If you have "no place to go," come here!

Worse than Bush


Submitted by jawbone on

more" indicating, well, more to read after the break; then only "more" between the two single sentence paragraphs.

Is this bcz we MUST use manual break placement on short entries? And Drupal is programmed to split the post body no matter how long?

Submitted by lambert on

I always control my breaks. My feeling is that a writer would not want to leave that aspect of the reader's experience to chance. That said, there is no "MUST."

Drupal is set to break at 800 characters, though the number can be set to 200, or no breaks at all. It isn't exactly 800, since Drupal is clever about not wrecking the HTML when it does a break.

However, if Drupal breaks automatically, the "more..." marker isn't automagically inserted. If this is important to people, I can go under the hood and do it.

Submitted by jawbone on

From the WaPo link:

...Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the groups are asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."

Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

Submitted by libbyliberal on

.... NOT!!!!!

"Yeah, we know we are trashing the law, but what the hey ... it is a court contest and we need to do anything to win, don't we? that is the American way, after all. Look at reality tv. Winning is everything. nice guys lose contests."

"And al-Aulaqi should surrender. Yeah, we may kill him ... probably in fact since it is a dead or alive mandate and it is so much less headachey just to incinerate our "enemies" or those who are convenient to be our POLITICAL enemies or simply those who show up at the wrong place at the wrong time, what the hey, rather than to deal with that messy torture detention, after all."

When I think of this stuff, jawbone, I reach for and touch the black arm band I am wearing and shake my head sadly. democracy is dead. can we code blue it back? a long shot and 65 million Americans simultaneously (Mike Gravel's theory of the only way to have the citizen will felt) must assert their critical mass.

But it ain't over til the fat lady sings, I guess. (I don't know where to go with that metaphor.)

Submitted by Hugh on

It is an extremist, outlaw regime. Obama is not "centrist" or center-right. He is extreme right. The man and his Administration channel George Bush and Dick Cheney. He cares about the basic tenets of law as little as they did, even less so. Calling him a Constitutional scholar is to evoke both Kafka and Orwell.

Submitted by jawbone on

Heeeeere's Glenn!

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration last late night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate its legality. (Emphasis in original, along with links)

I used to think this kind of thing went out in, oh, like the early 1200's and the Magna Carta. Now, it did not prevent English kings from doing away with their enemies and rivals, but it made it more difficult to do it was absolute impunity. People were simply offed, found guilty on the basis of forced confessions or forged evidence, exiled, forced to remain in their own castles unless granted permission to leave, etc. But, just set up death lists, mention them, and then assert that state secrets means the power of government cannot be questioned in the courts of law?

Not that the English monarchs didn't do some pretty awful, awful things after the time of the Magna Carta. Bloody Mary set a good many innocent people alight and burned them to death, often after terrible torture, but she did so under the power of the Catholic Church and color of law.

We're getting pretty close to authoritarian state status.

From Wiki, which has links in the quoted material:

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on the government so that its agents cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

The formal concept of civil liberties dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215, which in turn was based on pre-existing documents namely the English Charter of Liberties, a landmark document in English legal history.

Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It might be said that the protection of civil liberties is a key responsibility of all citizens of free states, as distinct from authoritarian states.(My emphasis)

Does it take aa Assistant Constitutional law profressor to gut the Constitution?

Well, he did say the Repubs had the most of the good ideas between about 1993 and 2008, so maybe he just feels he's doing the right thing by cementing BushCo policies, and even expanding them, eh?