Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[Just Another Day]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090519.wibbitson19art2241/BNStory/International/home

 

Obama's not really in my good books at the moment (see: McChrystal, torture photos), but holy fuck the man is sharp. I'm pretty sure John Huntsman was the only Republican with a serious chance to threaten him in 2012, but China is both a position he can't refuse, and one that he'll be genuinely good at. And it's apolitical enough that his genuine fiscal conservatism won't prevent him from doing a Democratic administration proud.

[NotMiki]

Slate puts it best:

"If all politics is local, one should never pass up a chance to send one's opponents to Asia."

http://www.slate.com/id/2218622/

[Shale]

No serious challengers? Really?

Maybe they'll run Alan Keyes and we can at least get some comedy out of this.

[InfinityDragon]

I'm pretty sure John Huntsman was the only Republican with a serious chance to threaten him in 2012, but China is both a position he can't refuse, and one that he'll be genuinely good at. And it's apolitical enough that his genuine fiscal conservatism won't prevent him from doing a Democratic administration proud.

Now it's just a matter of seeing if Obama cut off the arm to save the finger. He just gave Huntsman the one thing even excellent governor's lack: foreign policy experience...and experience with China no less. Obama might have an easier time in a 2012 election--which he probably would have won regardless--but if Huntsman is actually a serious contender, there are few current Democrats who could challenge him in 2016 (unless Hilary realizes that Obama gave her the shaft and rendered her moot by making her Sec. State and she successfully breaks off).

[Shale]

And if Obama ends his term popular, Huntsman also benefits from being part of the administration. Crafty.

[Just Another Day]

Well, see, I can see the risks to the party, but I'm not sure it's all that dangerous ideologically. One of the (many) great challenges of the Obama administration, in my mind, is redefining a viable, acceptable opposition party. Empowering John Huntsman does this. So it might be risky for the democratic party, but I think it's overall positive for America, for progressives, basically for everyone except the uberconservative rump.

I would far, far rather see a sensible, culturally literate moderate conservative become the next president of the United States of America than, say, a corrupt corporate whore like Evan Bayh, no matter his ostensible liberal sensibilities. And it would be a strange, happy sort of dream to see a presidential race in America with two at least vaguely acceptable candidates. Make no mistake, I despise the Republican party and would love to see the Obama administration succeed wildly and lead us into a euphoric progressive utopia, but I think realistically it can only be a positive development for the Republican party to get off the crazy binge and back to reality.

[NotMiki]

Now it's just a matter of seeing if Obama cut off the arm to save the finger. He just gave Huntsman the one thing even excellent governor's lack: foreign policy experience...and experience with China no less. Obama might have an easier time in a 2012 election--which he probably would have won regardless--but if Huntsman is actually a serious contender, there are few current Democrats who could challenge him in 2016 (unless Hilary realizes that Obama gave her the shaft and rendered her moot by making her Sec. State and she successfully breaks off).

I don't know about that.  Huntsman already has some experience as an ambassador to Singapore.  China's good for him, but foreign experience wasn't a weakness of his resume.  And by the same argument, Clinton is in better shape to run in '16 as a result of being secretary of state rather than junior senator from NY.

[superaielman]

Hillary's age is going to be a factor if she has to wait until 2016 to run. She'd be 70~ by the time she's sworn in? Not as big a deal as with McCain due to better health but still.

One of the (many) great challenges of the Obama administration, in my mind, is redefining a viable, acceptable opposition party. Empowering John Huntsman does this. So it might be risky for the democratic party, but I think it's overall positive for America, for progressives, basically for everyone except the uberconservative rump.

Haha, no.  He has neither the swing nor the right to 'redefine' the republican party .I'm in agreement that the current state of affairs needs to change, but the the root of this goes back to the Reagan revolution and is something that the party has to choose to change. It needs to be more inclusive. NOTE: This doesn't mean that Spector still didn't need to fuck off.

I would far, far rather see a sensible, culturally literate moderate conservative become the next president of the United States of America than, say, a corrupt corporate whore like Evan Bayh, no matter his ostensible liberal sensibilities. And it would be a strange, happy sort of dream to see a presidential race in America with two at least vaguely acceptable candidates.

Try 1992 or 1988. President HW Bush was an excellent moderate president.  Dole is the last presidental candiate that was worth voting for for either side.

[InfinityDragon]

I don't know about that.  Huntsman already has some experience as an ambassador to Singapore.  China's good for him, but foreign experience wasn't a weakness of his resume.  And by the same argument, Clinton is in better shape to run in '16 as a result of being secretary of state rather than junior senator from NY.

There's a bit of a difference between being ambassador to a city-state of 5 million people and being the ambassador to a country with a population of 1.3 billion. Not to denigrate being an ambassador to Singapore in anyway, but dealing with China requires much more attention to detail, given the multitude of China's environmental, economic, and political problems.

As for Clinton...Sec. State has always been a political career dead-end, and probably always will be. Aside from the founding fathers early on in US history, nobody who has served as Sec. State has become President. Additionally, Hilary has age working against her...if she does decide to run in 2016, she'll be nearly 70. It depends on if she wants to try to run a presidential campaign at that age or not.

Outside Clinton...most democrats are looking as retarded as Republicans these days (Hey there Pelosi, Reid, and Specter!).

[superaielman]

To be fair, the democrats have a long way to go before matching the mental titans who decided to put Steele in charge of the RNC.

[Shale]

They took a nice step with today's Guantanamo Bay douchebaggery, though.

[superaielman]

Link? I spent all day doing far superior things, like digging up roots in the ground and playing Persona while drooling happily about the pretty weather.


EDIT: Fire Harry Reid.

[Shale]

The Senate killed funding to close Guantanamo, 90-6. Reid's thoughts on the subject, from this press conference:

    REID: I'm saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That's very clear.

    QUESTION: No one's talking about releasing them. We're talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

    REID: Can't put them in prison unless you release them.

    QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? ...

    REID: I can't make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

[NotMiki]

Musta missed that memo about his party winning the election.

Unbridled liberal rage is the only logical response here, so:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/with-friends-like-these.html#more

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

EDIT: I'm in hearty agreement with Diane Feinstein.  someone please shoot me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/senior-democrat-dares-defend-bringing-gitmo-prisoners/

[InfinityDragon]

EDIT: I'm in hearty agreement with Diane Feinstein.  someone please shoot me.

I must admit, I laughed reading that article. It is a good example of why non-lawyers trying to make legal arguments is retarded. She may have acted like a lawyer, but she sure as hell doesn't know what's legally significant or not (note: this is why states require lawyers to actually be qualified to practice law!).

The issue is not about prisoner's rights anymore (although both parties will obviously miss the point and insist they are). What is at issue is the procedural law that is followed. If detainees are released into the United States to be tried there, they'll likely be tried under the federal procedural rules and the federal rules of evidence. If detainees remain in custody of the military, they'll be tried by military tribunals which follow a different set of procedural and evidence rules.

By and large, the military has less strict rules of evidence due to the increased difficulty in conducting a proper investigation in the middle of a war zone. As such, this is the reason they will fight tooth and nail to continue conducting military tribunals.

Granted, I do agree that being scared that supermax facilities will be unable to contain simple terrorists is pretty laughable.

[metroid composite]

Yeah, ID makes a good point--I knew there was something bugging me here that had nothing to do with security.

At the same time, I remember some republican a while back saying "know that Canadian we're holding without any evidence in Guatanamo?  Maybe we should send him to Canada."  Sooo...I question the wisdom of detainment and sentencing via minimal evidence if even Republicans are questioning some of these detainees.

Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything.  It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.

[NotMiki]

The issue is not about prisoner's rights anymore (although both parties will obviously miss the point and insist they are). What is at issue is the procedural law that is followed. If detainees are released into the United States to be tried there, they'll likely be tried under the federal procedural rules and the federal rules of evidence. If detainees remain in custody of the military, they'll be tried by military tribunals which follow a different set of procedural and evidence rules.

How is the issue of which court system detainees are tried in not an issue of detainee rights?  Can there be a more fundamental difference to the rights of a defendant than rules on the admissibility of evidence? (other than the guarantee of a trial, I mean)  In any case, I don't think Feinstein was implying that detainees must necessarily be tried in federal court as opposed to military tribunal, even if she cited a federal prison.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but moving detainees to a military prison inside the US wouldn't change the governments ability to try them by tribunal, would it?

[Hunter Sopko]

Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything.  It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.

A bit of movie trivia, Guantanamo Bay is the army base featured in A Few Good Men.

[Shale]

The army base, yes. The prison was added on post-9/11.

[InfinityDragon]

How is the issue of which court system detainees are tried in not an issue of detainee rights?

Short answer: it's the law.

Long answer: defendants in criminal or similar actions do not have the right to chose where the case will be heard. Any legitimate authority that has jurisdiction over a criminal matter has the authority to try that defendant. The simple parallel is state criminal laws. If I murder somebody in Colorado, I don't suddenly get the right to have the case heard in federal court because I want to. I simply don't have that right.

Can there be a more fundamental difference to the rights of a defendant than rules on the admissibility of evidence? (other than the guarantee of a trial, I mean)

Rules of evidence are not considered substantive due process rights. Evidence and procedural rules cannot, however, violate any substantive due process rights (i.e. a state evidence rule cannot allow for the inclusion of coerced self-incriminating testimony).  Thus, in the end, it does not matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but moving detainees to a military prison inside the US wouldn't change the governments ability to try them by tribunal, would it?

Technically, they probably could continue running tribunals/commissions. Realistically, it would be a logistical nightmare. Guantanamo has the advantage of having everything ("witnesses", documents, co-defendants, etc...) needed in one location.

EDIT: Random nitpicks

The army base, yes. The prison was added on post-9/11.

Guantanamo Bay is a naval base, not army, and the prison has been there awhile. It was indefinite holding of detainees that started after 9/11.

[NotMiki]

Though, honestly, closing Guatanamo Bay always struck me as more symbolic than anything.  It doesn't sound like a particularly enormous facility, or even a terribly relevant facility, just one that got a bad reputation.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was chosen because it's outside the US, but in a foreign country that is incapable of kicking us out or raising serious political objections to it.

[Grefter]

So the same as all of the other military prisons around the world that people can just disappear into after being snatched up and taken away?  Yeah, symbolic because it is far to high attention gathering.  It isn't like we are talking about killing the infrastructure all around the world for this stuff here, sure it is losing a convenient one, but any military base in a third world country will do for that.

[metroid composite]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_china_suicide_help

Ah, the spirit of dictatorial communism.  "You are wasting the time of the state.  This is unacceptable."  Vaguely awesome.

[Laggy]

North Korea fires 2 more short-range missile tests right after its nuclear test (which was stronger than the 2006 one and is drawing condemnation from traditional NK allies, notably China and Russia).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

[metroid composite]

California gay marriage ban upheld by court:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24K01&show_article=1