FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) The Tiger's lead is back to 2. Gonna take care of them in head-to-head games in a couple of weeks. What, me worry? Great game today.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) Ooh, I just thought if they had the resources to bring people to justice, they could get some VIPs while they are at it. Honestly, tell me why the US couldn't have found someone working for Karzai if they actually cared to do so. The honest answer has to be that they didn't care to. I may think the government is incompetent, but they are not that incompetent.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) I just saw some nutjob from humanevents blaming this on the Supreme Court because it is stacked with 5 liberals. What an a-hole. Also did anyone see what Clarence Thomas had to say? I thought these justices were supposed to be level-headed. He sounded like a two-bit spinner. If you are talking about the service-lacking Thomas claiming that WWII Bronze Star recipient Justice Stevens was lacking an understanding of the realities of war, yeah, that was a riot. I saw a Haloscan comment by someone that equated that to someone saying Thomas was lacking in an understanding of porn.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 09:40 AM) Well, I'm not the slightest bit anti-religion. The opposite, in fact - I expect the protection of all people to practice the religion of their choice. And for that to happen, we cannot force one set of religious faith (i.e. God) on the citizens of this country. I don't even have a problem with people saying it that way, if they'd like, on their own. But if I ever have kids, they better the heck not be forced to say it in school if they don't want to. I'm in complete agreement. I'm in all honesty not anti-religion either. I'm against when it butts up against the rights of others to worship (or not) in the way in which they choose.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) If you remove the 2 words therein that Congress added in a fit of red paranoia in the 50's, then I am right there with you. I'm glad you sad it and not me. I'm already labelled as godless and anti-religion 'round here, mostly for wincing at these instances where church/state separation lapses. But I agree with YAS's sentiment that people spend too much time protecting the surrogate symbol of American feedom and not the real thing.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) Sure because the party in charge has never looked at poll numbers and dumped an issue right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan Sure they have. I just liked the way she turned the hyperbolic rhetoric of the hawks and particularly the Murtha-bashers on its ear and threw it back at them. The hawks continue to try to get mileage out of "cut and run," and their success has been marginal at best. Hopefully it will cost Jean Schmidt her office for her stunt last year. So it's always good to see the rhetoric turned on them. There has been good recent penetration in the use of the term as describing the GOP Congress as "cutting and running" on the President before the issues. Now, Maloney gives us another useful reformulation.

Happy McHappy!!

"The Republican party has become masters of cut and run –- cutting from the issues so that they can run for re-election in november. --Rep. Carolyn Maloney D-NY:

QUOTE(DePloderer @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 06:12 PM) While waiting to be picked up by my mum after a Steve Hackett (once of Genesis) gig, my freind and I got into a conversation with Steve and his brother. We ended up giving them a lift into Leeds,this is in my mums car remember, possibly the most cool/uncool night of my teenage years. How do you think Steve felt, having to bum a ride in Mam's family truckster?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) ha, what a bunch of tools. they should stay on the northside This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. Unnecessary, Steve. :headshake

Glenn Greenwald says it better than me. The reasoning seems rock-solid. The whole interpretation is LONG but insightful: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06...v-rumsfeld.html The crux of the buscuit, re the ISA violations:

Good summary, Rex, thanks. I'll add that I've seen a couple of other reasoned assesments that reiterate that Congress should not just be able to rubber stamp a tribunal that remains more or less along the lines of the current one, because as they exist now they do not pass Geneva muster in a few areas. If the White House is going to stand by GWB's word today to abide by the court ruling, those issues will have to be addressed before Congress can greenlight any new-look tribunal. Also, intriguingly, some people are starting to wonder about the broader implications of SCOTUS saying that the post 9/11 Congressional AUMF is not a "blank check" for the Executive. That is, if Congress didn't specifically say a power is authorized, then it is NOT authorized. Specifically, should this not directly bear on the legal arguments of the White House that the authority to conduct the NSA warrantless surveilance programs derives from Executive powers granted by the AUMF. It sure seems like a no-brainer that when Congress specifically denied the White House request for increased powers to conduct surveilance a just few days befor the AUMF, that it's rather inconceivable they intended to grant those Presidential powers with the AUMF. Still, that has been the administrations justification, all logic to the contrary. Now, though, when SCOTUS has said specific Congressional authorization is necessary in the case of Gitmo military tribunals, does it not also follow that specific Congressional authorization is necessary in te case of the NSA domestic spying programs?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 07:42 PM) Yes but... they weren't. They were prescribed for his doctor in the name of privacy. That may or may not be legal. If the doctor was self-prescribing, it is not legal. I've lost track of the details on all this this on account of not caring.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) Jim, it's only good if you love terrorists. BTW, are you coming over for the BBQ with Zawahiri later? You bring the Kakalosh, and I'll bring the Crab Juice!

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) Yep look for this to be dealt with quick, this ruling is not nearly as bad as leftist would like to believe. Boy I thought I could see some of them jump for joy when they first seen it. "Not as bad"? No, it's not a bad decision at all. It's quite a good one, actually. :rolly

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Let's all think before we add that last sentence to our posts (we all do it - the last little stab). Then we can keep this thread open for further discussion. Well, you shoud see what he wanted to write! Sorry. I promise not to be a Soxtalk trouble maker. I promise not to be a Soxtalk trouble maker. I promise not to be a Soxtalk trouble maker. I promise . . . [/end Bart's chalkboard]

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) I just got a call on my cell from 773-379-7858 and someone said I am going to die in 7 days they called back 4 times and I hung up on each of them. That's a cheery message. Hell, if the phone bill idue date is more than 7 days out I would have kept talking! I could take advantage of my plans rollover (in the grave) minutes. Creepy call, btw.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Therefore, the NYT/LAT/WSJ did no more harm than our own fearless leader did. talk about setting the bar low. . .

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Hippie lovefests are good candidates for flowers and candy, that's true. But you can't have an invasion without flowers and candy, either. NOT invasion. Liberation.. Get it right. Now shut up and get back in line.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) These people shouldn't be guaranteed CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and that's exactly what they're being granted. That's what troubles me. I don't know if that is what the decision does. Yes, the decision upholds the Constitutional separation of powers, and in so doing it points out tthat the President has no legislative authority to create the military tribunals as in existence at Guantanamo. That is my interpretation from Justic Bayer's opinion, which acknowledges that the Executive can seek authority from Congress to create such tribunals. I interpret this as saying that the now established right to the military justice protections of Geneva and the Presidential lack of legislative authority together mean that the military commissions cannot stand as legitimate. I don't see that the detainees are being granted rights under the Constitution.

You think Roberts (recused) is happy about seeing his lower court decision overturned?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world. I don't know about that. I do believe that it might make the SWIFT co-op managers revisit their earlier concerns over the extent of the operation and their involvement in it. Are the safeguards against privacy rights abuse adequate? is there an absolute asurance that only terror suspect transactions will be tracked and only those individuals will be pursued based on information obtained through SWIFT? can they some kind of sunset provision, or is this the permanent status quo? Without a trusted Greenspan to make some slight program concessions and to reassure them, I can see them questioning some program aspects. Hopefully that happens if they still do have valid reservations. And hopefully they are reassured that their cooperation is vital, legal, and necessary and the the program continues in a form that everybody can live with.

Link to ABC news story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2133924 Synopsis from Raw Story So, the big story: The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. That ruling again: The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention. What shoud we take away from this? The Court has ruled that U.S. detainees--classified by the Bush Administration as "enemy combatants"--cannot be considered exempt from the Geneva Convention.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) I couldn't agree more but most people here thing I'm some kind of hippie. Take a bath. Get a haircut. And a job. That is all.