Rex Kickass

The practice is legal in some parts of Florida and illegal in others I think. I don't know though. Definite red flag for an admitted addict though - sounds more like a relapse. I should point out, that a lot of the news stories pointed out that Viagra was not the only prescription medication found in his bag.

I'm sorry what were the details... like the name of the organization which was referenced in a 2002 US report to the UN? The debate over the program's legality? Or the fact that the New York Times, the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal all reported that a specific program exists, rather than a reporting a generalization that a specific program exists?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) Won't happen in this case. Those pills were legally prescribed to him. Yes but... they weren't. They were prescribed for his doctor in the name of privacy. That may or may not be legal.

So I think I'm beginning to understand the scope of this decision. 1. The President can not create rules of law that he has a duty to enforce. That is something that is only creatable by the Legislative branch. 2. There are codes of law already established for this. The Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. The Supreme Court clearly seems to think that foreign held fighters enemy combatants or otherwise qualify as prisoners of war, especially if they're being held in wartime internment camps and being charged with war crimes. 3. The Supreme Court did say that the legislative branch could enact a set of rules. How able they are to do so, is left to question. Chances are it'll pass the house and get choked off in the Senate once people forget about this ruling. From what little I know of the ruling, if the Congress rubber stamps a process similar to what the Bush administration has, it may be leaving itself in jeopardy as the Supreme Court implicitly recognized Geneva Convention standing for enemy combatants. 4. This is a case based on processes of justice. The people currently facing these special tribunals were not able to see the jury who would determine their fate, be there for the jury selection, nor would they be able to see the evidence brought up against them. Many military law experts equate the invalidated process as kangaroo court-like. They cite that there are provisions for war crimes Court Martials. And that they would probably do the job quite well, and give these trials a level of transparency that ultimately might help a war on terror in the long run. 5. Finally, it should also be noted that of the approximately 450 or so people held in Gitmo, only 10 have been charged with anything. The military command of the camp has said that at most 40-80 more prisoners MAY be charged with some form of war crime. This leaves approximately 350 people detained against their will that we have no intent to charge with any crime. Some of them are detained because they can not get the right to return to their home country. Others are just being held for no good reason. By our own admission. The supreme court ruling does not address this, although there may be another decision that might in the near future from the high court - IIRC.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) Frist has done more in his life than most people will do in their lives like saving lives, so hearing liberals complaining about him really makes pissed. Like killing cats for science?

Oh Tex, Roll the Bones already.

I am a three time academe washout.

The John Updike thing IS offensive. Honestly.

To Lieberman's credit he has never supported this amendment. To Menendez's detriment he has. Although something tells me if he was vote 67, he would have been persuaded to vote "no."

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) We know they have been trying to get stuff since the 60's, mostly because we were aiding them. Do you honestly believe that the Ayatolla would let someone into power who was 180 degrees from their own philosophy? They hold way too much power to let someone into office they felt would be leading them down a path that they did not want to go down. The people who were trying to get stuff in the 1960's have no connection to who runs the show in Iran now. So to accuse these people of seeking nukes when they didn't have a country is disingenuous. You're right there, the Ayatollah won't let someone who has a 180 degree difference in viewpoint hold office but it doesn't mean that people 45-90 degrees apart can't get elected. The guy you fear simply doesn't have the power to do what you fear.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 02:28 AM) There have been many cases of thugs that murdered got LWOP but yet they got freed or escaped and went on to kill again only this time they learned from there mistakes and were able to kill more. Name one case where someone serving Life without Parole got out and killed again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISR...-06-27-19-23-51

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:38 AM) You have it all wrong. You protect the flag at all costs. And that was an eloquent speech but it really is total BS again, because I don't have to deal with flag burning. I also noticed that other than couple Rep-Dem switched lines it was the same ole damn hard line liberals like Kerry, Clinton and so on who opposed it. My question is why do they hate America so much yet still hold the office as US senator? Maybe because they actually don't really care about these issues and it just way to disagree with republicans and President Bush so they can scratch a few more votes in November. These are not patriots just scum suckers It's funny, I thought protecting the country is what we were to do at all costs. Ultimately, flags are just pieces of cloth. The land I live in, and the people who live in it are much more important to me. Instead of spending two days on issues that could positively impact the lives of the people who live around me and in the land that I call home, the Senate debated whether or not it was legal to burn a piece of cloth.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 09:58 PM) I don't have "proof" but I think the same. I think they have been trying since the middle 70's, at least. Also, as a side note, that's why I think we're in Iraq now, but that's besides the point. Again, not to argue semantics - but if Iran was trying to get nukes in the mid 70s, they were doing it with our support. Because they were allied with the US then. Is it possible that Iran was pursuing nuclear weaponry during the Iran/Iraq war? Yes, but most likely not seriously. Between the cultural revolution that the clerics in charge were pursuing and a war with a neighbor that wouldn't go away, I would imagine the resources that Iran had to devote to such a project would be limited at best.

I don't usually, but that bothers me because I hear it all the time and its more than 10 years off reality.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:18 PM) So? This doesn't say a thing. The NYT had the scoop originally. No they didn't. The NY Times article ran after the LA Times article did. Both papers were asked to hold the story. Both papers refused. But for some reason bashing the LA Times doesn't hold the same cache as bashing the New York Times. Nothing on the LA Times website credits the New York Times. I'm not dividing blame. I think there's no blame to be had, to be honest. There's nothing remotely surprising or shocking in the NYT article in question. Treason, my ass.

Depends on where he's from. I'm not defending Churchill, I'm just saying I've seen M.A.'s tenured. Depending on the field, it happens more than you might imagine.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:39 PM) I'm going to say this again. THE NEW YORK SLIMES ARE THE ONE WHO HAD THE STORY FIRST. Quit trying to divide where the blame resides. Thank you. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...home-commentary

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) I've attended school/worked at four of them and can't say that I don't know of any. And I'll bet that those that do only have Master's degrees didn't get them from third-rate institutions. University of Kansas. Michigan State University. and the small liberal arts college I went to as well.... Otterbein College. Is it common for new hires to be less than a PhD? No. But then again, there was a time where the degree wasn't necessarily a prerequisite for hiring.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) They have a near 40 year history of trying to obtain nuclear technology on the underground market, and through their own research. This is completely false. The current regime in Iran took root in 1979 - 27 years ago. Iran's government spent the bulk of its first 9 years fighting Iraq. This is true. However, it should be stated that the President of Iran has relatively little power. If that were the case, perhaps the reformers who tried to change Iran in the late 90's and early 00's would still be in power. Yet they aren't. The actual supreme leaders of Iran seem to have been fairly consistent and far more pragmatic in their actual actions. Iran's chief foreign policy aim at this point would be more akin to expanding its in sphere of influence to work on getting an allied Iraq. Something it's actually being quite successful in doing. It's years away from being able to be offensive towards other major powers - and its something that this government isn't too likely to do anyway. Simply because the level of dissent would increase as their power grows. The man you fear would never have his hand on the button.

The other thing that conveniently gets ignored is that the LA Times was also asked by the administration weeks ago and also chose to ignore their request.

It's not that uncommon for non PhD's to become tenured at major universities.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie. I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO. Al Gore isn't the President. The administration which would have a hand in federal grants has an evironmental perview that's closer to the Coal industry commercials than Al Gore's movie. Given the administration's history of dealing with contrarians, legitimizing the viewpoints of Mr. Gore would be the last thing in their self interest with this scenario.

The LA Times printed the same information on the same day. The Wall Street Journal did as well.

We don't allow countdown to death threads here. Closed.