Jake Tapper reports that the Pentagon is re-branding Operation Iraqi Freedom:
In a February 17, 2010, memo to the Commander of Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the "requested operation name change is approved to take effect 1 September 2010, coinciding with the change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq."
You can read the memo -- a copy of which was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen – HERE.
Gates writes that by changing the name at the same time as the change of mission -- the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat troops -- the US is sending "a strong signal that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission."
Ok, so how did Operation Iraqi Freedom end - in victory? I would like to think so, and I would love to hear them say so. Maybe someone even has a stray "Mission Accomplished" banner lying about.
RECRUITING OPPORTUNITY LOST: "Iraqi Freedom" is being supplanted by "New Dawn". That's their best shot? C'mon - go with "Breaking Dawn" and recruiting centers will have teenage girls lined up around the block. Or (more boldly), a retro "Red Dawn", as a Patrick Swayze tribute.
New Dawn. Now yawn.
MORE: I suspect "Operation Sheikh It (But Don't Break It)" got the consideration it deserved. Meawhile, the name "New Dawn" is already taken:
New Dawn 118 (January-February 2010)
Who Really Runs the World?
Conspiracies, Hidden Agendas & the Plan for World Government. Andrew Marshall exposes the global power elite and the world they’re creating.Swine Flu & Fake Epidemics
Medicalisation & the Push for Global Management. The spectre of pandemics is driving us towards a globalised medical bureaucracy, warns Jon Rappoport.The Venus Project & the Zeitgeist Movement
Chard Currie explores an imagined world where war is outdated, there is no shortage of resources, and every human being enjoys a high standard of living.Racing Towards Armageddon
The Plot to End the World. Best selling author Michael Baigent on the dark forces hiding in the shadows of religion pushing a perilous messianic agenda.
MUST READ: Jules Crittenden is excellent on the simultaneous but otherwise unreported re-branding of Operation Hope And Change.
Next will be Operation Unicorn & Pony. Obama wants a happy outcome.
Posted by: matt | February 18, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Operation "Bush did it (unless it's good, then I did it)" Too long?
Posted by: Buford Gooch | February 18, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Gawd, they even ripped off 'Anbar Awakening'.
===========================
Posted by: It is the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius. | February 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM
Operation "I won."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 19, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Come to think of it. If we had some stimulus benchmarks, it might be easy to figure out how that's going.
Posted by: MikeS | February 19, 2010 at 12:39 AM
Get over there, you stupid icon.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 19, 2010 at 12:53 AM
LOL, Dave!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 19, 2010 at 01:01 AM
The difference between two Nobel Peace Prize winners:
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, who was also denied a meeting in the Oval office today, expressed to Mr. Obama his admiration for the U.S. as a champion of democracy, freedom, and human values.
Our president unable to utter words like victory, democracy, freedom, and human values
escorted the Dalai Lama to an exit where rubbish bags are kept on the grounds of the White House.
A new dawn sounds like soap I use to wash dirty dishes. How appropriate!
Posted by: Ann | February 19, 2010 at 02:22 AM
1969 Hair
Dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Although we look at that era now as being drug-degraded and anti-war, anti-establishment violent, I do believe it was the foreshadow of a more loving world to come.
Tom Hayden and the Chicago Seven.
Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.
At least 3 of C7 and possibly some in WU were agent provocateurs, CIA-connected. Purpose was likely to co-opt the spiritual awakening with violence and CIA-created LSD.
By the way, who originated the astrological concept, Age of Aquarius? The Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Indians? Is it in the OT or NT?
Posted by: BR | February 19, 2010 at 05:44 AM
Well, my night reading has taken me back to the Magi of Persia, and Sufism comes from India. I can't tell yet if the significance added to planetary motion in relationship to stars were in the Vedas.
What god of time wrote this boring script?
That every couple thousand years Man should
act a certain way. Ha!
Posted by: BR | February 19, 2010 at 07:01 AM
Or (more boldly), a retro "Red Dawn", as a Patrick Swayze tribute.
If they're going to keep passing rhetorical gas about this, "Breaking Wind" would be more apropos. Seriously, I don't know why they don't take credit where it's due: the Afghan operation. (Well, I know why Biden didn't . . . he was all for Drone Wars . . . why the Administration puts him out front for PR is less explicable.) Trying to pretend their policies won the Iraq war is farcical.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 19, 2010 at 07:15 AM
Joke for the day - Zodiac myth broken :)
"Our astrological birth signs no longer coincide with the sun's location in the constellations of the Zodiac because of precession. Even the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are now the Tropic of Taurus and the Tropic of Scorpio when we observe the sun on the solstices. Our astrologers and map makers neglected to update our present position in the cosmos for over 2,000 years. We are not the astrological birth signs the newspapers and a majority of the astrologers proclaim we are."
From The Grand Ages.
Posted by: BR | February 19, 2010 at 07:33 AM
Ah yes Baigent and Leigh, whose obscurantism
into the Gnostic, Dan Brown has dined on for a decade. there's a reason I call a certain poster, "Robert Langdon" at times,
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 08:01 AM
That picture of a guest leaving the White House walking thru the trash saddens me beyond belief. All the added federal workers we have added to the payroll and we can't even get the trash out of the way.
Posted by: Pagar | February 19, 2010 at 08:27 AM
Sorry to threadjack so early, but it seems appropriate
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/19/claim_that_bishop_was_cleared_in_bomb_probe_refuted/
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 08:58 AM
"Operation Akbar Zeb"
Posted by: Neo | February 19, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Hah. Bayh tells voters to vote out all incumbents.
==============================
Posted by: Well, he's tapped into the mood of the country. How about just voting out those as crooked as his wife? | February 19, 2010 at 09:24 AM
Might as well agitate:
"Operation OBAMA VICTORY in IRAQ!
Cuz Joe Biden said so.
Posted by: Scott D | February 19, 2010 at 09:33 AM
Operation "Breaking Wind".
Posted by: sbw | February 19, 2010 at 09:38 AM
What's that link, narciso?
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Clarice, I've made narciso's link LUN:
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 19, 2010 at 09:40 AM
It's from the Globe, debunking Bishop's hushand's claim about being cleared in the
bomb plot, it fits into the revisionist theme
of the thread
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 09:40 AM
Here you go, DoT.
Newt Gingrich: It's Time to Team Up
Posted by: Extraneus | February 19, 2010 at 09:46 AM
Thanks.
It appears her defense will be "insanity". What about those who covered for and enabled her behavior for about three decades?
And why with her thin academic background was she even an assistant professor? Doesn't anyone in academia actually research the resumes?
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 09:46 AM
What about those who covered for and enabled her behavior for about three decades?
Tsk, tsk, clarice. You want Charlie to explain to you how, short of offering to reload for her, no one enabled her?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 19, 2010 at 09:49 AM
I really wish that Newt would crawl up under a rock and go away. Newt, under a rock...get it?
Posted by: Donald | February 19, 2010 at 09:52 AM
Since this thread seems to have picked up the Amy Bishop topic, here's what I posted in the wee hours on the previous thread:
I love how The Globe chose a picture that just happened to include a Republican Governor to accompany its page on how Norfolk County DA Bill Delahunt whitewashed Amy Bishop's 1986 fratricide, when the Governor at the time of the murder was Mike Dukakis (D-Tank) of Willie Horton fame.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 19, 2010 at 09:58 AM
I think the link's broken, Dave.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 19, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Extraneus, it's my typing that's broken, thanks.
Here it is, fixed.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Good point. I'd blog it Dave, but who in his right mind expects more of the Globe?
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Fargin' italics.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 19, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Here's an interesting Time article re bin Laden and recent captures of claimed key personnel: Is the U.S. Hotter on Bin Laden's Trail?
Perhaps the Obama hope is that if they can account for bin Laden they can claim victory, diss Bush's failed efforts, and get out. OTOH, I suspect there are plenty of regional players who don't really want the US out. I suspect even Iran might be one of those--a Taliban 2.0 in Kabul would hardly be to Iran's benefit.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 10:12 AM
This Telegraph article re the Dubai assassination has some good points, echoing the Haaretz editorial in some respects:
The murder of al-Mabhouh is an insult to our intelligence: Anglo-Israeli co-operation in the war against terrorism is now in jeopardy.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM
That pic of the Dalai Lama leaving the WH by some side door and having to navigate around trash bags is incredible. The WSJ noted at the time that Obama's inaugural prayer service included speakers from all major faiths...except Buddhists, so the latest insult may have been intentional.
Posted by: DebinNC | February 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Yeah, that's sure one big issue where I disagree with Newt. What was the last think Obama compromised on?
Isn't New Dawn some sort of feminine hygiene product?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 19, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Here's the beginning of an AT blog:
I say, don't allow Muslims into the country. Others disagree, but why?
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 10:33 AM
--Isn't New Dawn some sort of feminine hygiene product?--
Heh.
--I say, don't allow Muslims into the country. Others disagree, but why?--
Some may agree but question its constitutionality as an official policy.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Justin Raimondo makes some additional points and adds additional information: Israel Goes Rogue.
[h/t clarice: Raimondo is "flamboyantly gay." Keep that in mind as you read.]
Go to the original article for links to the NZ story.
The concerns expressed here are similar to those in the Haaretz editorial that I linked yesterday: given that the target was a terrorist, nevertheless, was it wise to antagonize all those major European countries and humiliate one of the most moderate Arab countries by staging a virtual military invasion? Was violation of previous pledges to the Brits a good idea? There are right ways and wrong ways to go about these things.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM
I was so excited that Shani Davis won the gold medal...until last night when they aired the medal ceremony and he stood there, in a classic Obama pose, hands crossed in front of his crotch, head down. His lack of pride in this country in front of the world really pisses me off. I will be rooting against him from this day forward. May his skates warp and his laces break.
Posted by: Sue | February 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Constitutionality? No one has a right to enter the US. The US has banned categories of persons before, on racial grounds, and can do so again. We could shut down ALL immigration if we wanted to. Go ahead and make your constitutional argument.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Isn't this avatar my old avatar? Did they change back?
Posted by: Sue | February 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Anduril, that 10:50 AM comment is just so much gobbadge. What about banning dual citizenship is going to keep bad guys from forging passports.
And where, oh where, is the proof that this hit was not Fatah planned and done so partly to implicate Mossad? I made a lot of fun of your 'Fatah' yesterday, but your default assumption that Mossad did this has got to stand on more proof than the success of the mission.
The argument that this was Mossad has about the same internal consistency as the AGW fraud. Oh, yes, the science is settled; Mossad did it.
Fah.
===
Posted by: You got a terrible blind spot for when your mind is fooling you. | February 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Justin Raimondo is a lunatic who routinely gets his knickers in a twist over kids toys he deems "warmongering".
Anyone who cites him deserves to be mocked.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM
The Telegraph column comes from Gordon Thomas,
who's almost as nutty as the Joe Stack fella, on the Israel question
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 11:11 AM
--Go ahead and make your constitutional argument.--
I don't have one, nor do I have a problem with not letting muslims in.
I was merely noting that some people believe it is some type of violation of the first amendment to block someone based on their religion.
--The US has banned categories of persons before, on racial grounds, and can do so again.--
Not sure we could realisticly do so again, at least not explicity. We have a hard time now realisticly restricting illegal immigration.
--We could shut down ALL immigration if we wanted to.--
Yes, and politically and legally, I suspect it would be much easier to do that than to shut it down selectively based on religious preference.
In a world where we presently cater in some rather disturbing ways to the religious demands of guys we captured on the battlefield trying to destroy our country I doubt there's enough will to ban relatively law abiding muslims from joining their families here.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM
As it happens, Scott Johnson at Powerline (which proudly flies the Israeli flag) has just posted on this topic. He's convinced, too. Some claimed the tradecraft was Keystone Koppish. Not me, I thought it was good--they had a limited window of opportunity and displayed deft foot work and, as we'll see below, very nearly got away unsuspected. Johnson takes up from that theme:
Yesterday I mentioned the possibility of facial recognition software being used, but retinal scans could also be very important--and more conclusive as to identity. Those scans will no doubt be circulated globally in the effort to identify the assassins, and may have already played a role--as witness the high degree of certainty that Israel was behind this. All very interesting to me. But for an unusually well trained doctor, the additional investigation that uncovered the plot may never have occurred. This tradecraft was anything but laughable, and if it had really been displayed by Fatah I'd think the Israelis would be seriously concerned.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I agree to an extent re political will, but if the panty bomber had been successful, perhaps it would be a different story--and could become so in the future again.
You raised the possibility of a constitutional issue. There is none, and I don't believe that the US Supreme Court would ever override Congress and attempt to hijack immigration policy. No matter what "some" might want them to do.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 11:25 AM
All the silly ad hominem stuff is as expected. I'll be interested to see if anyone attacks Scott Johnson, though.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM
The world is so amusing. A murderous thug may have been murdered and the bien pensants are concerned that the assassins used faked passports.
(Of course the dead man, an arms dealer and murderer did, too.)
And then there's this--perhaps the brilliant doctor who performed the autopsy can answer this..the initial report said the bidy was found in a room where the door had been locked and chained from the inside.
when last I saw this trick (in Sherlock Holmes) the ape did it.
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM
**bOdy***
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM
I'm still struck did the passport holders match the faces, if not why were they let into
the country, unless Dubai was in on it, from the getgo. Which I would find unusual since
they specialize in offshore enterprises of dubious legality
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM
--There is none, and I don't believe that the US Supreme Court would ever override Congress and attempt to hijack immigration policy.--
Certainly it has never intruded where it didn't belong before.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM
New Improved Dawn?
Posted by: Frau Morgenröte | February 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Could you defeat retinal scans with some really high tech contact lenses?
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM
If Scott Johnson tries to pass off an argument as shallow and unsubstantiated as yours, anduril, I'll attack it, too. Note the attack on the argument, and not on the man.
=================================
Posted by: And saying you've a blind spot is hardly ad hominous. My attack was on your argument. | February 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM
It's sophism, anduril. I'm a big fan of yours, sometimes you have marvelous insights. And sometimes your reasoning stinks.
===================================
Posted by: Omigod, anduril mortal? Say it ain't so. | February 19, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Note the clever way I deal with this all italics thread:
1. What, are you claiming it was natural causes now? I'm sure there are explanations, ways and means. I don't happen to know the room and exterior layout, door design, etc. I'm sure it was handled with the same degree of professionalism as the rest of the op, with the same intent--to blunt suspicion. The point is, following the autopsy they reviewed the video feeds and caught all but the actual killing on camera: the woman getting him to open the door, the assassins entering. How they pulled off the cover-up is interesting but not terribly material.
2. The passports were in some cases forged and in others cloned. I can't tell you how the issue of the photos was handled. Certainly, if Mossad recruited Hamas and Fatah operatives they could recruit someone in Dubai. However, we also know they were using disguises, and that might be a factor as well.
3. The Supreme Court has rarely overruled Congress on really fundamental issues, where Congress is trying to make a fundamental statement about national security. You'll be able to find exceptions, maybe, but not many. If you're going to argue in this area, you need to be prepared to draw these distinctions.
4. I don't know. If it is, I'm sure it was tried. That's one reason I brought up facial recognition tech. I'm told that it's fairly sophisticated.
5. To the contrary, this is another silly ad hominem post. You nowhere address Johnson's arguments, mine, nor anyone else's.
6. I'll take that endorsement for what it's worth and keep it in the safe place it merits: in my Fatah--wherever that happens to be.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM
A quick google search indicates that both facial recognition and retinal scan devices can be bypassed and fooled.I've no idea if this is true..but there are a variety of suggested ways to do this.
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM
5. The main argument seems to be that it must have been Mossad since it worked. This argument ignores the Palestinians and Syrian in custody. It is shallow and unsubstantiated. For you to think I've attacked you ad hominously and to so state is sophistry.
6. Please pull your Fatah out of the Magic Hat you just found a Mossad in.
=================================
Posted by: Omigod, anduril funny? Say it ain't so. | February 19, 2010 at 12:08 PM
And if the techniques for bypassing/fooling can be detected to have been used it's an indication of 1) intent and 2) relative sophistication.
These are interesting technical issues, but are only marginally important to the main issue, as expressed by Haaretz and others: what could be the implications or results of Israel conducting a virtual military invasion of a really very moderate Arab country using forged/cloned passports of European countries with which it has intel ties--and whom it promised not to abuse their passports?
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM
The Palestinians and Syrians ARE addressed, in multiple accounts which I've quoted. Replying to you is a waste of time and space--as are you.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM
And, contrary to your assertion, I have everywhere made this same argument that the efficacy of the operation is the main, and inadequate, argument for it being a Mossad operation.
===============================
Posted by: That one was a lie, anduril. | February 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM
anduril, don't you wonder why you have one set of ethical expectations for Israelis and another for their opponents?
==================================
Posted by: This is shabby, anduril, and does not become you. | February 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Listening to you try to find your default assumptions in your Fatah is definitely not a waste of time. It is highly educational, and dismaying.
=========================
Posted by: Hey, quit reading what I have to write. | February 19, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Ann, re: your Dalai Lama pic, that is indeed a shame. The AP says it's all about China:
But remember also the Dalai Lama had praise for George W. Bush's defense of human rights. According to the story above, GWB is the only recent president (since Reagan? The AP was coy about that) to appear in public with the Dalai Lama.
And we know Obama doesn't like it when people praise Bush.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM
If I can find online a number of suggested ways to bypass retinal scans so can anyone..and as far as I know these don't seem to require a great deal of scientific expertise or elaborate equipment.
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Jen Rubin suggests the govt hid the Ft Jackson case so it could hide the connections in the Ft Hood case whitewash.
Possible indeed.
And here's some big news from Lucianne:
New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, nation's second-oldest senator, has stomach cancer
·
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM
--3. The Supreme Court has rarely overruled Congress on really fundamental issues, where Congress is trying to make a fundamental statement about national security. You'll be able to find exceptions, maybe, but not many. If you're going to argue in this area, you need to be prepared to draw these distinctions.--
By immigration I assume you mean people who plan to become citizens. One would have to demonstrate that the relatively few moslems who are allowed to come here and who are law abiding pose a national security issue.
Even given that however I didn't have to look far, nor far back, to find Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan and Boumediene to get an idea of where things stand today as far as the court intervening in national security affairs.
--Note the clever way I deal with this all italics thread:--
Two points;
1) For we advanced Windows/IE users it isn't an all italics thread.
2) Get some help; you sound exactly like my NPD brother.
Back to my Amish ways.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 19, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Jen Rubin suggests the govt hid the Ft Jackson case so it could hide the connections in the Ft Hood case whitewash.
Possible indeed.
Wow. If true, that would - or should, anyway - be an enormous scandal.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 19, 2010 at 12:26 PM
And you can add the cases on illegal immigration and school eligibility, like Plyer v Doe, has he heard of strict scrutiny
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 12:28 PM
I'm surprised anduril couldn't find one of these stories: IAEA fears Iran working now on nuclear warhead:
Actually, I'm not surprised. Nor am I surprised he quotes Justin Raimondo (of antiwar.com fame), nor that he pretends the offensive part of that detestable oaf is that he's gay. But ad hominem, that's everyone else's problem.Self-parody . . . still the richest kind.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM
"New Dawn" a feminine hygiene product? Well maybe. Obama's minions have no doubt been consulting with the brand manager mavens at Proctor & Gamble. New Dawn may just be a "rebrand" of the old soft soap. But then "New Coke" was a marketing flop. I predict "New Dawn" will soon be washed down the drain.
Posted by: Mike Myers | February 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM
WH only released one pic of Obama and the Dalai Lama, but it speaks volumes...especially compared to the one shown of the DL with GWB.
Posted by: DebinNC | February 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM
--WH only released one pic of Obama and the Dalai Lama, but it speaks volumes...especially compared to the one shown of the DL with GWB.--
Deb, let's not forget Barry inherited the DL.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Ft Jackson appears to have happened around Christmas time along with the Christmas bomber.
These things usually happen in "threes" and indicate some sort of concerted attack against us.
Posted by: glasater | February 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM
And your point is...?
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 01:19 PM
>Kryten: Logically, sir, there is only one way you could have possibly have opened that door. I feel quite nauseous. —Where is it?
>Lister: Where's what?
>Kryten (horrified): Oh, sir, you've got it in your jacket!!
>Lister: I got us out of the hold, didn't I?
>Kryten: Sir, you are sick! You are a sick, sick person! How can you possibly even conceive of such an idea?
>Lister: Hey, cheer up... or I'll beat you to death with the wet end.
>Kryten: Sir, if mechanoids could barf, I'd be onto my fifth bag by now...
-Red Dwarf, The Inquisitor
Posted by: Frau Morgenröte | February 19, 2010 at 01:42 PM
"And your point is...?"
Even a cave man could figure it out.
Posted by: boris | February 19, 2010 at 01:48 PM
Clarice - Perhaps you are thinking of Edgar Allen Poe, rather than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Posted by: Jim Miller | February 19, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Demonstrate to whom? Congress is free to legislate in this area at its own discretion. There is no constitutional right to immigrate to the US.
I never suggested that the Supreme Court is unable or should not "intervene" in "national security affairs." That would be an utterly absurd position. What I stated, very carefully, is:
Now, follow this closely:
Rasul did not deal with Congressional action.
Hamdi did not deal with Congressional action.
The Hamdan decision did not question the constitutionality of Congressional action, but rather addressed the legality of action taken by the Executive.
Boumediene is a complicated decision re habeas corpus and the MCA. Only one provision of the MCA was held unconstitutional. Habeas can and has been suspended and the Court did not dispute that. The dispute was over the manner in which habeas was handled in MCA. The MCA, btw, was another brainchild of McCain.
So, I repeat:
"The Supreme Court has rarely overruled Congress on really fundamental issues, where Congress is trying to make a fundamental statement about national security. You'll be able to find exceptions, maybe, but not many. If you're going to argue in this area, you need to be prepared to draw these distinctions."
In future, please read what I say 1) with an open mind and 2) much more carefully. Also, please do a bit of research.
The italics issue is specific to Firefox. I have other browsers for which it's not an issue. Konqueror is one of them, but there are others.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Jim, I think you may well be correct.
Posted by: clarice | February 19, 2010 at 02:04 PM
narciso, butt out of things you don't know anything about:
You might, however, offer an opinion on that Spengler article I quoted.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 02:04 PM
That whole raft of cases, beginning with Rasul dispenses entirely with precedent, because they didn't want to deal with the issues involved, they applied Geneva convention 3, despite the fact that it didn't apply.
You make my point with Plyer, strict scrutiny would be even worse, in these circumstances
Posted by: narciso | February 19, 2010 at 02:09 PM
Fabulous MarcKnoller tweets from Obama townhall just now:
ha ha ha ha ha
Posted by: MayBee | February 19, 2010 at 02:13 PM
You're making a fool of yourself. Nowhere have I defended any of those decisions.
Posted by: anduril | February 19, 2010 at 02:18 PM
Heh, MayBee, the science and the journalism are getting wierder and wierder. The weather, well, it varies. As does climate.
==============================
Posted by: Yvo de Boer. Oh, what a hoer. | February 19, 2010 at 02:18 PM
Only 15 more posts and my italiaco goes away.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 19, 2010 at 02:20 PM
"You're making a fool of yourself"
Said the joker ...
Posted by: boris | February 19, 2010 at 02:39 PM
Heh, MayBee, the science and the journalism are getting wierder and wierder. The weather, well, it varies. As does climate.
The weather varies. The journalism does not.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 19, 2010 at 03:28 PM
Credit where it's due though, Rob. Mark completely busted Obama on that.
Posted by: MayBee | February 19, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Yeah, Rush played that today, too. Funny as hell being lectured about "science" by Obama, especially after all that's come out in the past few months. Maybe he was lecturing NYT readers, since they're about the only ones unaware of that.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 19, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for terrorist detainees, offers no details (BYRON YORK)
Posted by: Extraneus | February 19, 2010 at 04:56 PM
See Richard Lindzen eat Kerry Emanuel and John Holdren for lunch about the climate science in a letter to the editor. LUN.
===============================
Posted by: It's the water vapor feedback, stupid. | February 19, 2010 at 05:00 PM
I can spell Edgar Allan Poe's name correctly -- sometimes.
Posted by: Jim Miller | February 19, 2010 at 05:09 PM