Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

The definitions would only exclude each other if you favored "extreme" over "excessive." There was no "explaining how I'm using a word wrong." There was a dictionary definition that doesn't particularly contradict my, the Slate person's, and my "friend"'s usage, and using a dictionary for this kind of supposedly authoritative hairsplitting is classic language essentialism. What else would it be but pointing to an absolute definition of a word that absolutely excludes extremely similar definitions?

And you said "thanks for playing"? You're not self-conscious about writing glib, canned responses like that?

well, but...the use of a word tends to be in one of several definitions where multiple definitions exist; it's ok to quote the salient part of the definition of "level" if the argument's about architecture and not, say, video games

― steven fucking tyler (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:00 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh sure but there's also nuanced definitions that apply to the same context. And you'll see someone just quote one of the 4 that apply.

bamcquern if it makes you feel better i can take the point that the olympics are what you think jingoism means

The definitions would only exclude each other if you favored "extreme" over "excessive." There was no "explaining how I'm using a word wrong." There was a dictionary definition that doesn't particularly contradict my, the Slate person's, and my "friend"'s usage, and using a dictionary for this kind of supposedly authoritative hairsplitting is classic language essentialism. What else would it be but pointing to an absolute definition of a word that absolutely excludes extremely similar definitions?

you are using the word wrong, you're never going to accept that because you feel like arguing, the idea that referring to a dictionary is "essentialism" is so stupid as to beggar belief, thanks for playing

djp otm

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/02/016Chickfila-Politics_540x405.jpg

"i hate gay people! also i love the #1 combo. can't beat it! i hate gay people!"

was it Dike-Fil-A for Huckleberry Graham?

I thought he liked chicken - just not that kind?

It's the Chick Fil-A Show.

(stolen from facebook)

Ex-IDaho GOP Senator: "that gay bathroom sex was official business!"

"I stand with Chick Fil-A"

Uh buddy, you're sitting.

"we had it for breakfast today, but my usual order is the #1 combo with repression and shame"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/science/earth/cass-sunstein-to-leave-top-regulatory-post.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120804

Good riddance (although yeah he did a few good things)

Few proposed rules escaped his gaze or his editor’s pen. Of the hundreds of regulations issued by the administration as of late last year, three-quarters were changed at OIRA, often at the urging of corporate interests, according to an analysis from the Center for Progressive Reform, a liberal-leaning group that monitors federal regulation. For rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, the figure was closer to 80 percent, the group found. In virtually every case, the rule was weakened, the group claimed.

Professor Steinzor cited Mr. Sunstein’s role in the killing of the E.P.A.’s proposed tightening of the standard for ozone pollution, the indefinite delay of rules governing coal ash disposal and the withdrawal earlier this year of a proposed update of child agricultural labor standards.

Yeah, I read that just before I went to bed last night and had such sweet, peaceful dreams

So weird to have my wife tell me about ppl coming and going at her job and them reason about it in national papers

So Texas tea party fave and likely to be elected US Senator Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law, clerked for Rehnquist and pushes some crazy ideas:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/31/619461/five-things-to-know-about-gop-senate-candidate-ted-cruz/

fuuuuuuuck my dumb state

Steve Coll in the New Yorker, via Greenwald:

"the Obama Administration leans toward killing terrorism suspects because it does not believe it has a politically attractive way to put them on trial."

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/04/obama_the_pioneer/

duh

ah we are so bored w/ bipartisan imperial murder

bored w/ short term memory outrage that ensures that the root of the outrage is in no way ever actually threatened

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/kill-or-capture.html

balls i'd hazard that at least the growing body of lit pertaining to this kind of stuff can only be a net good; eventually you'd think they'll have to actually start answering questions about it. if the courts won't make them, that's what the press is for

have the comments on that New Yorker story gotten less noxious than they read this morning?

Awlaki was certainly a murderous character; his YouTube videos alone would likely convict him at a jury trial.

huh?

btwn reading The Corner and the comments on anything else, you're really a spendthrift with that time, Sotosyn.

I'm single – I have a lot of time to read many things.

I get so angry when I read Holder's explanation of how this is justified and you don't gotta worry because there was "careful government review" before the American citizen was assassinated without trial

one of Amy Davidson's finest posts relevant, here:

Brennan and other officials interviewed by the Times and Newsweek said that Obama had enormous faith in himself. It would be more responsible, though, if he had less—if he thought that he was no better than any other President we’ve had or ever will. The point isn’t just the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use. Perhaps, just to suggest a range, he could picture each of the Republican contenders from this past season being walked through the process, told how it works, shown some of those video clips with tiny people and big explosions, and taking it for a test drive. Never mind whether Obama, in particular, sighs or loses sleeps or tosses a coin when he chooses a target: What would it mean for a bad, or craven, or simply carelessly accommodating President to do so? In the end we are not really being asked to trust Obama, or his niceness, but the office of the Presidency. Do we?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html#ixzz22mQlYcpZ

x-post-Plus I think Holder advocates some convoluted take on what "due process" means

I wonder if the referenced book by a writer from Newsweek will focus more attention on this issue?

Maybe a little

uuuuugh

The point isn’t justAT ALL the task, or burden, he takes on, but the machine he has built for his successors to use.

The precedent is worrisome to be sure, but how shall we work out a good compromise between a due process that actually contains some accountability if a craven executive just decides to drone out his enemies and the means to actually act quickly and decisively if an American citizen is actively carrying out a plan that would harm American or allied interests or ppl? I mean, cops kill ppl all the time during the course of criminal activity, and it is rightly justifiable if they can prove that they were threatened or other ppl were threatened. Should the CIC be held to higher standard? Should there be some kind of judicial or congressional notification process when the Pres decides to take ppl out? Does that imfringe on his prerogatives as CIC? I've not heard a real debate on this, just partisan bickering on one side or the other and we really need some deliberative discussion on this.

As noted way upthread, some bloggers have suggested that a FISA like court play a role (although they have acknowledged that the FISA court is largely a rubberstamp for electronic surveillance. But there's aren't nearly enough folks in Congress today who would support that or a President who would agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

So for fear of having something unwieldly or too onerous, we're just going to subvert the Constitution and everybody's going to just meekly go along? This is how Republics fail, by being too lazy to keep to their own standards.

welcome to the post-terror age

what partisan bickering? The hardest-core Dems say "I trust my hero" and any GOP objections will dry up when one of theirs is tossing the darts.

Interestingly, some GOP object now, but that's only because they have to disagree with Obama, and thus they suggest that Obama should be capturing and torturing and detaining folks to get more info, rather than killing them by drones

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/08/03/03-barack-obama-birthday-cake-gop.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

I've not heard a real debate on this, just partisan bickering on one side or the other and we really need some deliberative discussion on this.

one problem is that any 'discussion' is seen as capitulation by the ppl most concerned about civil liberties.

Why discuss drones and the Constitution when you can talk about Harry Reid:

On the Sunday talk shows, Republicans expressed outrage over Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) unsubstantiated claim that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years, flatly accusing the Senate majority leader of lying.

On ABC’s “This Week,” an incensed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Reid a “dirty liar,” saying he “complains about people with money but lives in the Ritz Carlton here down the street.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/republicans-reince-priebus-harry-reid-dirty-liar-romney-taxes.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
“It’s ridiculous, it’s wrong, it’s untrue, and it’s just going to hurt the president,” he said of the claim, accusing President Obama of inciting “division and hatred.”

c'mon Mittens, be as transparent as the secret-kill-list guy.

one problem is that any 'discussion' is seen as capitulation by the ppl most concerned about civil liberties.

― Mordy, Monday, August 6, 2012 6:01 PM (1 hour ago)

not really seeing this -- most of the mainstream articles i've seen have expressed unease and discomfort with the ethical and constitutional ramifications of o's assassination policy, not outright condemnation.

Find out the neighbors' political affiliation in seconds!

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/is_your_neighbor_a_democrat_obama_has_an_app_for_that_salpart/

Funny

x-post

Would folks like Greenwald oppose a quasi-judicial/FISA Court mechanism and say that Americans abroad in a country we have not declared war on should have to be indicted and given due process rights; and incorporating some quasi judicial mechanism without due process is unconstitutional

i would say probably yes

the fact that we execute them without even TRYING to take them alive and put them on trial is the problem imho