okay so I lied.
Feb. 4th, 2005 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
themeletorThere are a few stories I want to toss out at y'all.
One from Washington Post:
Some Barred From Bush's North Dakota Speech
Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A08
Not everyone was welcome, apparently, at President Bush's speech in North Dakota yesterday.
The Fargo Forum reported that a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites.
The "Bush blacklist" is "frightening," Tom Athans, chief executive of Democracy Radio, said after learning that a producer for the liberal "Ed Schultz Show" was among those barred. "To blacklist a local citizen because he produces a radio program at odds with the political agenda of the White House is dangerous for democracy."
City Commissioner Linda Coates, whose husband was also on the list, told the newspaper that the list "is very revealing as to what this administration is all about."
The White House said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House.
-- Howard Kurtz
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
From The New York Times:
February 4, 2005
General Is Scolded for Saying, 'It's Fun to Shoot Some People'
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - A senior Marine general who commanded forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been admonished by the commandant of the Marine Corps for saying publicly, "It's fun to shoot some people."
Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who is a revered figure among marines for his fierce demeanor and warrior ethos, made the comments on Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war against terror.
According to an audio recording of General Mattis's remarks obtained by The Associated Press, he said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil."
General Mattis continued: "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
On Thursday, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, "I have counseled him concerning his remarks, and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully." General Hagee added, "While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war."
General Mattis is now the commanding officer of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., which is responsible for developing Marine war-fighting doctrine, techniques and tactics. A spokeswoman for the general said he agreed that he should have chosen his words more carefully and that he considered the matter closed.
The general is no stranger to controversy. After marines under his command seized an airstrip in Afghanistan at the start of the war against the Taliban, he declared, "The Marines have landed, and we now own a piece of Afghanistan."
The remark grated on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who with other Pentagon officials considered the remark impolitic given the administration's stated goal that the United States was freeing Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban, not seizing land in a Muslim nation.
As commander of the First Marine Division in the Iraq war, General Mattis ordered his force on a high-speed race from Kuwait to Baghdad, sowing confusion among Iraqi units along the way with the maneuver.
When one of his regimental commanders, Col. Joe D. Dowdy, was not aggressive enough for General Mattis, the general stripped the subordinate of his battlefield command, a highly unusual step in wartime.
At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld said he had not read General Mattis's remarks and declined to comment on them.
Gen. Peter Pace, a Marine officer who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same briefing that he would let General Mattis speak for himself.
"But I will tell you," General Pace said, "that the last three times that that general has been in combat, when he was leading marines in Afghanistan, and the two times that he led his division in Iraq, his actions, and those of his troops, clearly show that he understands the value of proper leadership and the value of human life."
(c) 2005 The New York Times Company
Our Battered Constitution
By BOB HERBERT
The Constitution? Forget about it.
Only about half of America's high school students think newspapers should be allowed to publish freely, without government approval of their stories. And a third say the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment go "too far."
This has thrown a lot of noses out of joint. Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which financed a two-year study of high school attitudes about First Amendment freedoms, said, "These results are not only disturbing - they are dangerous."
But maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the youngsters. After all, they've been set a terrible example by a presidential administration that has left no doubt about its contempt for a number of our supposedly most cherished constitutional guarantees.
In an important decision on Monday, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Bush administration cannot be allowed to defy the Constitution and an order of the Supreme Court in its treatment of the hundreds of prisoners it is holding at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The judge, Joyce Hens Green, said the administration must permit the detainees it is holding as "enemy combatants" to challenge their detention in federal courts.
The administration has tried mightily to establish its right to treat anyone who it determines is an "enemy combatant" any way it chooses. It has argued that it can hold such detainees for a lifetime - without charging them, without giving them access to lawyers, without showing them the evidence against them and without allowing them to challenge their detention.
Administration officials are adamant on this matter, and yesterday they were granted a stay of Judge Green's decision, pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled last June that the administration was acting illegally in depriving the detainees of their liberty without allowing them to challenge the cases against them. The administration responded bizarrely. Its lawyers argued, with "Alice in Wonderland" logic, that, yes, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, the detainees can challenge their detention. But since (in the administration's view) they don't actually possess any rights to support the challenges, the courts must necessarily reject the challenges.
The administration is fighting for nothing less than the death of due process for anyone it rounds up, no matter how arbitrarily, in its enemy combatant sweeps. Such tyrannical powers should offend anyone who cares about such old-fashioned notions as the rule of law, checks and balances, and constitutional guarantees.
Under the procedures set up by the administration for dealing with the detainees, we have no way of distinguishing between a terrorist committed to mass murder and someone who is completely innocent.
In her decision, Judge Green wrote, "Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years."
The fundamental right in the case of the Guantánamo detainees is the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. A government with the power to spirit people away and declare that's the end of the matter is exactly the kind of government the United States has always claimed to oppose, and has sometimes fought. For the United States itself to become that kind of government is spectacularly scary.
In seeking the stay of Judge Green's ruling, the administration showed yesterday that it is committed to being that kind of government.
Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed legal challenges on behalf of many detainees, said the administration believes it has "carte blanche" when it comes to fighting terror: "It's pretty alarming."
In one hearing that led up to Monday's decision, Judge Green attempted to see how broadly the government viewed its power to hold detainees. Administration lawyers told her, in response to a hypothetical question, that they believed the president would even have the right to lock up "a little old lady from Switzerland" for the duration of the war on terror if she had written checks to a charity that she believed helped orphans, but that actually was a front for Al Qaeda.
(c) 2005 The New York Times Company
I'm going to stop lj-whoring now and go down to lunch.
[EDIT: one more lj-whore moment. I posted a challenge to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
undead_monthly. We have... 4 members now. (yay welcome ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lolita_stardust!)]
One from Washington Post:
Some Barred From Bush's North Dakota Speech
Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A08
Not everyone was welcome, apparently, at President Bush's speech in North Dakota yesterday.
The Fargo Forum reported that a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites.
The "Bush blacklist" is "frightening," Tom Athans, chief executive of Democracy Radio, said after learning that a producer for the liberal "Ed Schultz Show" was among those barred. "To blacklist a local citizen because he produces a radio program at odds with the political agenda of the White House is dangerous for democracy."
City Commissioner Linda Coates, whose husband was also on the list, told the newspaper that the list "is very revealing as to what this administration is all about."
The White House said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House.
-- Howard Kurtz
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
From The New York Times:
February 4, 2005
General Is Scolded for Saying, 'It's Fun to Shoot Some People'
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - A senior Marine general who commanded forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been admonished by the commandant of the Marine Corps for saying publicly, "It's fun to shoot some people."
Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who is a revered figure among marines for his fierce demeanor and warrior ethos, made the comments on Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war against terror.
According to an audio recording of General Mattis's remarks obtained by The Associated Press, he said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
He added, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil."
General Mattis continued: "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
On Thursday, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, issued a statement saying, "I have counseled him concerning his remarks, and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully." General Hagee added, "While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war."
General Mattis is now the commanding officer of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., which is responsible for developing Marine war-fighting doctrine, techniques and tactics. A spokeswoman for the general said he agreed that he should have chosen his words more carefully and that he considered the matter closed.
The general is no stranger to controversy. After marines under his command seized an airstrip in Afghanistan at the start of the war against the Taliban, he declared, "The Marines have landed, and we now own a piece of Afghanistan."
The remark grated on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who with other Pentagon officials considered the remark impolitic given the administration's stated goal that the United States was freeing Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban, not seizing land in a Muslim nation.
As commander of the First Marine Division in the Iraq war, General Mattis ordered his force on a high-speed race from Kuwait to Baghdad, sowing confusion among Iraqi units along the way with the maneuver.
When one of his regimental commanders, Col. Joe D. Dowdy, was not aggressive enough for General Mattis, the general stripped the subordinate of his battlefield command, a highly unusual step in wartime.
At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld said he had not read General Mattis's remarks and declined to comment on them.
Gen. Peter Pace, a Marine officer who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same briefing that he would let General Mattis speak for himself.
"But I will tell you," General Pace said, "that the last three times that that general has been in combat, when he was leading marines in Afghanistan, and the two times that he led his division in Iraq, his actions, and those of his troops, clearly show that he understands the value of proper leadership and the value of human life."
(c) 2005 The New York Times Company
Our Battered Constitution
By BOB HERBERT
The Constitution? Forget about it.
Only about half of America's high school students think newspapers should be allowed to publish freely, without government approval of their stories. And a third say the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment go "too far."
This has thrown a lot of noses out of joint. Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which financed a two-year study of high school attitudes about First Amendment freedoms, said, "These results are not only disturbing - they are dangerous."
But maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the youngsters. After all, they've been set a terrible example by a presidential administration that has left no doubt about its contempt for a number of our supposedly most cherished constitutional guarantees.
In an important decision on Monday, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Bush administration cannot be allowed to defy the Constitution and an order of the Supreme Court in its treatment of the hundreds of prisoners it is holding at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The judge, Joyce Hens Green, said the administration must permit the detainees it is holding as "enemy combatants" to challenge their detention in federal courts.
The administration has tried mightily to establish its right to treat anyone who it determines is an "enemy combatant" any way it chooses. It has argued that it can hold such detainees for a lifetime - without charging them, without giving them access to lawyers, without showing them the evidence against them and without allowing them to challenge their detention.
Administration officials are adamant on this matter, and yesterday they were granted a stay of Judge Green's decision, pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled last June that the administration was acting illegally in depriving the detainees of their liberty without allowing them to challenge the cases against them. The administration responded bizarrely. Its lawyers argued, with "Alice in Wonderland" logic, that, yes, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, the detainees can challenge their detention. But since (in the administration's view) they don't actually possess any rights to support the challenges, the courts must necessarily reject the challenges.
The administration is fighting for nothing less than the death of due process for anyone it rounds up, no matter how arbitrarily, in its enemy combatant sweeps. Such tyrannical powers should offend anyone who cares about such old-fashioned notions as the rule of law, checks and balances, and constitutional guarantees.
Under the procedures set up by the administration for dealing with the detainees, we have no way of distinguishing between a terrorist committed to mass murder and someone who is completely innocent.
In her decision, Judge Green wrote, "Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years."
The fundamental right in the case of the Guantánamo detainees is the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. A government with the power to spirit people away and declare that's the end of the matter is exactly the kind of government the United States has always claimed to oppose, and has sometimes fought. For the United States itself to become that kind of government is spectacularly scary.
In seeking the stay of Judge Green's ruling, the administration showed yesterday that it is committed to being that kind of government.
Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed legal challenges on behalf of many detainees, said the administration believes it has "carte blanche" when it comes to fighting terror: "It's pretty alarming."
In one hearing that led up to Monday's decision, Judge Green attempted to see how broadly the government viewed its power to hold detainees. Administration lawyers told her, in response to a hypothetical question, that they believed the president would even have the right to lock up "a little old lady from Switzerland" for the duration of the war on terror if she had written checks to a charity that she believed helped orphans, but that actually was a front for Al Qaeda.
(c) 2005 The New York Times Company
I'm going to stop lj-whoring now and go down to lunch.
[EDIT: one more lj-whore moment. I posted a challenge to
undead_monthly. We have... 4 members now. (yay welcome lolita_stardust!)]
