Any thoughts on the rights of "enemy combatants"? What are their actual rights (if any) and what are they entitled to?

I definitely am not cool with the U.S. just holding them with trial, or, I'm assuming, even charging. Of course, this kind of thing probably happens all the time, especially after 9-11.

[ fuck it, just shoot 'em dead. they hate america, so they deserve to die. while we're at it, lets also snipe anyone who utters a critical word against the government, because dissent is trasonous... Ann Coulter should be in charge of all this -- she knows what patriotism really is.

jesus. i thought the constitution was pretty clear on this one, really. i understand that national security requires some special considerations, but seems like there's some rights being neglected here. -k]

CNN.com - UK investigates Guantanamo five - Feb. 20, 2004

] Brit Hume is the Fox anchor who helped orchestrate the
] Republican-led 39-hour Senate talk-a-thon intended to
] counter the Democratic filibuster against four of
] President Bush's most radically conservative judicial
] nominees.
] Hume and fellow anchor Tony Snow pitched the idea
] outright to Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist on Fox
] News Sunday, challenging the Senator's repeated
] contention that an all-night protest session would be
] counterproductive. Two weeks later, the two-day marathon
] session was announced.
] Having successfully prodded Frist to hold the all-night
] session, Hume sought special coverage of the event.
] According to a leaked email, a producer for Hume's
] evening news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, worked
] directly with a staffer for Senator Frist, in an effort
] to choreograph the launch of the Republican protest as a
] "live opening shot" for Hume's November 12 newscast. As
] reported in The Hill, the leaked memo read:
] "It is important to double efforts to get your boss
] to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited
] about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open
] with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the
] producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02
] when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit
] Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time
] for the walk-in start?"
] Hume's behavior in this incident shatters any illusion of
] 'fair and balanced' journalism. Worse, it evidences an
] effort to orchestrate PR coups for Bush Republicans.

[ fair and balanced indeed. what a travesty of newspeak. journalistic integrity? what's that, and who needs it? -k]

MoveOn.org: Media Corps: Award to Fox anchor prompts outrage

Elonka wrote:
] To be honest, even if it was true (and I don't believe it is),
] it wouldn't have an impact on my opinion. Someone cut school
] for a day? Big whoop.

[ With all due respect, this isn't about skipping school. It's about reneging on a sworn promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces. If this is true, it means that the President is a man who couldn't find it in himself to commit fully to the National Guard, an honorable position that nonetheless was a gift from god compared with fighting in a foreign war. For such a man to talk to *anyone* about patriotism, honor, or duty, much less command this generation of soldiers to wage war is outrageous.

I'm as skeptical as anyone about this situation... it seems to me like much ado without much data, but it's not about nothing. If it comes out as fact, then we're talking about hypocracy of the worst sort -- the kind in which people die under orders from a false leader. If it comes out to be nothing, then we can reprimand the accusers, demand their apology, and then move on. But to claim it's unimportant is completely absurd and does a disservice to those who don't equivocate their dedication to the oaths they take. -k]

Spokesman Defends Bush's Military Service

[ As unexpected as it is for me to say this, i think Bush did a good job in this interview. That is *not* to say that this interview has convinced me that Bush has done a good job, but in the context of this transcript, he did some things right.

His handling of the issues surrounding the Iraq war was better than i've seen previously. He was more convincing this time as someone who acted in a genuine way, even if it turns out that the intelligence on which his actions were based had some falsity. I think this will alleviate some people's concerns about being lied to outright, though I think there are a few more unanswered questions.
I certainly do not believe him when he says his motivation for setting the investigative committee's deadline in March is not at all political, and i think the structure and makeup of the commission is weak and questionable, at best. And, of course, I don't agree that he properly handled the case for war on the world stage... "bringing our case to the world" as he says, isn't what we did... we told the world we were gonna do this and they better hop on the C-130 with us... that's a different thing. Lastly, I don't think there was any substantial plan for rebuilding post-war Iraq, prior to engagement, and some attention should have been given to that as well.

On the economy, he did *not* do a good job, and was unconvincing. This segment :
] RUSSERT: But your base conservatives -- listen to Rush Limbaugh,
] the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute -- they're all saying
] you're the biggest spender in American history.
]
] BUSH: Well, they're wrong.
is truly a standout. They're not wrong. Period. He could have made the case that they've mischaracterized his spending, and that the fiscal policy which demands it is based on the war and tax cuts etc. (all of which are *bad* policy in my opinion). The argument that he hasn't been a massive spender is totally untenable. He should have accepted the criticism and justified the spending. Calling your base stupid is not a great strategy.
He also brings up the reduction in unemployment to 5.6 %, but that number has been analyzed to be falsely encouraging because it doesn't account for the number of people who have stopped looking for work at all, which is an increasing number. It's not a good sign when people have been looking for so long that they give up.
He does attempt to justify spending due to the war later on, but he when he discusses ensuring that soldiers are well paid, it comes off flat -- didn't he *cut* military pay?

All in all, as I said, he did quite a decent job, comparatively, but if the Democratic contests are an indication of where the focus is going to be come november, he's gonna need some help shoring up his fiscal justifications and reengaging the fiscal conservative base who's stopped listening to him. -k]

President Bush on NBC's 'Meet the Press'

] Thanks to the GOP takeover of Washington, and the harsh
] realities of the Big Sort, economically lagging parts of
] the country now wield ultimate political power, while the
] creative centers--source of most of America's economic
] growth--have virtually none.

[ very interesting, if disheartening, article -k]

'Creative Class War' by Richard Florida

Elonka wrote:
] If I were voting in tomorrow's primary, I'd vote for
] Lieberman.

alas, he'll be dropping out shortly, i predict. probably not this week, but he's got hardly a shot on 2/3 unless he pulls off a miracle in NH.

back on topic, i agree that there's a lot of misrepresentation of Kay's resignation and subsequent discussions. Self-interested Democrats are painting it as proof that the administration was lying, which is itself pretty indistinguishable from lying, since that's not what Kay has stated.

That being said, the administration is doing an awful lot of "It's not our fault, we had bad intelligence!", "Everyone *thought* they were there" and "We got hosed!" or "We're just doing what Bill Clinton wanted!" I'm still incredibly skeptical of statements like that.

Fundamentally, I'm not as angry about the fact that we went to war on shaky pretenses as much as the way in which it was handled on the global stage, and the lack of adequate planning before engagement. I also maintain that congress acted irresponsibly, at least, by effectively signing away their oversight to the Bush administration. That's my main problem with the Dem contenders who voted for the resolution... not that they supported invading Iraq, but that they permitted it to be done in a poorly thought out manner.

It would seem that most people don't agree with me, since Kerry is at the head of the pack right now, but people are fickle... it might come back up. On the electability tip, none of the senators could go antiwar very effectively against the prez, since he could diffuse it with a quick "[BZZT] You told me to do it. You're done now." Fortunately, there are plenty of other complaints to bring to bear.

RE: CNN.com - Democrats attack administration over Kay's comments

I saw this on World News Tonight a week or 2 back. That cannon is maked to attack tanks and other armor. There is nothing left of where the men were except burning brush

[ i'm not so sure that's brush, as much as a combination of brush and body parts. i clearly haven't played enough GTA:Vice City, because this shit still disturbs the hell out of me. especially the part where they shoot the guy under the truck, then you see his body, possibly not quite dead, roll down the hill to be further demolished by another round of fire. christ. ]-k

Helichopper kill

[yeah, of course. i mean, you've hit the core of many critical issues of civil rights activity. The school, in their efforts to honor MLK, *should* have had an award for "Civil Rights Activist of the Year" for the student most committed to working toward social change or whatever. I agree that it's not really useful, when you're trying to talk about equality, about color blindness or whatnot, that you create race-based categories for honoring people. If your initial argument was "that award seems offensively narrow" i'd probably agree. The article doesn't indicate the criteria for the award, and says only that it's given to a "distinguished" individual selected by teachers. Ostensibly it could be given for excellence in sports as much as in academics or activism or anything else, though i would hope all elements would be taken into account. Seems like a fairly hollow award in a narrow field of competitors, but if i say that, it's offensive to the students that have recieved it in the past, and who are almost certainly deserving of honor, regardless of race.

fundamentally, the only way to move beyond these kinds of issues is to not base activities, awards or whatever on race at all... base them on cultural influences, historical movements or leaders, or common interest, but racializing things only perpetuates a racial view of the world.]-k

RE: You are not African-American, You are White

] As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say
] this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible
] thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to
] George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt
] for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr.
] Dean's candidacy was -- and is -- worth it. He took on
] Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on
] notice that he is coming after them. And he called the
] Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of
] spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the
] working people of America. Everyone in every campaign
] owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks.

[ i feel i have to say, i don't always like michael moore... he's got some inconsistencies i find hard to overlook, but this is a nice defense of Dean. If i'd heard him say last week that Dean was too passionate to win the election, i'd have scoffed, but it seems like that's the truth. people want a president who says the things they want to hear, but not too loudly. personally, i think this is the entire problem with the democratic party. too much meek complicity and apologising. *i* think outrage is the only thing that will motivate people to get off their ass and vote. however, people don't want outrage... they want to sit comforatably and believe it's all gonna be alright and not have to get worked up about anything. for that reason alone, Dean may not be electable. it's too bad. i may have to change my signature to "Unnamed Viable Opposition Candidate in 2004". alas, i don't have a lot of faith that moore's message will be taken to heart. it's gonna be tough for the 600,000 people who invested time, money and emotion in support of this candidate to see him go down and retain any hope for the process at all. Four years from now, i may look back and feel pride in having a small part in a campaign that energized people for a short time, but i'm gonna be gunshy about going out on a limb again. i'd prefer to look back on a presidency which restored some real pride to the democrats across the nation. at this point, the media's got me believing i've wasted my time (or, as the case may be, money), in the long run, no matter what michael moore says. i hope, such as i still am able, that my beliefs are shattered. lets see how the debate goes. ]-k

Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message

"The unhappy truth is that the net result of the war on terror, so far at least, has been more war and more terror," Evans said.

War on terror spawns more terror?