutional law and utilize our ever-prized justice system. You know, all the fundamentals of true Democracy. We can lock them up, organize the damn case files and choose in a TIMELY fashion to bring charges or not based on the evidence we have against them. Those we cannot legally hold will be let free, and those we can make a case against will be detained as they await trial [that''d be a short wait... due process and all] and as the trial unfolds. At its conclusion they will either be found guilty or not guilty and we will either lock them up accordingly or let them free. It''s fairly standard operating procedure, and if we''re to remain credible in the least we ought to be following the rules. We WROTE them.
You mean having our words and actions be in accord?? What a novel idea.Date: 1/29/2009 9:55:58 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
I think I argued some pretty persuasive solutions, if I do say so myself. Dangerous criminals are dangerous criminals, and we have plenty of places to put dangerous criminals on US soil where we can abide by our own constitutional law and utilize our ever-prized justice system. You know, all the fundamentals of true Democracy. We can lock them up, organize the damn case files and choose in a TIMELY fashion to bring charges or not based on the evidence we have against them. Those we cannot legally hold will be let free, and those we can make a case against will be detained as they await trial [that''d be a short wait... due process and all] and as the trial unfolds. At its conclusion they will either be found guilty or not guilty and we will either lock them up accordingly or let them free. It''s fairly standard operating procedure, and if we''re to remain credible in the least we ought to be following the rules. We WROTE them.
I also think it''s appropriate to put blame on the shoulders of people who made bad judgment calls and broke international and US law in the process. It''s not about witch hunting or making anyone look bad, but about making sure that we maintain credibility and integrity by showing that we respect the fundamental principles of a Democratic government and judiciary. If we are going to promote Democracy we have to live it as well.
Thanks, kama.
Maybe we need both??
I think that Hillary should have been screaming from the roof tops and burning her husband in effigiy for his "afternoon delight"Date: 1/30/2009 11:06:01 AM
Author: Ellen
Maybe we need both??
In all seriousness, we do need solutions, and wishful pointed out clearly what needs to be done. But I have to say, as far as not needing the bashing, no, I guess we don''t ''need'' it. However, I can assure you, if a Democrat had left this country in the state President Bush has, people would be screaming from the roof tops and burning them in effigy. I mean, Clinton got impeached for a little afternoon delight, hardly on the scale of what we''re dealing with now, on the multiple fronts. I think we''ve all been fairly civil and restained.
I did know that, just didn''t feel like getting technical. And besides, "afternoon delight" sounds much more juicy than "lying".Date: 1/30/2009 7:09:17 PM
Author: starsapphire
I forgot to add that Clinton did not get impeached for the actual ''afternoon delight''..... just for lying about it.
I always wondered if they would have stayed married after that episode if she had not had political aspirations. But I suppose we''ll never know.Date: 1/30/2009 7:42:20 PM
Author: Ellen
I did know that, just didn''t feel like getting technical. And besides, ''afternoon delight'' sounds much more juicy than ''lying''.Date: 1/30/2009 7:09:17 PM
Author: starsapphire
I forgot to add that Clinton did not get impeached for the actual ''afternoon delight''..... just for lying about it.
And yes, we should have heard Hillary all over the states. I don''t know how she dealt with that in the spotlight. Don''t think I could have done it.
Me too ds.Date: 1/30/2009 7:55:24 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I always wondered if they would have stayed married after that episode if she had not had political aspirations. But I suppose we'll never know.Date: 1/30/2009 7:42:20 PM
Author: Ellen
I did know that, just didn't feel like getting technical. And besides, 'afternoon delight' sounds much more juicy than 'lying'.Date: 1/30/2009 7:09:17 PM
Author: starsapphire
I forgot to add that Clinton did not get impeached for the actual 'afternoon delight'..... just for lying about it.
And yes, we should have heard Hillary all over the states. I don't know how she dealt with that in the spotlight. Don't think I could have done it.
Date: 1/31/2009 12:29:57 AM
Author: WishfulThinking
Karen, no stressing! Arendt is too dense for strict reading assignments. You'll end up resenting her for being too smart for us mere mortals to understand. How far in are you? I found the first section to be absolutely INSANE in terms of reading difficulty. So dry. Admittedly I am not a history person [eek! I know!], but I tried to be interested in it because it is one of her most controversial pieces. The history of it is sort of insane, actually. Anyways, you can give your huge brain a break once in awhile, you know.
Speaking of big brains, I have to say we're probably partial because of intellectual curiosity? I am always amazed by the dedication of so many brilliant PSers to reading and fact-finding and knowledge building. It sounds cheesy, but it's inspiring! I appreciate these things immensely.
Moon, we turned down a dance party tonight as well.. blah too tired and bored and dreading the reading I have to finish tomorrow, even though it's mad interesting. I bet you guys would love it-- it's all about the manipulation of statistics to fit certain ideological and political goals. Fantastic and informative.
Hah, Miracles, I like you.Sounds great. I will be happy to pass it along, as it is doing no good rotting away on my college network drive as the days pass and time ticks away, threatening to make the topic both less relevant and potentially less interesting. Or perhaps that is my penchant for current events talking? I know, I know, history is great too.
I''m a mere 53 pages in. I''m only ready to start chapter 2, I''m ashamed to say. She just got through (or mostly through) with "the history". European history is admittedly not a strong suit, so I was continually asking my live-in, walking, breathing, history book for at least the broad strokes of those references I didn''t get. He comes in pretty handy, especially when I don''t want to get up and walk into the history library.Date: 1/31/2009 12:29:57 AM
Author: WishfulThinking
Karen, no stressing! Arendt is too dense for strict reading assignments. You''ll end up resenting her for being too smart for us mere mortals to understand. How far in are you? I found the first section to be absolutely INSANE in terms of reading difficulty. So dry. Admittedly I am not a history person [eek! I know!], but I tried to be interested in it because it is one of her most controversial pieces. The history of it is sort of insane, actually. Anyways, you can give your huge brain a break once in awhile, you know.
Speaking of big brains, I have to say we''re probably partial because of intellectual curiosity? I am always amazed by the dedication of so many brilliant PSers to reading and fact-finding and knowledge building. It sounds cheesy, but it''s inspiring! I appreciate these things immensely.
Moon, we turned down a dance party tonight as well.. blah too tired and bored and dreading the reading I have to finish tomorrow, even though it''s mad interesting. I bet you guys would love it-- it''s all about the manipulation of statistics to fit certain ideological and political goals. Fantastic and informative.
Hah, Miracles, I like you.Sounds great. I will be happy to pass it along, as it is doing no good rotting away on my college network drive as the days pass and time ticks away, threatening to make the topic both less relevant and potentially less interesting. Or perhaps that is my penchant for current events talking? I know, I know, history is great too.
LOLDate: 1/30/2009 10:53:18 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Okay....I had to come out of lurkdom to say just how much Iyou ladies and really miss these discussions. Why can''t I find a man who loves to engage in these topics without being extremely right or left of the reality of the situation? Because it''s a sad state of affairs when I would rather be reading this thread than conversing with online dating prospects.
Did I miss Wishful''s posting a link to her paper??? I think not. Give it up girlfriend because you know my need to have backup on the military complex for my activism work. More importantly, I want/need passionate, articulate, and well-founded material...so hand it over. Um...now???
Great to read you Ellen, Karen, everyone...it''s been too long. Snarky or not, I can always count on all of the PS''ers to exercise my mind and my soul. Muah...
Wishful...the paper?
300x240.png)
