The Chicago Way
You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone.
I admit, me and my fellow lefties have been less than pleased with the backbone of our Democratic leaders in Congress. Yes, we understand the limits of legislative power, especially with only a Lieberman-thin majority in the Senate. Still, you'd think that a near landslide victory in the last go-round and a President both mired in scandal and hovering around Nixonian approval ratings might inspire some forcefulness from our representatives.
Well, maybe somebody's got the message. In response the the Vice President flouting the rules for the Executive branch's handling and reporting on classified information and then claiming they don't apply because the VP's office isn't part of the Executive branch, Democratic bulldog and Chicago native Rahm Emanuel had this to say:
The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice
President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have
worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue
to pursue this measure in the coming days.
It's probably somewhat unfair to compare Cheney to Capone. Capone is certainly responsible for the deaths of far fewer people.
--
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Chuchundra's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
. . ."Isn't that just like a Democrat? Bringing a knife to a gunfight. . ." * as he vetoes the legislation containing the amendment in question.
Nice try, though. Very butch of Mr. Emanuel.
*--apologies to Mr. Connery and the screenwriters for The Untouchables.
--- Login or register to post comments
)The proper response to Mr. Cheney's assertion is a presentation of Articles of Impeachment.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )preside over his own impeachment... :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That'd kill the deficit right there.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Strikes me the man hasn't had much to chuckle about in a very long time. In this case? He has the option of carrying water for Dick Cheney one more time. Yeah, right. I'm sure he's apt to chuckle.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Bush and Cheney can argue that the Veep really is part of the Executive branch, undermining Dick's argument, or continue the absurd claim that Cheney is some obscure, previously undiscovered 4th branch of government, thereby embarrassing themselves further.
One has to wonder how long the GOP rank and file will play along with this charade. There are enough people in the leadership old enough to remember the damage Watergate did to the party.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )'Bout as long as the Democratic rank and file will put up with the charade of open government, no more corruption and so forth, perhaps? :)
Lest we forget I'm back; K1-, K1, K1+, K5, K10 :)
Hi, JKC. Fear not, this too will pass.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...in what positions in Government is in fact of some real importance.
They make decisions and these decisions have consequences.
If they are bonehead stupid, this is what you get...The abandonment of the Geneva Conventions was unnecessary...we didn't need to spit in the face of the world in this regards,(except of course for domestic political reasons...red meat to the already rabid), most of these captured individuals would never be accorded POW status under the Conventions for a variety of intellectually sustainable reasons.
Secondly, the Torture Memos have, as I and many others predicted, backfired and blacked the name of the United States in ways that will be very difficult if not impossible to mend.
It was stupid and done because it was, at best, expedient, at worst, played to the more sadistic angels of our worse nature. That may be a sweet song, but it is a stupid song nonetheless.
Thirdly, while Gitmo was acceptable and useful for a while, five years in, Gitmo is only proof of our impotence to exact UCMJ, or some other form or justice.
It is not sufficient to say the Democrats are Bad....blah, blah, blah...these policy choices were made by Republicans, as yet held unaccountable for the real damage they have done to the interests of the United States.
This will Not pass, this is not acceptable...it is not even acceptable argument. It is simply another dodge because people don't want to accept their own culpability in this process and the resultant death and maiming of our soldiers and harm done to the legacy and reputation of the United States around the world.
This war was winnable...this Administration and its supports and apologists lost it....and God willing if not lost, extended it and make it worse that it need have been.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You are wrong; it will pass. Good, bad or indifferent, things happen, time passes. People pass. Events pass. Life goes on.
Every Admin appoints boneheads and incompetents and crooks -- it's the American way.
You and others including me on the torture memos and our predictions of problems accomplished exactly what? It's happened, we all have to deal with it. Whining and saying "I told you so" may be satisfying but it doesn't accomplish much.
I'd like to say that the lesson will embed and we'll never make such a mistake again but years of watching lead me to conclude that the egos, venality and stupidity of politicians in the US tends to make us repeat mistakes at two generational intervals...
We can agree on Gitmo. I await your recommended solution to the problem of the detainees.
Read what I wrote; I didn't say the Democrats were bad; I did say they were no better than the Republicans and IMO, they are not. They may differ in policies and some aspects but as a party they are just as venal, just as corrupt and just as prone to put party interests ahead of national interest. Both are bad and I have no respect for either of them. Check the K Codes.
Yes, it will pass, everything does including you and me. That by the way was not an argument, it was a simple statement of fact. It was no dodge, neither you or I have any control over the degree of culpability anyone else will accept.
We can certainly agree that this Administration and the US Army in about equal measures have extended this war and made it worse it need have been. We can disagree on whether it was ever 'winnable.' I think not -- that does not mean a better conclusion with less trauma was not achievable, it was but this war and most of those in the near future are not going to be 'winnable' in the sense that most use tha word. Better get used to it.
Context, Trav. Life goes on. It always does.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...specifically in reference to the Detainees...we give them a trial, we press specific charges with limited rules of Evidence and Subpoena powers, but sufficient to know what exactly they are charged with and we give them an impartial Hearing Officer, Judge or Panel, and competent Counsel to defend the charges.
I don't know why people seen to think that this is like Rocket Science...but only for the United States. Great Britain seems to be having no trouble at all putting their Islamists on trial and convicting them.
Why can't we?
The answer to Gitmo has been available for years. It's no big deal.
Just how long are we going to hold these people in cages without charging them? It's been five years. This is growing to be absurd.
And if we can't convict them...we let them go.
Just like that.
And, should they go back to their previous ways, we kill them on the battlefield.
Just like that.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )was that we got an attack of Gross Stupidity. I think -- but do not know -- that the original rationale was "We can get some intel out of these guys." Stupid Mistake 1 (SM 1); other than a few top dogs, very few, the majority of those folks were highly unlikely to provide any info worth worrying about; identifying said top echelon folks would not have been hard. Said Top guys could have been kept in Afghanistan.
SM 2 was worrying that if we kept them in Afghanistan, we might not be able to stay in place and thus secure them and / or that the new government, form unknown might insist on us releasing the detainees to them. To me, that doesn't pass the 'so-what' test but they didn't ask me... :)
SM 3 wasn't really all that stupid; the concern that evidence was sketchy at best and what if one or more of them walked after a lost trial. Yeah, we could then kill 'em -- but how much damage to how many people might they do before that happened. Plus, as we have seen, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can all be vindictive...
All in all, any way you hack it it was dumb. Still, it's happened and cannot be undone. Most people will forget about it in short order, some never will. Way of the ol' world...
As an aside, the Brits with MI5 are far better at gathering solid evidence than we are and they're willing to let these guys operate and just watch them for months or years to see what will happen. It is a risk but the Brits are willing to take it because they don't worry about the reputation of MI5.
OTOH, the FBI motto is strike at the first sign of the slightest hints at a possible future plan for a prospective operation, even if wrong, to prevent any possibility of a criminal act occurring any any possible besmirchment (I just made up a new word...) of the FBI's 'stellar' reputation. The fact that most of their efforts to date are of yo-yos based too frequently on shoddy FBI stings and they ain't doing too well are insignificant. They're Cops and Cops cannot catch Terrorists unless they're lucky, the Dudley do-Right culture is too strong (that, BTW, is a sincere compliment to counter the earlier condemnation)...
IOW, we're stupid.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...for whatever reasons I've been reading and just finished Allison Weir's book on him and his wives. Good stuff and good history.
In any case, I was a bit surprised at this legal (?) ploy and how much he used it. I knew it was outlawed specifically in the Constitution, but what exactly was it?
Here:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial.
The word "attainder", meaning "taintedness", is part of English common law. Under English law, a criminal condemned for some crime, usually treason, could be declared "attainted", meaning that his civil rights were nullified: he could no longer own property or pass property to his family by will or testament. His property would consequently revert to the Crown. Any peerage titles would also revert to the Crown. The convicted person might also be punished in other ways; for example, in the case of attainder for treason, he could be executed.
Bills of attainder evolved into a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial—and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all.
**********
I find the practice offensive...and I'm not easily offended. If, for good and sufficient reasons, you want to assassinate a previously held detainee in Pakistan after release...I can get behind this.
If you want to hold a Detainee forever without the benefit of charges or a Trial...I am Offended.
To a large degree, this is why we fought the American Revolution.
I do not want to hold the FBI or Military Intelligence up to MI5 standards...battlefield evidence is scanty and hard to come by....but there's got to be something.
Or we kick them loose.
The propaganda beating we are taking is simply not worth it.
A simply cost/benefit analysis would indicate that this is true.
And besides, Bills of Attainder are just wrong.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )quite properly proscribed in the US Constitution. We probably further agree that any US citizen caught anywhere should be placed on trial, quickly, in a US Court and that the government's attempt to circumvent that in the case of Padilla and a couple of others was wrong -- and we can note that the system works and the Courts correctly slapped the Executive wrist.
We'll have to disagree on the other detainees in that IMO there is no Bill of Attainder operating. You earlier cited the Geneva Convention. As you know it has provisions for illegal or non-codified combatants on the battlefield, those that not part of the Armed forces of an adherent or Signatory to the Convention. They are required to appear before a Military Commission or other Tribunal for a status determination. That has been done, albeit admittedly entirely too slowly.
As to the legality of the decision to apply that designation and the rights and wrongs of the determination process, all you Lawyers can argue -- have been and are arguing -- that out. I suspect those arguments will be around for years and I'll leave them to you Lawyers, I am a lay person and I enjoy laying about... :)
Most of the detainees were picked up in a combat zone and apparently or allegedly were engaged in combat against US Forces. That could make them Prisoners of War and confinement until the end of hostilities is the norm. No trial is required or stipulated.
As they were not uniformed and not in the Armed Forces of a universally recognized State, they became Enemy Combatants and not Prisoners of War. Either way, there is no requirement for a trial in a court of law.
The point of all that is that you can't have it both ways; either they are combatants to whom you wish to apply the GC or they are criminals whom you wish to haul into court; they cannot be both. Well, they can -- but one rule or the other has to apply.
While I think Gitmo was a bad mistake, I do not agree that holding those guys as Enemy Combatants without trial is either a mistake or illegal. You obviously differ and I think we can do that... :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...some arguments are, some are not.
But I will admit that you are making me think...
Hard...lol
Enemy Combatants they are, in general, and not POW's on this we can agree. I really don't want to re-visit all of the Geneva Conventions...and I believe there are four at this moment and parse what to do with EC's or what the provisions may be.
In fact, if I remember correctly, if they are EC's, I think they can be simply shot under the Conventions.
Hummmmm....
But that can't be Right.
Nor does it seem proper to hold them to the end of the conflict...meaning for life.
Ken, I have some work to do...but I'm sure we'll come back to this. I need to research it a bit further and don't have the time at the moment.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...of actual value.
Some arguments are, some are not.
Was referring to...arguments in general, not to you specifically.
Our little exchange I thought might have actual substantive value to others.
That's what I meant.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to respectfully point out that any exchange by us * must always have great substantive value to others... :)
* That is, of course, the collective and is not the imperial usage of the pronoun.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hope all is well with the family.
I agree that corruption is a bipartisan hobby, but I can't recall this kind of disdain for the rule of law since ol' Nixon himself was in the Oval Office. Maybe it's just my own ideological blinders...
Off to bed. My youngest has his 3rd birthday party tomorrow, and his dad should be awake for it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )low point, no question. This crowd is slightly better and, IMO on balance are no worse than most Admins -- they're just incredibly stupid and clumsy in the way they go about it. Most of the others used a little more finesse and subtrefuge.
That and the fact that it's here and now make it seem worse than most, I think.
Hope the Lad had a great Birthday!
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )After all, he'd be vetoing his own funding as well and, while I figure the Dems wouldn't risk leaving the troops defunded, they'd be more than happy to leave the White House without any funds if that's the way they want to play it.
Of course, the motion is a joke. It's somewhat less of a joke than Cheney's assertion that he's not subject to the classified information oversight rules because he's not part of the Executive branch, but it's a joke all the same.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )makes it quite clear that he's in the Executive Branch. He's just trying one more push back on Congress -- who, in turn, are trying to expand their power over the Executive.
Games like that go on in DC all the time; we usually end up with some kind of deal and life goes on. I don't care for Cheney at all but in this case, it's just business as usual inside the Beltway.
Yeah, Cheney's been responsible for some deaths but at least he missed with his shotgun and he's got a long way to go before he catches up with Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41 and a host of others. Maybe even Capone -- bad whiskey does bad things :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
)You mean, he missed vital organs. Barely -- the heart was damaged but not penetrated iirc. As far as aim goes, his target was dead center in the spread pattern -- good thing it was just 28 ga. birdshot. I'm more worried about the hunting ranch owner Armstrong, whose remarks send a chill as I've been bird hunting in Texas myself.
"I would shoot with Dick Cheney everywhere, anywhere, and not think twice about it," she said. But she said, "The nature of quail shooting ensures that this will happen. It goes with the turf."
I had no idea how lucky I've been.
They say Cheney wasn't drinking before the incident, but made himself a strong cocktail immediately after.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )an experience; my first wife -- but that's another story... :)
Dick needs to go back to Wyoming and chill. Dick should never have left Wyoming...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It ain't bad at all. =)
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I am curious if the GOP is going to give them cover? The whole unitary executive thing IMHO is a smoke and mirrors game that lets them get away with stuff that they would not otherwise.
Still I believe that the plan is to run the clock out and let the new generation or leader deal with the aftermath. Courts take along time to decide these issues and they have already started to lose in the lower courts. Standing and oversight be damned, the politics is infuriating. The damage that they will have done to the flexibility of the executive might be as ken white always states the same kind of problems the church commission wrought on the CIA.
In the end lets hope that congress fixes the problem but does not over fix it. Still the court does have a balance of powers issue to deal with and they themselves need to be careful. (Again run out the clock) I guess I believe that they think that the next president will in fact let old men be old men in the end and that history be damned they will have their own historians write counter views...
Da
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
)...and maybe Vicious in intention.
In his heart and in the back of his head he knows that he's going to be Dead soon...he lashes out without thought.
That F**k You he said on the Senate floor is emblematic.
He just doesn't care...like an old, mean dog snarling at his fate, the world...everything.
This is someone you wouldn't want to Grandfather your kids.
You know the type.
He should be put down. (raised eyebrows...and if the Secret Service or FBI is monitoring this traffic...as I know they are...this is just a joke, a figure of speech {but not really})
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
)among friends?
However, FWIW, I think you're pretty well right on Cheney. When W. announced he was to be the Veep, I said a big Aws4!t!!!
He was a really poor SecDef and I knew he'd bring some of those idiots from that time back with him. I've always contended he was the price of the big donors to offer support to Bush. Bad bargain, he and his ideas have not done Bush any favors.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
It is too long for me to post.
I'm not saying Cheney is Evil as many people do...I just want to know Why he is the Way he is.
He is a man that wants what he wants with a steely determination and cunning.
Best Wishes,
Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...apparently Powell and myself were on the same page regarding the Geneva Conventions if the above report is correct.
This also makes his recent criticism of Gitmo more understandable.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )country's reputation (probably in that order). While the GC has some relevance, the Lawyers could argue about application, combatants and treatment for years, as you know.
As you also know, public perception is actually a far more important problem -- we blew it.
Problem is there were no good solutions. In hindsight, we should've kept those caught in Afghanistan at Bagram; the other"high value" guys caught elsewhere are the real problem; can't kill 'em (unfortunately); shouldn't let 'em loose (they'd go right back to work); evidence to try 'em is dicey -- no good solutions...
But the Gitmo idea was really dumbb (with two 'b's). Still, it was done. We'll have to see how it plays out.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )