Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 04:03:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81346 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 43
1901  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: May 20, 2011, 12:47:53 PM
I thought you had decided that this horse was dead. 
1902  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 20, 2011, 12:45:36 PM
The article in question has to do with illegal searches, not what a private citizen "deems" to be an illegal search.  And at this point I would also like to note Guro's response above.
1903  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 20, 2011, 04:29:24 AM
Yeah, hopefully dispatch has made some determinations to that effect. When you catch a call like that, you often have very limited amounts of infomation while you run code to the location. Thus is the reality of police work.

Can you give me a scenario where you have a case of illegal entry by law enforcement and how self defense would provide an effective resolution to that?

Hmmm, well you (plural) are gutsy to do that job.  That isn't much information to work on.  And please don't think I am trying to be disrespectful to the LEOs.  Not a chance.  You do good work, and I am honored to be friends with many.

I'd rather not try to come up with a hypothetical scenario.  I do know that any other situation that I can think of at this hour, whether or not I am able have an "effective resolution," I am able to legally act in self defense.  And that is what bothers me enough to have posted the original link. 
1904  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 19, 2011, 07:06:59 PM
I only have the information you gave me, but based on that information: yes.

What I don't know is, among other things: who reported her (i.e., was it a p.o.'d ex to get back at her; was it someone with a history of calling "wolf" to the local PD, etc.); what was the age of the child (young depends in part on context); etc.

Reminder: the article I posted that led to this line of questioning specifically that the Indiana court decision "effectively means that officers may enter any residence without warrant, probable cause or permission of the owner."  It seems to me that you DID have probable cause. 

Again, the starting point is illegal entry, GM.  So, I am led to believe that you find no problems with police, who are government agents, illegally entering one's residence.  So much for the Bill of Rights, I guess. 
1905  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 19, 2011, 06:29:31 PM
Was it an illegal entry?  That has been my focus the whole time.


"Under what other conditions do you think it is acceptable to limit the natural right of self defense?"
 
I can think of a few I went through first hand. One was responding to a call where a woman that was reported to have been drinking and ingesting chemicals and was reported to be brandishing a firearm with a young child in the home with her. It wasn't my jurisdiction, but I was closest to the scene and requested by the Sheriff's Dept. to respond to the call with the above information relayed to me through my dispatch. I arrived at the residence, knocked at the door and announced my presence. No response. Deciding there were exigent circumstances, I made entry into the house. I located a female party unconscious on the floor in a child's room. The child was in a crib, unharmed. A medium frame revolver was visible on a shelf in the room, the adult female didn't awaken when I cuffed her, secured the revolver and awaited the arrival of the responding deputy.

If that female subject had been awake, did she have the natural right of self defense against a warrantless entry by a tribal police officer into her home?
1906  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 19, 2011, 04:54:06 AM
I am not often advised that I should read more case law.  I agree that there are disincentives in place to reign in officers acting in bad faith.  And taking away a natural right of self defense is taking away one of those reasons for police officers from acting in exactly that manner.  

Under what other conditions do you think it is acceptable to limit the natural right of self defense?  

I think if' you read the case law, you'll find that sometimes it's unclear if a warrantless entry will be ruled to be legal until it goes before the court who'll judge it on the totality of the circumstances. Many times, officers must make decision in a compressed time frame that are later contemplated at the leisure of the court. There are many disincentives to discourage officers from acting in bad faith in these scenarios.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march_2011/copy_of_perspective

Although courts have long recognized the existence of an exigent circumstance exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brigham City and Fisher provide much-needed guidance to officers who routinely confront situations, such as those present in these two cases. Reliance on an objective reasonableness standard allows for scrutiny based on the facts and circumstances confronting law enforcement at the time, as opposed to guesswork regarding the officers’ intentions and consideration of information learned after the fact. The legal standard set forth by the Court in these cases enables officers to make onthe- spot decisions as to whether they should enter a home or other dwelling to resolve an emergency situation. Because the government has the burden of justifying warrantless searches and seizures occurring under this exception, officers need to fully articulate the specific facts and circumstances known to them at the time they acted. This is essential because the courts use an examination of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether officers had reasonable grounds to act.
1907  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 18, 2011, 02:31:11 PM
The concern is with those indidividuals who think they know what is illegal and don't. In the heat of the moment isn't the time to try to adjudicate such things, is it?

Don't trained LEOs know when a search/entry is illegal?  If so, why are they acting in an irresponsible manner? 
1908  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: May 18, 2011, 01:02:50 PM
DougMacG, I am not exactly sure what you are asking me.  Having looked at the HCP thread, I can certainly see why people would question Pelosi's role in the passage of the law.  Are you asking me about the equal protection clause?  Its applicabilty to individuals?  States?  Companies?  Or if you have to pay taxes?

(From Health Care Policy thread)

Crafty: "This seems to me to be a very pertinent and troubling question."

Doug: "...given the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, why isn't a waiver for one - automatically a waiver for all?

The Equal Protection Clause... "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction  the equal protection of the laws"... As written it applied only to state governments, but it has since been interpreted to apply to the Federal Government of the United States as well.
-----
I would like a waiver from the 16th amendment (federal power to tax income) if waivers are available and equal protection is subordinated.

BD?


1909  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 18, 2011, 12:54:42 PM
"An appeal to the FBI ot IA doesn't stop illegal actions froming taking place to begin with. "

Reasonable, rational law enforcement officers tend to try to perform their duties in such a way as to avoid being the subject of civil and criminal liability.

In that case, reasonable, rational LEOs shouldn't be all that concerned about individuals who react to illegal entries.  They won't happen.  Right?
1910  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 18, 2011, 12:52:45 PM
BD,

I was responding to Crafty's post, although I cannot vouch for the professionalism (or lack thereof) of dispatch or the local level law enforcement in any given area.

Thank you for the clarification.
1911  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 18, 2011, 05:59:46 AM
GM, I don't understand the point of your most recent three posts.  The first two relate to the execution of search warrants, which is lawful entry.  The third one is interesting, but of the entire string cite of cases only one them is binding on Indiana (the state from which this current line of discussion stems) and a single, different case is applicable in California (Guro's state of residence, and thus the likely source of his query). 
1912  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 17, 2011, 08:36:49 AM
Hot pursuit is a lawful entry.  Imminent destruction of evidence is a lawful entry.  So using those as examples to allow unlawful entry is a little weird. 

I have taught my children never to assume that a person with a badge at the door is a police officer and to call the police if someone knocks on the door when I am not home.  This is common practice, because safety experts realized a long time ago that people can pose as police officers to enter the home. 

Why would a court not realize the same thing?  Why would someone allow anyone to unlawfully enter a home?  An appeal to the FBI ot IA doesn't stop illegal actions froming taking place to begin with. 

I am a little surprised by your stance here, to be honest. 
1913  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Indiana court strips citizens of right to resist unlawful police entry on: May 17, 2011, 05:44:39 AM

GM,
     I suspect this might lead to another 4 day discussion, but the 4th amendment exists for a reason.  I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to take away a right to protect oneself against an unlawful entry, no matter who is doing the entering. 
1914  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: May 16, 2011, 07:07:37 PM
Yeah, I know.  I really am sorry about that.   

Honestly, I am on the fence about this.  So, I will give you this: I don't think that every POW (or whatever the term en vogue is today) needs to be taken to court. 

Man, you sure know how to wait until the fire has faded..... wink

Should KSM have been mirandized and allowed to lawyer up?
1915  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Torture May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It on: May 16, 2011, 06:49:48 PM
I am sorry that it was necessary that I step away at the same time the forum was burning with desire for my opinion.  I am very sorry to have left you hanging, GM! 

What is that you want to hear?  Please be specific. 

I will volunteer this, to begin with: am I pleased that OBL is dead?  Sure.  Am I especially happy with the means?  No, not so much.  You are right that it seems that President Obama overstepped the bounds of war.  My issue, and this is true regardless of party affiliation, is that I believe that presidents power grab.  As one who is concerned with constitutional limits yourself, GM, I am sure you understand this. 

I should point out that not everyone thinks that "enhanced interrogation" reaped benefits by leading to bin Laden.


Torture May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It



Torture apologists are reaching precisely the wrong conclusion from the back-story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, say experienced interrogators and intelligence professionals.

Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.

But that sequence of events -- even if true -- doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.

"I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden," said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.

It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier -- information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, "they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us," Alexander told The Huffington Post.

"We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information," he said.

In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.

"Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there’s a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information," said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.

"By making a detainee less likely to provide information, and making the information he does provide harder to evaluate, they hindered what we needed to accomplish," said Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002.

But the discovery and killing of bin Laden was enough for defenders of the Bush administration to declare that their policies had been vindicated.

Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, quickly issued a statement declaring that she was "grateful to the men and women of America’s intelligence services who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to bin Laden."

John Yoo, the lead author of the "Torture Memos," wrote in the Wall Street Journal that bin Laden's death "vindicates the Bush administration, whose intelligence architecture marked the path to bin Laden's door."

Former Bush secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that "the information that came from those individuals was critically important."

The Obama White House pushed back against that conclusion this week.

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, told The New York Times.




Chronological details of the hunt for bin Laden remain murky, but piecing together various statements from administration and intelligence officials, it appears the first step may have been the CIA learning the nickname of an al Qaeda courier -- Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti -- from several detainees picked up after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then, in 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the 9/11 mastermind, was captured, beaten, slammed into walls, shackled in stress positions and made to feel like he was drowning 183 times in a month. When asked about al-Kuwaiti, however, KSM denied that the he had anything to do with al Qaeda.

In 2004, officials detained a man named Hassan Ghul and brought him to one of the CIA’s black sites, where he identified al-Kuwaiti as a key courier.

A third detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, was arrested in 2005 and under CIA interrogation apparently denied knowing al-Kuwaiti at all.

Once the courier's real name was established -- about four years ago, and by other means -- intelligence analysts stayed on the lookout for him. After he was picked up on a monitored phone call last year, he ultimately led authorities to bin Laden.

The link between the Bush-era interrogation regime and bin Laden’s killing, then, appears tenuous -- especially since two of the three detainees in question apparently provided deceptive information about the courier even after being interrogated under durress.

"It simply strains credulity to suggest that a piece of information that may or may not have been gathered eight years ago somehow directly led to a successful mission on Sunday. That's just not the case," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But for Alexander, Kleinman and others, the key takeaway is not just that the torture didn't work, but that it was actually counterproductive.

"The question is: What else did KSM have?" Alexander asked. And he’s pretty sure he knows the answer: KSM knew the courier’s real name, "or he knew who else knew his real name, or he knew how to find him -- and he didn’t give any of that information," Alexander said.

Alexander’s book, "Kill or Capture," chronicles how the non-coercive interrogation of a dedicated al Qaeda member led to Zarqawi’s capture.

"I’m 100 percent confident that a good interrogator would have gotten additional leads" from KSM, Alexander said.

"Interrogation is all about getting access to someone’s uncorrupted memory," explained Kleinman, who as an Air Force reserve colonel in Iraq in 2003 famously tried, but failed, to stop the rampant, systemic abuse of detainees there. "And you can’t get access to someone’s uncorrupted memory by applying psychological, physical or emotional force."

Quite to the contrary, coercion is known to harden resistance. "It makes an individual hate you and find any way in their mind to fight back," and it inhibits their recall, Kleinman said. Far preferable, he said, is a "more thoughtful, culturally-enlightened, science-based approach."

"I never saw enhanced interrogation techniques work in Iraq; I never saw even harsh techniques work in Iraq," Alexander said. "In every case I saw them slow us down, and they were always counterproductive to trying to get people to cooperate."

Carle, who was not a trained interrogator, said he came to recognize that interrogation was a lot like something he did know how to do: manage intelligence assets in the field.

"Perverse and imbalanced as the relationship is between interrogator and detainee, it’s nonetheless a human relationship, and building upon that, manipulating the person, dealing straight with the person, simply coming to understand the person and vice versa, one can move forward," he told reporters on a conference call Thursday.

Carle’s upcoming book, "The Interrogator," chronicles his growing doubts about his orders from his superiors.

"The methods that I was urged to embrace, I found first-hand -- putting aside the moral and legal issues, which we really cannot put aside -- from a practical and a tactical and a strategic sense and a moral and legal one, the methods are counterproductive," he said.

"They do not work," he added. "They cause retrograde motion from what you’re seeking to accomplish. They increase resentment, not cooperation. They increase the difficulty in assessing what information you do hear is valid. They increase the likelihood that you will be given disinformation and have opposition from the person that you’re interrogating, across the board."

Carle said the detainee he worked with regressed when coerced. "All it did was increase resentment and misery," he said.




Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff under former secretary of state Colin Powell, said, "I’d be naive if I said it never worked," referring to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"Of course, occasionally it works, Wilkerson said. "But most of the time, what torture is useful for is confessions. It’s not good for getting actionable intelligence."

Experts agree that torture is particularly good at one thing: eliciting false confessions.

Bush-era interrogation techniques, were modeled after methods used by Chinese Communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen that they could then use for propaganda during the Korean War.

"Somehow our government decided that ... these were effective means of obtaining information," Carle said. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

At a hearing in Guantanamo, several years after being waterboarded, KSM described how he would lie -- specifically about bin Laden’s whereabouts -- just to make the torture stop. "I make up stories," Mohammed said. "Where is he? I don't know. Then, he torture me," KSM said of an interrogator. "Then I said, 'Yes, he is in this area.'"

There are many other reasons to be skeptical of the argument that torture can lead to actionable intelligence, and specifically that enhanced interrogation led investigators to bin Laden.

Many of the positive accomplishments once cited in defense of enhanced interrogation have since been debunked.

And though its defenders are now trying to talk up the significance of the earlier intelligence, around the time of al-Libi’s interrogation, the CIA was not stepping up the hunt for bin Laden. Instead, it was closing down the unit that had been dedicated to hunting bin Laden and his top lieutenants.

This new scenario hardly supports a defense of torture on the grounds that it’s appropriate in "ticking time bomb" scenarios, Alexander said. "Show me an interrogator who says that eight years is a good result."

The interrogation experts also noted the significant role Yoo, Rumsfeld and former Vice President Cheney each played in opening the door to controversial interrogation practices.

Wilkerson has long argued that there is ample evidence showing that "the Office of the Vice President bears responsibility for creating an environment conducive to the acts of torture and murder committed by U.S. forces in the war on terror."

Yoo wrote several memos that explicitly sanctioned measures that many have deemed constitute torture, and the memo from Rumsfeld authorizing the use of stress positions, hooding and dogs was widely seen as a sign to the troops that the "gloves could come off."

"These guys are trying to save their reputations, for one thing," Alexander said. "They have, from the beginning, been trying to prevent an investigation into war crimes."

"They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans," Alexander added. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners "was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers," Alexander said. "And who want to live with that on their conscience?"

From Bush himself on down, the defenders of his interrogation regime have long insisted that it never amounted to torture. But waterboarding, the single most controversial aspect of Bush's interrogation regime, has been an archetypal form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. It involves strapping someone to a board and simulating drowning them. The U.S. government has historically considered it a war crime.

One can quibble over the proper term for some of the other tactics employed with official sanction, including forced nudity, isolation, bombardment with noise and light, deprivation of food, forced standing, repeated beatings, applications of cold water, the use of dogs, slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in stress positions and keeping them awake for as long as 180 hours. But they comprise violations of human dignity, as codified by the United Nations -- and championed by the U.S. government -- ever since World War II.

Many have argued that whether torture works or not is irrelevant -- that it is flatly illegal, immoral, and contrary to core American principles -- and that even if it were effective, it would still be anathema.

But that torture is unparalleled in its ability to obtain intelligence is the central argument of its defenders. To concede that torture doesn’t work -- as Alexander, Kleinman and Carle, among others, say -- would be to forfeit the whole game. It would be admitting that cruelty was both the means and the end.

And so the debate goes on.

1916  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Indiana court strips citizens of right to resist unlawful police entry on: May 16, 2011, 06:29:21 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/indiana-court-strips-citizens-of-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry/
1917  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Knockout game on: April 22, 2011, 06:08:10 AM
I think this is a good place this article.  It deals with the potential that teens are increasingly, and randomly attacking, for fun... without provocation or identifiable reason.

 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_a234c676-46b7-5c66-a193-dd09fc49d8b8.html

 
1918  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 18, 2011, 01:29:19 PM
As there are hospitals, doctors, nurses, medics that are an element of war, does war count as a "medical procedure"?

When there are hospitals, doctors and nurses that are coequal branches of government, like the federal judiciary is, let me know GM.  STRAW MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1919  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 18, 2011, 11:31:55 AM
Is it true that Trump has given lots more money to Democrats than Republicans and that he has donated lots of money to Chuck Schumer?

Here is a list of his political contributions.  Without looking at all 7 pages and doing the addition for which party he has contributed more to, he has contributed to Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=trump%2C+donald&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=rjjbr&submit=Submit

(click on "all cycles", and it will give you from 1992)
1920  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 18, 2011, 10:31:18 AM
In using my Black's Law Dictionary (6th. ed.), which again is considered definitive by most legal professionals), couldn't but notice that perhaps the website definition of procedure was good, but perhaps incomplete.  I'll leave out the portions of the full definition which are similar to that which you posted, but I will include the following: "The judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering redress for infraction of them."

This addition is important, because duty, as defined by Black's, reads, in part, as follows: "A human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.  Legal or moral obligation."

So, what this means is that the judicial process, whether or not it is a "legal process", can be used for enforcing infractions against those who fail to to do their duty... which includes legally and morally defined obligations. 

Which means that it matters not if al Qaeda has signed a treaty, it matters that the United States has.  It also means that the Supreme Court, and other courts, do in fact have a place in war. 




http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/procedure-term.html

procedure

1) A method or act that furthers a legal process. Procedures include filing complaints, serving documents, setting hearings, and conducting trials. 2) The established rule or series of steps that governs a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution. (See also: civil procedure, criminal procedure)
1921  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 18, 2011, 10:11:35 AM
This is an interesting defintion, because try as I might, I can't find this defintion anywhere other than wikipedia.  You'll forgive me, since "legal procedure" is in neither version of Black's Law Dictionary (which is considered definitive) that I have access to (6th ed. on my desk as I write and 8th edition which is online), I think that perhaps this phrase, nor definition, is not, well, legal. 

No mention of bombs, guns or bayonets.

http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Legal_procedure

Legal procedure

Although different legal processes aim to resolve many kinds of legal disputes, the legal procedures share some common features. All legal procedure, for example, is concerned with due process. Absent very special conditions, a court can not impose a penalty - civil or criminal - against an individual who has not received notice of a lawsuit being brought against them, or who has not received a fair opportunity to present evidence for themselves.

The standardization for the means by which cases are brought, parties are informed, evidence is presented, and facts are determined is intended to maximize the fairness of any proceeding. Nevertheless, strict procedural rules have certain drawbacks. For example, they impose specific time limitations upon the parties that may either hasten or (more frequently) slow down the pace of proceedings. Furthermore, a party who is unfamiliar with procedural rules may run afoul of guidelines that have nothing to do with the merits of the case, and yet the failure to follow these guidelines may severely damage the party's chances. Procedural systems are constantly torn between arguments that judges should have greater discretion in order to avoid the rigidity of the rules, and arguments that judges should have less discretion in order to avoid an outcome based more on the personal preferences of the judge than on the law or the facts.

Legal procedure, in a larger sense, is also designed to effect the best distribution of judicial resources. For example, in most courts of general jurisdiction in the United States, criminal cases are given priority over civil cases, because criminal defendants stand to lose their freedom, and should therefore be accorded the first opportunity to have their case heard.

1922  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 17, 2011, 04:53:53 AM
GM, you continue to cloud the issue with points beyond your original claim.  Focus. 

You claimed that war was not a legal procedure.  It is.  I have established that, and you've even agreed that the declaration of war is as such.  Now, with your help (and thank you for pointing this source out), since President Lincoln, the commander in chief, established the legal boundaries through a process: "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office", we have established that there are indeed legal bounds and definitions by which soldiers, even waaaaaay back in the Civil War, are to follow. 

As to your question (although I can't tell what question you are asking, because you keep changing it), you know that our soldiers cannot act out of spite, or without cause, or outside of legal defined actions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165848/U-S-soldier-convicted-murder-following-execution-style-killing-Iraqi-detainees.html.  Or does this not satisify you?  Would you have our soldiers raping and looting?  We are not barbarian raiders, although since you seem to think that there are no limits (or is it that there should be no limits?), perhaps you would like to return to the "good old days"? 



1923  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 09:50:06 PM
The declaration of war may be a legal procedure, but the fighting of the war is not. Or is a USMC sniper shooting enemy troops that have not fired at him murdering innocent victims?

If fighting the war is not a legal procedure then explain Rules of Engagement, the Uniform Military Code of Justice, the legality (or not) of the draft, the constitutional questions that arose from fighting the Barbary pirates (or the Mexican American War; or the Civil War; or the..........................................................).  Legal questions have abounded during US wars from the time of the founding, based on questions of constitutionality and legality.

And the USMC sniper is bound by law.  And you know that.
1924  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 09:42:07 PM
Are you moving the goal posts because you cannot defend your position or do you not understand my point?

That's what I've been asking you GM.  You can't simply admit that what you said was wrong. 
1925  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 06:44:27 PM
Does everyone in the world have habeus protections? Could German POWs have petitioned the courts during WWII to be released back to Germany? They were not criminally charged (the vast majority, at least).

You showed me the relevent places in the Constitution, GM.  Are you trying to backtrack?  Your statement was that war is not a legal procedure.  I've illustrated otherwise.  Deal with it. 
1926  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 06:41:08 PM
So, everyone in the world enjoys constitutional protections? Hawaiian police officers should have attempted to arrest Admiral Yamamoto for various felonies committed at Pearl Harbor?

Everyone in the federal government is bound by the Constitution.  I think you are aware that there is a different beween the federal and state governements.  Can you illustrate to me Hawaiian police have federal jurisdiction, or is this yet another straw man question in a long line of them?
1927  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
The Constitution is not the only document or law that relates to war, but it does... and I am so glad you found the relevent Articles and sections.  And, since you did that, it is clear that you now agree that war is impacted by law, which is what you alleged. From GM: "War is not a legal procedure."  But, war is EXACTLY a legal procedure.  Congress legally raises an army.  The president is legally the commander in chief.  ONLY Congress can legally suspend habeus corpus, and ONLY then in specific circumstances.  There is a legal process by which treaties are made.  That is the WHOLE point that I have been trying to get you to acknowledge.
1928  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 03:55:02 PM
I like that you continue to refuse to stick to the subject at hand.  There are still laws that you are bound by in your examples, GM.  If there is a home invasion, there are still acceptable levels of force.  I couldn't subdue someone who entered my home with ill intent, put them in my basement and beat them daily for years.  I couldn't address the issue, and then go to their house and invade it.  I couldn't be so mad at them that I broke into someone's house in the their neighborhood. 

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that law binds actions in war?  Constitution, statute, Supreme Court opinions all do, have and were intended to impact the ways that wars are fought.  Stick to the subject, GM. 
1929  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 02:00:08 PM
"The fact that our enemies do not follow is no reason for us not to."

Why? This is chanted over and over again like it's a article of faith. There are pragmatic reasons to treat enemy prisons of war well when we are fighting a nation-state's military. There are also pragmatic reasons to not provide those same protections to those who are not honorable soldiers, such as al qaeda.

"And your relunctance to follow the Constitution except when you find it convenient is pretty damning to your stance." 

Al qaeda enjoys constitutional protections? Then Hellfire missile strikes constitute a violation of 42 USC 1983 per Graham v. Connor.

You refuse to argue the issue, GM.  The reason is because, as I've said, if we fight for freedom, liberty, the expansion of democracy and the like, then we have to be the world's exemplar.  If we fail to illustrate the benefits of freedom, etc. then there is no reason for us to fight.  And, if we are fighting without staying true to the tenets we claim to be fighting for, then we, as a free nation, are no longer fighting... we are just another country in the world.  Also, if we take issue with others mistreating our soldiers, and we do and SHOULD, then we should treat others well.  That pesky leading by example thing. 

As I've said, but you refuse to read, acknowledge, or understand, is that the Constitution binds and describes when it comes to war.  And, since the highest law of the land helps to limit the methods of fighting a war, then your argument that law and war don't mix is full of holes that an ICBM could fly through.
1930  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 01:28:27 PM
Nope, but there are still legal limits to the ways of war.

What laws of war did the N. Koreans and Chinese observe in the Korean war? What consequences did they suffer for their treatment of US POWs?

Explain the legal logic where we can't use a hollowpoint bullet on an enemy soldier, but we can launch ICBMs that burn entire cities off the map.


GM, I am not a lawyer.  The fact that our enemies do not follow is no reason for us not to.  There is a reason why they are the enemy.  And your relunctance to follow the Constitution except when you find it convenient is pretty damning to your stance. 
1931  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
And as stated many times before, al qaeda is not a party to any treaty we've signed, right?

Nope, but there are still legal limits to the ways of war.  And the fact that war (its declaration, its funding, its commander in chief) has role in the Constitution (the highest LAW of the land) should tell you that law does, in fact, play a role in war... even if you don't like it. 
1932  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 16, 2011, 05:41:57 AM
Don't we decide what laws we do or do not apply to ourselves as a nation?

Yep.  And that is why we are signatories to many treaties, why lawyers play a role in war, and why our military has a code of conduct in times of war and peace.  We are, after all, a nation of law not of men. 
1933  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 15, 2011, 08:41:52 PM
"And, the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel was utilized so much in the wake of 9/11 means that the Bush administration would disagree with you."

Because we have become such a legalistic society, beyond the point of reason.

Just because you think that war SHOULDN'T be subject to law does not be that war IS not subject to law.  And that was your original claim.
1934  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 15, 2011, 01:52:29 PM
War is not a legal procedure. We didn't seek indictments for Hitler and Tojo. Truman didn't seek a legal opinion before dropping nukes on Japan.

Nuremberg Trials?  Milosevic?  Pinochet?  The fact that President Andrew Johnson pardoned thousands of CSA soldiers implies that there was the potential for indictment.  And, the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel was utilized so much in the wake of 9/11 means that the Bush administration would disagree with you.
1935  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 14, 2011, 08:49:30 PM
I agree with Guro Crafty here, even if he says this disingenuously (and I can't tell if he is playing "devil's advocate" here).  If the United States wants to survive, IMHO we need to survive by following that which made us great to begin with.  We, as a nation, have espoused the tenets of liberty worldwide.  If we fight for democracy, and we have, than we must necessarily fight for the protections for all. 
1936  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: April 13, 2011, 04:51:17 PM
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/15/still-a-bad-idea-military-commissions-under-the-obama-administration/

Still a Bad Idea: Military Commissions Under the Obama Administration
by David Glazier

David Glazier is a Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.  He has written, under the same title as this post, a paper critiquing U.S. military commissions which you can download from SSRN here.

As the Senate considers an outright ban on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo to the United States this week, it seems obvious that many proponents intend that this will lead to military commission trials of “high value” detainees held there. Although the government has successfully prosecuted several hundred suspected terrorists in federal courts since 9/11 while securing only five extremely problematic “convictions” at Guantánamo, the myth that military commissions are a superior forum for trying terrorists inexplicably persists. The media spin on the recent federal trial of Ahmed Ghailani has further fueled this erroneous perception. Although Ghailani, who is not a high-level al Qaeda figure, now faces the real possibility of life in a supermax prison, critics and mainstream media describe the case as a “near acquittal” rather than the substantial victory it represents. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, it is the military commissions which pose the much higher risk of failure in terrorism trials. The commissions have serious legal flaws which provide a number of grounds on which any convictions they render may be overturned, their ad hoc courtroom proceedings have regularly proved embarrassing to objective observers, and the controversy generated by their continued use will predictably have adverse consequences for U.S. national interests.

All five completed commission cases have involved highly questionable applications of substantive law. While the Military Commission Acts of 2006/2009 define offenses the commissions can try, they depend on these being pre-existing war crimes to avoid both U.S. constitutional and international prohibitions on ex-post facto crime creation when applied to detainees who were already in custody when the laws were passed. Yet virtually all LOAC experts agree that the primary offenses charged to date, conspiracy and providing material support to terrorism, are not crimes that can validly be prosecuted by a law of war tribunal. Omar Khadr was charged with additional offenses, including murder in violation of the law of war which could be war crimes in ordinary conflict scenarios, but not as applied to him. Three of the five cases – those of David Hicks, Ibrahim al Qosi, and Khadr – were resolved by plea deals in which the defendants had to waive all right to appeal even though that is forbidden by the court-martial practice on which the commissions are supposed to be based, so their infirmities will not be subject to appeal. Salim Hamdan, in contrast has appealed his conviction but although he has been free for almost two years, his case has still not even gotten through the first tier Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), mocking the idea that military judges will administer justice more efficiently than their civilian counterparts. Although Ali al Bahlul refused to allow his attorney, David Frakt, to mount any defense on his behalf at all, Frakt nevertheless preserved some issues for appeal that also have yet to be decided at any level. The MCA provides for cases surviving the CMCR to be heard by the regular Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the potential for both Supreme Court consideration as well as collateral review once direct appeals are complete. So these cases will be litigated for years to come.

While the substantive law issues alone should be sufficient to both overturn these past cases and derail many future charges, there are a slew of additional issues stemming from unique aspects of the commission process that provide additional grounds for challenge which are wholly lacking from federal trials. Key World War II precedents, for example, only uphold the authority of military officers to convene law of war commissions in the theater of their command and try violations committed during the interval from the “declaration of war” until the conclusion of a final peace treaty. It is thus questionable as to whether any pre-9/11 conduct can validly be tried by the commissions. There is also reason to doubt that a civilian official without any command authority can perform the multiple roles assigned the convening authority thousands of miles removed from the “theater” in which the conduct took place.

There are numerous other flaws including the inability of the defendants to select counsel they trust, the tribunals’ reliance on over-classification practices, use of evidence obtained through coercion despite the statutory ban on doing so, and lack of equal access to witnesses and flawed discovery processes that collectively undermine the ability of defendants to mount credible defenses. The use of substandard tribunals to try aliens which we are wholly unwilling to submit our own nationals to is entirely unprecedented in the history of U.S. military justice and provides the potential basis for an equal protection challenge. If reviewing courts are committed to justice, any of these flaws by themselves could form the basis for overturning convictions. Collectively they will undermine the credibility of any verdicts returned, chilling counter-terrorism cooperation by our friends and allies, while fueling recruitment and fund raising by our adversaries.

The Ghailani trial in contrast, saw the application of recognized charges and rulings that time in military custody does not violate speedy trial timelines and that detainee abuse does not require dismissal on the basis of outrageous government conduct. Although a district court decision is without formal precedential value, it is predictable that other federal judges would reach the same result. The idea that military commission rules offer any legitimate advantage over federal courts is simply wrong. While Ghailani’s judge did exclude one witness the government desired to use on the basis that he had been identified through coercive interrogation, military commission rules should have produced the same result. In general, military commission rules for handling classified information are now very closely based on those used in federal courts, while issues such as battlefield intelligence collection concerns are total red herrings – the Supreme Court holds the 4th Amendment inapplicable outside the U.S.

1937  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
Well, that sounds rather scary  shocked

I know!
1938  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 11:52:33 AM
BD:

So to what sources do we look to define the "Executive Power"?

Locke (Two Treatises) and Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England).  An example: the executive must have "the power to act according to discretion, for the publick good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it." (Blackstone)

1939  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 08:36:33 AM
Article I vesting clause: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (my emphasis)

Article II vesting clause: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." 

Note the key difference.  Article I expressly limits the legislative powers of Congress to those granted in the Constitution.  There is no such limit in the Article II vesting clause.  In other words, many presidents and presidential scholars have argued that the executive powers of a country, by virtue of being a sovereign state, are more extensive than those powers expressed in the Constitution.  It is also worth noting that the passage in Article II was altered between prior and final drafts.  I believe  Gouverneur Morris was primarily responsible for the shift. 

Does that clarify enough Guro? 
1940  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Government on: April 13, 2011, 06:46:40 AM
Scholars, and presidents, often point to the vesting clauses in Articles I and II as a source of the rise of presidential powers viz. those of Congress.  While it is true that the Constitution grants Congress many a power, the vesting clause in Article I also limits the powers of Congress to those enumerated in the document.  The vesting clause in Article II places no such limit on the president. 
1941  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Hmm . . . on: April 12, 2011, 08:21:59 AM
A Supreme Court justice cannot be forced to recuse him- or herself from a case. 

Two examples: Marbury v. Madison and from 2004 from then Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

"While a member of the court will often consult with colleagues as to whether to recuse in a case, there is no formal procedure for court review of a justice in an individual case,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote. “This is because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself.”



Kagan’s Recusal Manuevers
Jonathan H. Adler • April 9, 2011 11:14 am

While serving as Solicitor General, Justice Elena Kagan allegedly began maneuvering to avoid having to recuse in any eventual challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, months before her nomination was announced — indeed, even before she was told she was under consideration — according to a series of documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The National Law Journal reports on the disclosures here (registration required).

The documents, mainly in the form of printouts of internal email chains, show that now-Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – not Kagan herself — was the point person within the office on discussions of the new health care reform law and how to defend it in court. Released to CNSNews.com, a conservative-oriented news outlet, the emails also reveal how Kagan was walled off from discussions of the law — possibly because she already knew she might be nominated to the high court, where a challenge to the statute would ultimately be decided.

The release has raised eyebrows among lawyers familiar with the long tradition of the solicitor general’s office resisting release of internal documents so as not to hamper deliberations on cases. . . .

In a March 15 letter releasing the documents, Valerie Hall, executive officer of the solicitor general’s office, said they could have been withheld under [a FOIA exemption for “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters”], but the department was releasing them anyway as “a matter of agency discretion.” CNSNews.com published a story on the documents March 29


Another puzzle is that if these documents could be released under FOIA, why were they not disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee in preparation for Kagan’s confirmation hearing? Nothing reported to be in the documents would have prevented Kagan’s confirmation, nor does anything seem likely to force her recusal should the health care litigation reach the High Court, so the sudden disclosure is curious.

At NRO’s Bench Memos, Carrie Severino comments further on the disclosed documents here and here.

http://volokh.com/2011/04/09/kagans-recusal-manuevers/
1942  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: April 11, 2011, 10:00:29 AM
DougMacG: "I recall looking up that the despicable Phelps church celebrating fallen soldiers pays zero property taxes, a state/local tax credit of sorts?"  Churches of all sorts, even the ones you (or I) don't like have tax exempt status.  Although I do not agree with the message, or even Christianity of Westboro Baptist, the religious rights of parishioners are imperiled when the state gets to pick and choose between types of "legitimate" religious messages. 

Guro: There is a long line of SC case law that relates to funding/choice/aid to religious schools, which, of course, make up many (although not exclusively) private schools.  Perhaps this was Kagan's worry.  In particular, look to Everson v. Bd. of Ed. (1947); Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971); Agostini v. Felton (1997); and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) for frames of reference.  These are the "biggies."  There are many other cases that could add to the discussion. 
1943  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / brain development on: April 07, 2011, 10:32:57 AM
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
1944  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Is he out? on: April 06, 2011, 08:48:22 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_17784035?source=rss_igoogle

NEW YORK—Glenn Beck later this year will end his Fox News Channel talk show, which has sunk in the ratings and has suffered from an advertiser boycott.
Fox and Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts, said Wednesday they will stay in business creating other projects for Fox television and digital, starting with some documentaries Beck is preparing.

Beck was a quick burn on Fox News Channel. Almost immediately after joining the network in January 2009, he doubled the ratings at his afternoon time slot. Fans found his conservative populism entertaining, while Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert described Beck's "crank up the crazy and rip off the knob" moments.

He was popular with tea party activists and drew thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington last August for a "restoring honor" rally.

Yet some of his statements were getting him in trouble, and critics appealed to advertisers to boycott his show last summer after Beck said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Beck said that he went to Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO, in January to discuss ways they could continue to work together without the daily show.

"Half of the headlines say he's been canceled," Ailes said. "The other half say he quit. We're pretty happy with both of them."

Beck said he noted on his show Tuesday that "how many times can I tell the (George) Soros story," referring the liberal donor that Beck has made a target of attacks.

"We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a certain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did," Ailes said. "But that story of what's going on and why America is in trouble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told. Whether you can just keep telling that story or not ... we're not so sure."

Beck, who outlined on Wednesday's show his reasons for believing that "we're heading into deep and treacherous waters," told his viewers at the end of the show that his Fox talk show would conclude.

"I will continue to tell the story and I will be showing other ways for us to connect," he said.

More than 400 Fox advertisers told the company they did not want their commercials on Beck's show. Beck's advertisers were dominated by financial services firms, many touting gold as an investment.

Ailes dismissed the financial impact of the boycott but expressed some frustration with it.

"Advertisers who get weak-kneed because some idiot on a blog site writes to them and says we need to stifle speech, I get a little frustrated by that," he said.

One of Beck's most prominent critics—David Brock, founder of the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America—said that "the only surprise is that it took Fox News months to reach this decision."

"Fox News Channel clearly understands that Beck's increasingly erratic behavior is a liability to their ratings and their bottom line, and we are glad to see them take this action," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorofChange.org, which organized the advertiser boycott.

Beck was a lightning rod for other critics, as well. The Jewish Funds for Justice organized a petition drive last fall to get Beck fired for what it called his misuse of Nazis and the Holocaust phrases against political opponents.

Viewers had begun turning away. Beck's 5 p.m. ET show averaged 2.7 million viewers during the first three months of 2010, and was at just under 2 million for the same period this year, the Nielsen Co. said. His decline was sharper among younger viewers sought by advertisers.

Increasingly, the show began to be dominated by Beck standing in front of a chalk board giving his theories about the world's troubles.

However, Beck has built a powerful brand for himself through a daily radio show, best-selling books and personal appearances. Mercury Radio Arts is expanding and a key Fox executive, Joel Cheatwood, is joining the company later this month.

Beck's company created and operates a news and opinion website, TheBlaze.com. For $9.95 a month, he offers fans access to "Insider Extreme," a website that beams documentaries, Beck personal appearances and a video simulcast of Beck's daily radio show, with an extra hour featuring Beck cohorts.

Beck said ratings for his television show were not an issue, noting that "we have buried the competition in every sense." His supporters believe that the recent decline is more a reflection that ratings were abnormally high early last year.

"Call CNN and MSNBC and ask them if they'd like to have Glenn's ratings at 5 in the afternoon," Ailes said.

Ailes emphasized that Fox and Beck will continue to work together.

"We like each other," he said in a dual interview with Beck. "We're not drawing pictures of each other on the walls, having staff fights and stealing each other's food out of the refrigerator or any of that stuff."

———



1945  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education/Parenting on: April 05, 2011, 09:26:32 AM
Another example of liberals ruining education:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/04/professor_arrested_for_battery_after_he_shut_laptop_of_a_student_in_class
1946  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / spear phishing on: April 04, 2011, 08:27:08 AM
With the news that millions of email addresses have been compromised, my employer sent out the following links for info on so-called "spear phishing." 

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april09/spearphishing_040109.html
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci1134829,00.html
https://www.microsoft.com/australia/athome/security/email/spear_phishing.mspx
1947  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: The Straight Blast on: March 24, 2011, 09:11:30 AM
Quote from: Karsk link=topic=2176.msg47323#msg47323 date=1300831803


 [youtube

By golly, that clip looks familiar!!!!  


"d) Recently I have developed what I call "the Rabid Blast".  Like the WC/JF and the JKD Straight Blasts it seeks to impose neurological overload by punching three strikes per step (well two strikes and a sector framing strike to be specific  ).  Like the JKD SB and the Boxing Blast it seeks to impose strong forward pressure, though the footwork prefers to zig zag ("sawtooth" in our terminology) unless the opponent is so on his heels that a straight line is required to keep up with him.  Like the Boxing Blast is seeks to keep the jaw protected; though in my opinion it does so to a greater degree.  Ideally weave and shoot counters are partially dealt with by using the angle created by the sawtooth footwork, often in conjunction with what we call a "silat gator roll".  Because of our concerns about striking the skull with our fists, the strikes are heel palm.  The nature of the strikes overlaps with old school boxing, but is neither vertical fist nor boxing.
The chambers from which they initiate are different (think the double stick chamber we call the Arf-arful Dodger) and rhythmically they are a bit different too;  I may be mistaken but at the moment I think the rhythm is in 6/8."

I look forward to seeing more of this in the future. 
1948  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 24, 2011, 08:27:23 AM
I am disappointed in Linda Greenhouse here.  She knows better than to say some of the things that she wrote in this article.  She is almost always spot on, and if anything over-informed.  But here, she seems to forget information she used to know.

1.  "When I looked at voting patterns, I was surprised by what the numbers revealed: that in the divided cases, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has voted more often with Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor than with Justices Thomas, Scalia or Samuel A. Alito Jr. The number of cases is small, only nine, and there was no particular ideological spin to most of the decisions, so this is not to suggest that the term will disprove characterizations of the Roberts court, or the chief justice himself, as conservative."  This means nothing.  While she admits that it might mean nothing, by including it she draws attention to nothing.  Here is why: if in the majority at the conference stage (when the justices meet post-oral argument to preliminarily hash out the votes), the CJ will assign the majority opinion.  It is entirely possible that Roberts is voting with the "liberal wing" more often simply because he wants to assign the opinion.  CJ Burger was known to do this same thing.

2.  "Justice Thomas... has yet to write for the majority in any case this term. ...  The court’s eventual opinion in a case called Connick v. Thompson, argued back on Oct. 6, may be revealing. It is the only undecided case left from among the 12 the justices heard during the first month of the term, so by deduction, the opinion assignment should have gone to Justice Thomas, the only justice without a majority opinion from that session (Justice Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each have two.) "  There is NO SUCH THING AS "SHOULD" HAVE ASSIGNED AN OPINION.  Here is why: first of all, while balancing the workload is important, the Chief Justice (see above for why) can assign opinions for many reasons.  Who writes the fastest, who is closest ideologically, who can support the majority, who is an expert in the area of law being questioned, etc. etc.  Moreover, if Justice Thomas did not vote with the majority, he wouldn't be assigned the majority opinion.  Greenhouse has no way of knowing if he was in the majority or not, so she can't know that he "should" have been assigned the opinion.

3.  "Perhaps Justice Thomas, having received the initial assignment to write the majority opinion, has been unable to hold four other justices to his approach to this case. Or perhaps a dissenting opinion is taking a long time to incubate."  While all true reasons why an opinion announcement might be slow in coming, since she can't know that Justice Thomas was assigned the opinion, this is also meaningless. 



1949  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 18, 2011, 07:08:32 PM
Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.

A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election.  Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more. 
1950  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Men have become the weaker sex on: March 18, 2011, 04:24:00 AM
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/mar/16/men-have-become-the-weaker-sex/
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 43
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!