Powered by TypePad

« How Green Was My Yellow Peril? | Main | USA Today Backpedals »

June 30, 2006

Comments

Bob

Oh my God they're bringing in the second string....

Anon wrote:

"just ignoring laws that he doesn't like, and so on?"

You mean like lying to a grand jury?

Nah... we love that shit!

PeterUK

pgl.
Coming from a most uncivil little snot like you,I regard that with the contumely it deserves.
It is not about the integrity of Toms blog we just think you are a presumptious upstart trying to make a name for himself.

Barney Frank

pgl,

Last comment to you.
You obviously have some strange personal thing going on here with TM and National Review. Perhaps its a personality disorder or just a grudge because somebody slighted you at some time. Who knows?
But why don't you take it outside? Normal, rational liberals are welcome here all the time. What you give is what you get.

boris

What exactly are judges supposed to do when faced with such a law?

My comment about rule of law is so straight foreward that it reflects poorly on your POV that you find it bizarre.

Scalia addressed following "canon of construction" (whatever that is). The majority chose to meddle considering the opportunity "intentional". With an activist mindset this is hardly unexpected but unfortunate in my opinion.

Judges should not have to consider national security, rather they should interpret laws as written according to established convention. That's why national security should be left to the elected branches where defense can take precedence over principle.

As it should. Otherwise Darwin's law applies.

Barney Frank

Patrick,

I'm not sure how you get that that language in the DTA says what you say it says. Seems pretty clear who it was applying to.
(no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.)

The essential point is congress wrote an ambiguous law which gave Steven's a loophole to exploit.
And more important, it is the twisted resort to the Geneva Conventions that is truly harmful here.

pgl

Barney - at the risk of repeating myself. TM accused me of blocking his comments. I did not and I have repeatedly suggested he retract this false accusation. He's free to do so at any time.

As far as the National Review - I have made my concerns with their serial dishonesty on certain matters quite plain with civility. If you wish to check these matters out - fine. And comment on any of my posts at Angrybear at any time. But to attack me as uncivil when you before you do so is your choice even if it is more rude than you (mistakenly) think I am.

Gary Maxwell

Stevens I expect. Anthony Kennedy is a disappointment however. We wont make such a mistake again. One to go to make the nonsense opinion decrease by many multitudes, I can wait but how long can Stevens?

Tom Maguire

Wow, unexpected comedy from pgl. Let me hit a few high notes:

Maybe a self proclaimed liberal is not invited to share his views over here. Tom? It's your blog. Speak up.

...to suggest Kevin Drum has the same view as yours strikes me as either requiring you to go re-read what Kevin really said or if you knew what he really was saying - a tad bit of dishonesty on your part.

BTW - you have had some rather pathetic posts in the past but this one tops them all.

BTW Sue, I am one of the Angrybears. As far as denying Tom access, Angrybear controls this (not me) and he has never denied access to anyone. Tom - you started this ugly false rumor. Would you have the decency to put an end to it?

So let's review - this post is even more pathetic than my usual standard, I am dishonest, I started a rumor that I had been banned at AngryBear, and now I am supposed to defend the right of a "liberal" to air his views?

Pretty amusing. Some thoughts:

As to the specific point that I started the rumor that I had been banned from AngryBear - any proof at all? Or even evidence? I have never cared to find out if I was banned there, for all I know, I have not been, and I have never commented on that one way or another. Frankly, I'd be surprised if I had been, but life is full of surprises.

(FWIW, I did mention a few weeks back that the Mahablog had banned me, but that is hardly a rumor.)

So let's see pgl clear that up first, since smears and dishonesty seem to be uppermost in his mind. Help us establish who the liar and smear artist is, ok pgl?

Secondly, on the question of whether a "self-proclaimed liberal" can air their views here: as a general rule I do not confuse "liberal" with "asshole", nor should you - if folks are excoriating you for your awful manners, well, you made your bed, go lie in it.

Which circles us back to whether you are lieing about my starting the rumor that I had been banned from AngryBear - do get back to us on that one way or another.

Later we can work on how the difference between what Drum wrote and what I wrote is so vast that I can be accused of "tad bit of dishonesty on your part".

Assuming, probably incorrectly, that you have the character to clear the first hurdle.

Geez, what a clown show - send better trolls.

danking70

Man, it's been pretty quiet around the Libby/Plame trial ever since Rove got indicted/flipped. Has it really been 24 business hours yet?

And what about Mary McCarthy, Dana Priest's leaker? Has anyone heard anything around that?

PeterUK

The SC decision was based on wordgames.

"Geneva Convention. First point - since when does a party that has NOT signed a treaty, and does not comply with a treaty, become a part of such a treaty? The Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war provides, at Article 4, that —

"A. Prisoners of war ... are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

"(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The purpose of this language is to make clear that NOT every combatant is covered by this treaty, i.e., that in order to receive the Convention's protections, combatants must accept and comply with basic rules of war. Any literate person should understand this.

Well, the activist Supreme Court majority in Hamdan decided to ignore this language. Instead, it looked to "Common Article 3," which has nothing to do with the current war. It requires, as an initial matter, that the conflict be not be of an international character. But the war on terrorism clearly is of an international character. Are the justices blind to the numerous known terrorist cells and conflicts throughout the world?

After rejecting the jurisdictional restriction of this article, the Court then went ahead and applied it to unlawful enemy combatants. That is to say, that terrorists detained by the U.S. "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely" and there shall be no "outrages upon [their] personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

The author of this intellectually dishonest opinion is John Paul Stevens. Stevens did something very similar in the earlier Rasul case in which he played word games with "jurisdiction." In Rasul, the relevant statute provided that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted by a federal judge within their own jurisdiction, meaning within their judicial district. Stevens twisted that language to mean that a federal judge's jurisdiction extends to any territory over which the U.S. exercises complete control, i.e., Guantanamo Bay — a military base located in a foreign country. In doing so, Stevens also reversed over 50-years of precedent. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Court held it that alien combatants did not have access to U.S. civilian courts.

Supreme Court power grab,danger of a Judocracy?

pgl

Stevens exploited a loophole in the DTA? I love this. The majority decision was upholding the bedrock principles that our nation was founded upon - and folks call this exploiting a loophole. Barney might be technically right, but I find this an interesting choice of words.

PeterUK

pgl WTF has your feud got to do with the rest of us?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'LOL! Roland Patrick (alias Patrick R. Sullivan) misrepresents what I said and did not say AGAIN.'

What you actually said, pgl, was much worse than I'm crediting to you here. On your own blog you libeled Mitch Daniels, the Crowe-Chizek audit firm, and the Cintra-Macquarie investor consortium. With this:

'... maybe the other 10 bidders refused to pay enough to the Governor under the table as he was so happy to claim $3.8 billion was better than his reservation price - a reservation price concocted by citing a really sloppy analysis.'

'So the Governor – aided by what appears to be a faulty Crowe Chisek analysis are selling assets that may be worth $5 billion to private investors for only $3.8 billion. ...one might wonder of the Governor asked them to lowball the reservation price. In other words, is this some form of financial fraud imposed upon the taxpayers? Why would any responsible Governor be engaged in this kind of behavior? Oh but – we are talking about George W. Bush’s first OMB director.'

See why I say you're one of my favorite people?

BTW, for those who don't remember; pgl is the guy who didn't bother to inform himself about the geography of the Mekong Delta. He's still claiming that John Kerry could have gotten a Swift Boat 5 miles into Cambodia on a river that flows into the Gulf of Siam from Vietnam.

clarice

It is rather tame..What about a field trip to TO to see if the indictment's been unsealed yet..and if it's an indictment of Risen or Rove.

Barney Frank

lurker,
"Allah says that Protocol 1 did not get 5 votes from SC but got five votes on CA3.

What's Protocol 1?"

Protocol 1 is a convention which the US declined to ratify, I think under Reagan.
It has some language regarding what type of court is acceptable under the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3, or the rest of the conventions for all I know, do not, so the majority was appealing to an unratified convention to understand a ratified one. Bad idea IMO, as was the entire Geneva Conventions argument. Poor reasoning and not particularly honest reasoning either.

Gary Maxwell

What I want to hear is if Pgl agrees he posted that. If he did - what the hell are you blathering about dude? (Of course, Bushitler did it).

PeterUK

danking,
Rove was quietly executed after his rendition to an undisclosed country,his last words were "Tell Danking the $50 mil is in the....."

pgl

Tom - all of your attempts at links go to Richard Cohen's blog. All of your quotes are from others besides me. OK, there are some lefties who are really foul and maybe you wish to attack me in effigy and invite your guests to do the same. I would have thought better of you - but maybe I overestimated our host. Sad.

pgl

Patrick - open up your blog for comments and folks like me and Daniel Gross will be free to say in our own words what you have cherry picked to misinform. But Barney will rightfully say "take it outside".

danking70

is in the where Peter? Damn it! What else did he say????

Gary Maxwell

Anser the question PGL.

pgl

Gary - I did post that TM accused Angrybear of blocking his comments. Does TM deny that? I did call the National Review writers IDIOTS. Guilty as charged. So can we get back to the Hamdan decision. BTW - all of you are welcomed to read what I said on this over at Angrybear and all will be free to comment. It's a good group and honest conservatives are welcomed. Thanks for asking.

Gary Maxwell

No answer my question did you post what Patrick says you posted about the Indiana thing or are you saying he is lying. You guys brought it up, we just want to know what the positions are.

PeterUK

Clarice,
Yes it is,a bit like sitting outside the saloon taking potshots at the mangy old three legged coyote snuffling about in the spittoon.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Barney, go to:

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/detainee_act_2005.html

Scroll down to 1005, and you will see: 'LIMITATION ON APPEALS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to...'

That's where I'm getting it. From the statute.

Patton

Anon Liberals, you will be glad to know that Democrats in Congress are already telling reporters that they will agree with the Republicans and pass legislation nullifying this ruling. The Democrats don't want to be as continuing to be defense attorneys for the enemy.

The Republicans would be smart to wait until after the August break and then spend Sept and October debating whether the enemy combatants should be:

1. brought to the US and tried in our courts as if the were citizens as the left insists;

2. or be tried as illegal combatants in military tribunals as has always been the case.

pgl

Tom - now that you have cleaned up the link issue, it seems you are claiming you never said Angrybear blocked - where did Sue get this idea? Oh yea, you did once make this accusation. Thanks for calling Sue a liar even if she is not. Personal responsibility - try it. You'll like it!

Patton

The liberals can thank their buddies on the Supreme Court for gauranteeing this election will be about the war on terror...thus denying the Democrats any chance of taking back Congress.

Gary Maxwell

Thats what I am saying too PGL. Personal responsibility. Did you post that piece or not. As many words as you are spilling here, I am sure you can spare a simple yes or no. Try it.

PeterUK

Danking,I have lost some of my notes on the last part the rest is fairly indecipherable...all I can make out is
T** *AME **S I*,game,name,dame,flame?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Patrick - open up your blog for comments and folks like me and Daniel Gross will be free to say in our own words what you have cherry picked to misinform.'

As I've told you many times, I don't have time to monitor a comments section. That's why I don't have one. And, I'll repeat the open invitation I've made many times to you; If you want to put up anything at my blog, e-mail it to me, and I'll post it for you where it won't be hidden, but will be your star turn.

Then I'll proceed to kick your ass, just the way I do in your comments section.

Rick Ballard

No, Gary, you have to rummage through the Upsetursine droppings to dig out the specifics. No fair wearing rubber gloves either.

Be sure and report back.

Patton

pgl: ""The majority decision was upholding the bedrock principles that our nation was founded upon """

You mean like Constitution Rights for Illegal Enemy Combatants?

General Washington must be spinning in his grave...Why yes General Washington, the British are using illegal soldiers, who don't wear uniforms, hide amongst the public, intentionally murder women and children and behead and disembowel captured soldiers.

Now as you know General, protecting such people is the bedrock principle of our Nation......

Why yes, I remeber reading about that in the Declaration of Independence.....

Redcoat

Peter U.K

In doing so, Stevens also reversed over 50-years of precedent. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Court held it that alien combatants did not have access to U.S. civilian courts.

For lefties,there is only one case in which precedent need be respected.

lurker

Patton, your last LONG post was excellent!

"I take it liberals believe that if Bush had ordered the shooting down of one of the hijacked airplanes on Sept 11th, then he would have committed a Federal crime, whereas others believe he would be acting within his INHERENT POWERS as Commander in Chief."

Conversely, had Bush known about a plane hitting the Pentagon but did nothing, the lefties would be all over him for not exercising his INHERENT POWERS as the Commander in Chief as defined by the Founding Fathers but slowly usurped by Congress and now drastically usurped by our Supreme Court. I can see a major battle between our 3 branches over their INHERENT POWERS as they ALL challenge the checks and balance.

And I'm glad to read that some of the democrats are planning to agree with the Republicans regarding yesterday's SC's ruling.

And Victor Davis Hanson's inquiring mind wonders about Pete, Jerry, anon liberal, and Cleown:

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Are Americans capable of understanding the importance of the war in Iraq? “Winning the Iraq Wars” 06/30 5:21 AM

lurker

Heh, one blogger somewhere on the Internet said we now have a 9/10 Supreme Court, 9/10 Congress, and 9/10 lefty public. Something like that....

Gary Maxwell

Well I see PGL has suddenly lost his urge to post. Pity.

No Rick I dont need to flyspeck. His nonresponse seals the deal in my court.

Grabbitt

As the attorney for Mr Benedict Arnold I am filing a suit against the Government of the United Sates of America for $6billion fro defamation,cruel and unusual treatment and loss of earnings.

lurker

Hey, Patton,

"The Democrats don't want to be as continuing to be defense attorneys for the enemy."

Watching Saddam's behaviour in his own court and that Z. Massaoui, can you imagine the dems and ACLU lawyers defending the Gitmo detanees?

Can you imagine sentencing all of them for life without parole? This would be American would be facing if they ended up being tried in our criminal court.

Raise your hand if you agree that the Gitmo detanees should be treated as criminals, especially after our 2 soldiers were brutually tortured and killed, and rigged with bombs?

Did those insurgents sign the Geneva treaty? Would they agree to abide by the Geneva treaty even without their signatures?

PUK, Patrick, et al are correct about SC's ruling being unreasonable, which will have long term effects to America for many years to come.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Yes, he said it, Gary. June 21, 06, 4:11 PM

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/angrybear/115090264717159903/#521549

I see, now that I've checked, the second paragraph actually pre dates the first, and is in the body of the blog post, 'Indiana Toll Road: Efficiency Gains from Privatization or Financial Fraud?'

Actually, Angry Bear is a fun place to comment, cause the liberals are every bit as nasty as those at DeLong's (in fact, many are the same people), and you don't get your posts deleted.

Redcoat
General Washington must be spinning in his grave...Why yes General Washington, the British are using illegal soldiers,

He strung-up Major John Andre,of the British Army when he was caught in civilian uniform while dealing with Benedict Arnold.

Tom Maguire

OK, I de-glitched my earlier comment to fix the link to the Mahablog.

I am baffled by this rejoinder from pgl:

All of your quotes are from others besides me.

Really? So if I go upthread looking for an example, it was not pgl that said:

BTW - you have had some rather pathetic posts in the past but this one tops them all.

We have a problem - someone else posting here as "pgl" said exactly that. And that someone shares the same IP address as the other pgl. Maybe one of the pgls can explain that - this is getting a bit weird.

Anyway, let me note this, also from "pgl", in one of his identities:

OK, there are some lefties who are really foul and maybe you wish to attack me in effigy and invite your guests to do the same. I would have thought better of you - but maybe I overestimated our host.

And a bit later:

BTW - all of you are welcomed to read what I said on this over at Angrybear and all will be free to comment. It's a good group and honest conservatives are welcomed. Thanks for asking.

Some of the regulars here stopped by to see how "honest conservatives" were treated on the Swift debate (which sparked the banning rumor, I guess).

Let me just grab this from pgl in the comments:

Tom - I have not stiffled dissent. I resent the suggestion. I have decided not to get into the mud with silly questions.

"Getting into the mud with silly questions" meant, explain why he called me "nonsensical" and "dishonest". Well. I guess I am not an "honest" conservative.

A more recent question from one of the pgls was this:

I did post that TM accused Angrybear of blocking his comments. Does TM deny that?

Let's see - my previous comment said this:

s to the specific point that I started the rumor that I had been banned from AngryBear - any proof at all? Or even evidence? I have never cared to find out if I was banned there, for all I know, I have not been, and I have never commented on that one way or another. Frankly, I'd be surprised if I had been, but life is full of surprises.

For simplicity - that is a denial.

For a bit of context in support of the possibility that we are simply dealing with a Libby-type memory - the exchange which started the "rumor" inside of one of pgl's heads was in the comment thread to which I linked.

Some excerpts:

TM (on the question of whether Confederate Yankee had been banned):

I have never know the Bear to stifle dissent, although I suppose today might be the day.

One of the pgls:

Tom - I have not stiffled dissent. I resent the suggestion.

TM, in response:

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I was suggesting it - is that what you took from "I have never know the Bear to stifle dissent, although I suppose today might be the day." So much for my drollerys.

That is how rumors start, I guess - I say something, pgl misinterprets it, I clarify, and a month later he lies about it.

Is anyone else having fun with this? I had not intended to spend my afternoon arm wrestling with a clown.

However, with the specific denial in hand, pgl, can you address your reason for believing that I started that rumor that I had been banned? Or did I just present it?

And lest I be accused of non-clarity - pgl, in one of your guises, you were ignorant, rude, and evasive on the Swift boat thread already linked.

You have been rude and, frankly, weird in this comment thread - disavowing comments you obviously made seems bizarre.

Now, I am gloomily resigned to your wandering away moaning that an honest lib can't catch a break at my site.

However, unless your performance here is wildly out of character, I expect that your cred is pretty low anyway. It is roughly zero here.

Clear?

A closing thought from pgl:

It's about the integrity of Tom's blog and whether he expect civil behavior from its commentators. Got it?

I completely agree. And yes, I do expect civil behavior, and no, pgl, you are nowhere near either "civil" or "honest".

Rick Ballard

Lurker,

I doubt that there will be any long term damage at all because of this ruling. Watch the Dems sprint for the front row of the Congressional parade. As Vnjagvet noted elsewhere, Stevens just wrote a little roadmap.

pgl

Patrick is right. The liberals at Angrybear do know how to spot a dishonest troll when they see one. The conservatives (we have quite a few very articulate ones) at Angrybear have the same talent. BTW - Patrick, you say you don't have a comments section but you do. It just gets ZERO traffic. Patrick R. Sullivan - he lies about his own blog!

Barney Frank

Patrick,

Your link didn't go directly to what you mentioned. After wading through a bunch of goofy far left crap about why Gitmo should be serving Philly cheese steaks and Michelob I gave up.

pgl

Tom - not to beat a dead horse, but you've learned well from Patrick Sullivan. Look - you did accuse us of blocking you. If you later took the accusation back - fine. My apologies from missing the retraction, which obviously Sue missed as well. But look at your choppy style of writing. I almost missed it this time around as well. And your point is ??????????

Grabbitt

Sheesh,Talk about a monomaniacal egotist,"MEMEMEMEMEMEMEEEEE!!!!! I'm offended.

Specter

gotta jump in...pgl sounds like TIC. TM challenged you to put a single link of a quote where he said he was banned at AB. Got one or not? If not....well just goes to show how disinformationalists work....

Gary Maxwell

Specter

He wont answer you, just look at how he ducked my very simple question on attribution of his quote. There are some honest liberal posters. this guy is a mile out on a rickety pier from that.

Barney Frank

"Patrick, you say you don't have a comments section but you do. It just gets ZERO traffic. Patrick R. Sullivan - he lies about his own blog!"

It appears that Patrick restricts his commentary so that others can't post there. It clearly says that comments are restricted to team members, whatever that is.
Pgl appears to be scrupleless and apparently about 15 years old, emotionally speaking.
I suggest ignoring, unless poking a torpid lizard with a stick amuses you.

lurker

Hi, Rick Ballard, can you provide the link to vnjagvet's "road map"? Or the the point being that Stevens opened a back door for Bush to work with Congress in setting up the military tribunals?

As for reasonableness, SC grossly misinterpreted the DTA. JMHO

lurker

Confederate Yankee's thoughts

"From a comment left on this post:

Without law to govern our actions, we are no better than the terrorist who's objective is to destroy our way of life.

And therein lies a key thought of many American liberals. He—and others like him—truly believe that courts protect our liberties and our lives.

He will never understand that the Supreme Court did not have the legal authority to rule on Hamdan (Congress passed DCA '05, legally stripping them of jurisdiction, which SCOTUS then illegally usurped back from Congress). He will never understand that the Constitutionally defined Commander in Chief powers outweigh those powers the Court unilaterally gives itself.

He will not bother to understand the Court trampled on the Constitution in Hamdan with a murky application of international law, nor will he admit that they ignored the plain meaning of the Geneva Convention, which all but specifically exempts terrorists from Geneva protections under Article 4.1.2. To people like him, the Supreme Court, an un-elected body of political appointees, is the ultimate and unquestioned law of the land.

This is not how this nation was set up. The Court is but one of three co-equal branches of government, and it does not rule over the others. But my, oh my, it tries.

The Court in this decision pulls a trifecta. It ignores Congress, overreaches into the President’s executive powers as Commander in Chief, and not content to stop there, decided a case based upon international law instead of following the U.S. Constitution.

And yet, people view the court to be infallible with an almost religious fervor, and actually think that the court protects our lives and liberties.

It doesn"t.

Tens of millions of men have protected our lives and liberties by putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle to stop the barbarians crashing the gates, while judges simply sat.

Don't tell me who guards my liberty. Is isn't a sleepy Ginsberg, or a decrepit Stevens, or a gesturing Scalia, or any other Supreme Court judge through the history of a Court that misunderstood for nearly 200 years the simple phrase, "that all men are created equal."

The people protecting my liberties are 20-year-olds with guts and guns.

In the end, the law is just a piece of paper, reflecting the ideas of a culture, and those ideas are not always just or fair or true. Often, despite the veneer of precedent and legalese, court decisions are arbitrary, capricious, dangerous and cruel.

The Hamdan decision is one such poor example, and highly why the Supreme Court is anything but infallible."

Of course, the lefties will never understand. I'm sure Confederate Yankee would not even be successful in making a dent!

Grabbitt

Barney,
That has narcoleptosaurian connotations.

lurker

Reagan Letter about Protocol 1 (thanks Barney Frank for the answer).

Charlie (Colorado)

Because it isn't true. They have no such authority, the Constitution (III;2) gives Congress the authority to limit its jurisdiction.

By Golly, Patrick, you got the joke too.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Your link didn't go directly to what you mentioned.'

Sorry, though I don't understand why it wouldn't take you there, because it just took me there. Try Googling 'Detainee Treatment Act 2005'. That's how I found the text of the act in question.

You need to read it outside the confused commentary that accompanies excerpts of it that you read at Volokh. I think then it will be clear to you that:

1. Unambiguously ALL Courts are prohibited from considering appeals for habeas corpus from Gitmo detainees (i.e. Hamdan).

2. That the Act creates a new jurisdiction for the DC Court of Appeals. An exclusive jurisdiction, to only hear appeals of convictions of those in the military tribunals (and also those dissatisfied with the outcomes of their 'status hearings'.

Those are the only exceptions to the 'no justice, no court, no judge, no appeals' rule. If Hamdan were tried and convicted by a military tribunal, he could then appeal that conviction to the DC Appeals Court.

The commenter at Volokh is confusing two different things.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'"Patrick, you say you don't have a comments section but you do. It just gets ZERO traffic.'

Clue; Occam's Razor.

Tom Maguire

Oh yea, you did once make this accusation. Thanks for calling Sue a liar even if she is not. Personal responsibility - try it. You'll like it!

"Try it you'll like it" - you are speaking from theory, not practice.

Let's see, upthread Sue wrote this:

Just to refresh my memory, isn't 'pgl' the blogger that no accessed Tom when Tom spanked his hiney at his blog? The angry bear comment sounded familiar to me. ::grin::

Well, I don't know why she thought that. But she did pose it as a question.

But rather than ask her what she had in mind, pgl responded thusly:

As far as denying Tom access, Angrybear controls this (not me) and he has never denied access to anyone. Tom - you started this ugly false rumor. Would you have the decency to put an end to it?

Now, Sue did not claim that I had passed that banning info along; that is a pure pgl invention.

For all I know (and let me assure pgl this is pure speculation), Sue had read that I was banned over at at AngryBear, or she read it elsewhere, or she got me confused with someone else getting banned (like Confed Yankee), or anything.

I have no idea why Sue asked that question. So let's ask her - Sue, why did you ask that question?

Next, I have no idea why pgl wrote "Tom - you started this ugly false rumor.".

pgl, why did you write that? I'll repeat my request for any evidence at all that I "started thi sugly false rumor" that I had been banned at your site.

And while we attend to that housecleaning, have you withdrawn your earlier disavowal of your previous comments? I refer to your comment here:

All of your quotes are from others besides me.

pgl - does (a) yes, or (b) no work for you?

How about a simple answer to this proposition:

When I, pgl, wrote earlier that "All of your quotes are from others besides me", I was mistaken.

Yes or no?

Personal responsibility for your own comments - get ready!

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I suggest ignoring, unless poking a torpid lizard with a stick amuses you.'

We usenet sadists prefer setting kitty cats' tails on fire.

Molon Labe

All I wanna know: Were these terrorists properly Mirandized upon arrest?

Rick Ballard

Lurker,

In response to this Real Clear Politics article; Vnjagvet said:

It is black letter law that courts do not issue advisory opinions.

The declatory judgment is a remedy that is infrequently requested and even more infrequently granted because of that black letter principle.

What Justice Stevens has done in Hamdan is the closest thing to an advisory opinion we are likely to see from the SCOTUS.

This case now creates a roadmap for the Defense Department and Congress to come up with a procedure that accomplishes the needs of the "War on Terror".

I think it is a pretty creative, result, because of the factors set out in the article Seneca cites.

However, I think I will wait for a while to share this observation on free republic or polipundit.

I agree.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Personal responsibility for your own comments - get ready!'

I'm hoping somebody e-mails Crowe Chizek his comments about their participation in the Great Toll Road Conspiracy.

Barney Frank

Patrick,

I took a look at the plain statute and still find the languge ambiguous.
1005(H)(2)states that paragraphs 2 and 3 (subsection e) are retroactive, notably leaving out paragraph 1 which deals with habeas corpus claims.
Now the lefties claim this was intentional, to get enough support for passage. I don't know if this is true. If the intent was to make habeas corpus claims retroactively confined to the DC court of appeals then they gave SCOTUS the loophole to get around the law by not explicitly including it in the retroactive clause..

Barney Frank

NRO has an interesting fairly short symposium on Hamdan and the DTA.
The url was about a mile long and I can't do the cool blue link thingy.........nor do I want to know how, to all the helpful folks who will give me a turtorial I'll never understand.

Ari Tai

Oh great. Just what we need, more $100M trials (like Mousssaoui's) for these thousands of murderers, to say nothing of the secret sources and methods we're going to have to lose. And some think the war is expensive. this is going to make it look cheap.

The trial lawyer guild must be wondering how they are going to spend it all.

lurker

And we would be the one paying the ACLU lawyers...

Patrick R. Sullivan

'1005(H)(2)states that paragraphs 2 and 3 (subsection e) are retroactive, notably leaving out paragraph 1 which deals with habeas corpus claims.'

Meaning the obvious logical inference is that habeas corpus isn't included.

'....If the intent was to make habeas corpus claims retroactively confined to the DC court of appeals...'

Obviously not. Habeas claims are absolutely prohibited. It's only the appeals for tribunal decisions that are appealable to the Appeals Court.

'then they gave SCOTUS the loophole to get around the law by not explicitly including it in the retroactive clause..'

No, no. Your logic is flawed. The 'retroactivity' (itself a poor word to use to describe this) means that pending cases can be appealed. And that is limited to the 2 instances specified. Neither of which is habeas corpus.

Tom Maguire

Look - you did accuse us of blocking you. If you later took the accusation back - fine.

Help us, pgl - let's try multiple choice:

(a) provide a cite;

(b) admit that you are having a fantasy;

(c) hypothesize that I posted it somewhere but later deleted it;

(d) state for the record that you took my comment about Confed Yankee's possible banning as some sort of statement that I had been banned, even though I later re-appeared in the comments.

Just to reprise that exchange, cited upthread, here we go again:

TM (on the question of whether Confederate Yankee had been banned):

I have never know the Bear to stifle dissent, although I suppose today might be the day.

One of the pgls:

Tom - I have not stiffled dissent. I resent the suggestion.

TM, in response:

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I was suggesting it - is that what you took from "I have never know the Bear to stifle dissent, although I suppose today might be the day." So much for my drollerys.

And that is where *I* started the rumor that *I* had been banned? What about Confed Yankee, just for starters? What about your obvious (and, I suspect, willful) misinterpretation of my words?

Tough call, pgl - choice (d) is delusional, but none of the others have real appeal either. Care to choose one, or explain yourself?

Then we still have the issue of why you disavowed your earlier comments that I quoted. Do you want to go with:

(a) pgl made a mistake;

(b) pgl was spoofed by someone from the same IP address;

(c) pgl is actually a team commenter, and he/she got confused;

(d) something else.

These questions are pretty easy, pgl, and will help us judge your own integrity when you come here and accuse me of dishonesty (although honestly, I shouldn't pretend that the jury is still out. But maybe someone lurking is secretly rooting for you).

Sorry, there is a lot of tinder to clear away before we can get to what pgl is passing off as substance.

Barney Frank

OK I'm finally grasping your argument. Let me go look again.

arrowhead

I agree with those who have opined that this decision is a pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. What better way is there for the President to head into the summer and the fall elections?

P.S. Where can I get one of those T-shirts?

lurker

Hi, CSPAN is now discussing the Hamdan v Rumsfeld case that is discussed at Georgetown University. Richard Lzarus is introducing the show.

Am afraid this may be too biased.

P.S. I'd like that t-shirt, too.

lurker

Yup, all of the speakers on this CSPAN show are plantiffs for Hamdan.

lurker

One speaker said that they shot down each and every argument presented by the defense team and they were able to convinced SCOTUS of their arguments.

lurker

"No, no. Your logic is flawed. The 'retroactivity' (itself a poor word to use to describe this) means that pending cases can be appealed. And that is limited to the 2 instances specified. Neither of which is habeas corpus."

That's how I saw it. What I don't get it is and perhaps Patrick can help is how SCOTUS concluded that the military tribunals would end up not being subjected to UCMJ. For some reason, SCOTUS was led to believe that the Gitmo detanees would not be given a "fair trial".

Who was on the defense team?

Mark Tushnet is currently speaking.

lurker

Neal Katyal is the lead Plaintif atty. Paul Clement apparently was a member of the defense team.

lurker

NRO Symposium

Barney Frank

Patrick,

OK this is why I'm a humble logger and not an attorney. You're absolutely correct.
The scales fell from my eyes, quite frankly, and its hard to figure how I saw it any other way. Jeez.
Obviously, 1) is not mentioned in 1005(h)(2) because nothing in 1) could be retroactive as it was merely telling the courts to bugger off of everything in 1). 2) and 3) on the other hand provide for review and are therefore retroactive. And I agree retroactive is a poor choice of terms, it only says that cases already pending are covered.
Now that I got my meager brain cells around it I'm disgusted by the majorities audacity to get around the jurisdictional question.
Thanks for the enlightenment.

Tom Maguire

I was able to successfully predict pgl's bail-out tactic when he refused to engage any of my questions on the Swift issue (although I am still not clear whether the Angry Bear is pgl, and may have confused them below):

If I may offer a Bold Prediction here - this discussion will end with the Bear announcing that he is not going to dignify this conversation with his presence, that he has more important things to do, and that he will leave mire-wallowing to others.

Hey - I picked a winner! A few comments later, pgl offered this:

Tom - I have not stiffled dissent. I resent the suggestion. I have decided not to get into the mud with silly questions.

That pretty much answered my questions about pgl's honor and intellectual firepower - make a bunch of ad hominem attacks, and run when challenged.

So I am not wholly delighted to see him stop by here (did anyone guess?), although his behavior is unsurprising.

But let's try to handicap his exit strategy:

(a) admit his mistakes, apologize, and try to make a positive contribution to the discussion;

(b) slink away with no further postings;

(c) one last whinge about how I am a liar, and a "pearls before swine" announcement that I am not worthy of his presence.

(d) the "Maguire is a liar" whinge, followed by the news that he is off to focus on the important issues of the day.

(c) and (d) have to be co-favorites. I'll go with (d).

The good news is, he is obviously out of ideas (OK, it is obvious even to me; I suspect others caught on sooner). So I may actualy get back on track and on topic.

lurker

The next speaker is Carlos Vasquez.

Anyone take a trip to Seixon's website. Boy, Think Progress really screwed him up and best to either NOT blog at those sites OR remain anonymous.

maryrose

pgl;
Put a sock in it!

lurker

OT:

Cspan reported that the Federal Judge is currently reviewing Libby's request to delay the Jan 2007 CIA leak case.

maryrose

Lurker:
That is a huge development-please keep us informed.

Gary Maxwell

OT

I have not seen it reported elsewhere but in the Dead Tree edition of the Dallas Morning News today a story runs on the felony case Ronnie Earle is pursuing against the Texas Association of Business. Yesterday the trial judge threw out a an indictment for illegal corporate advocacy. The article contains this tidbit : Judge Lynch's ruling on express advocacy strikes at the heart of the entire case. Judge Lynch's order said prosecutors' theory of illegal campaign expenses, while innovative, cannot be found in the state election code. Even if it were, it would unconstitutional broad and vague.

And this pearl. Mr Earle's office did not immediately comment.

This is a companion suit to the one charging DeLay with money laundering. Notice that this judge was not to fond of Mr. Earle's "innovative but not found in the code" style. Perhaps the foreshadowing of Earle case against DeLay as well?

Gary Maxwell

OT

Dan abrams commenting on his review of the 1278 pages of discovery in the Duke Rape? Case:

Well now I‘ve seen them all. It‘s all numbered. Every page is numbered of the discovery. I‘ve seen it all now everything that the D.A. handed over to the defense team, and this case is even weaker than I originally thought.

Remember this when some putz tells you that its all Defense spin and the you dont know what the DA knows. You may very well know everything the DA knows at this point, and likely have better common sense than he does.

Redcoat

Gary Maxwell:

I have not seen it reported elsewhere but in the Dead Tree edition of the Dallas Morning News today a story runs on the felony case Ronnie Earle is pursuing

I had heard one of the arguments from Delay's people was that there was no applicable statute in place at the time the alleged crimes were committed.

If this is the basis of one,or more of the charges against Delay,I would expect the same outcome.

I'm shocked this has not received more attention,given the amount of ink devoted to his crusade against Tom Delay.

You'd think the media would be interested in that.

Charlie (Colorado)

Gary, the Dallas Morning News story is online.

Charlie (Colorado)

I'm shocked this has not received more attention,given the amount of ink devoted to his crusade against Tom Delay.

You're joking, right?

Gary Maxwell

RedCoat

worse than that actually. He charged DeLay with violating a law that was not evn in place when the transactions occurred. I guess DeLay should have anticipated what the law would eventually be. Then when he realized his error, he did not drop the charges he went to another grand jury and tried to get money laundering charges files. The Grand jury no billed. So with time running out and one day to go he empaneled a third grand jury and finally got the bogus money laundering charges filed. Contributions to a PAC that ultimately gives to a cndidates campaign is money laundering. The mind boggles. But he did get DeLay out of congress so maybe he is the smart one.

Jim Miller

pgl believes that Brad DeLong would follow principle if the White House were controlled by a different party. Is this a different DeLong than the economics professor who once worked for Clinton, and now spends all his time berating the Bush administration? Or at least did when last I looked at his blog -- which was often quite funny, though always unintentionally. And showed complete disdain for copyrights.

(Do the California taxpayers deserve more from Professor DeLong? I think so, but I can't imagine convincing many academics that a professor should do the job he is being paid to do.)

If pgl is thinking of another, less amusing, Brad Delong, my apologies.

Redcoat

Gary Maxwell

The mind boggles. But he did get DeLay out of congress so maybe he is the smart one.

True,but Delay left of his own accord in order to insure his seat staying Red.

Given Earle's track record,I am not too optimistic about his chances of sucess in putting Delay in prison.

Charlie (Colorado):

You're joking, right?


Yes,yes I am.


clarice

Here's something to remember when Congress is considering creating another new superagency or even more elaborate program to be handled by people who cannot even administer what's on their plate already. It also will receive little coverage, though I've just blogged about it and hope AT will carry it to increase knowledge about it.The Case of Robert Schofield


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901907.html>Robert Schofeld

Gary Maxwell

Clarice

Putting the government in charge of almost anything is a sure fire recipe for little to be accomplished and much left to be desired. Unfortunately, the government gets more than than their share of third stringers. And unlike private business the emplyment rules tend to make them lifetime employees, even when the track record is worse than mediocre.

Government works best to form a standing army and print money, which are essential services. Most of the rest is pouring funds in the sewey hole.

Barney Frank

clarice,

Amazing!
Welcome to the Federal government where you steal $36,000 and get promoted.

Tom Maguire

Maybe pgl is thinking of the Brad DeLong who hammered Hillary Clinton.

I really don't like berating folks behind their back (although with pgl that may be the ony resort at this point.)

colin

The only reason the Democrats agreed to vote for the bill was because they thought it did NOT take away the court's jurisdition to hear Hamdan's appeal.

Why should the bill need the vote of Democrats? Republicans have the majority in the house. Were the Democrats using procedural blocking tactics?

clarice

Isn't this amazing! It's buried in the Post on a day everyone is out of town. going out of town or making arrangements for house guests. Not just STEAL Barney--engage in funny business and flee when you are being investigated..Un frickin believable.

pgl

Tom - my bailout tactic being not addressing some comment on a topic not relevant to this discussion? You really are getting desparate! OK, someone called me to put a sock in it. Given the bait and switch from our host - sock inserted.

pgl

Since someone asked me to be Brad DeLong here (we don't even live in the same city) - Brad's sin was to ask Tom to rise above partisanship. For that - Tom calls Brad a partisan. Fellows - a little honesty, please? Even if our host has forgotten what honesty even means.

Barney Frank

Tom,

I went over to Angry Bear and AB claims to not be pgl, if there was any question in your mind about that.
They all also claim to have Phds in economics.
I read a thread or two.
Must hve got their doctorates at Romper Room U. Pitiful stuff.
BTW pgl doesn't seem to keep a sock in his mouth very long does he?

Barney Frank

clarice,

The guy was a one man crime wave. But I just mentioned the theft because I like economy in my posts; except when I go on and on and on. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame