tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8785387207570374478.post7610455417539089341..comments2023-12-24T05:04:37.381-05:00Comments on The Train of Thought: Okay, Maybe He Actually Will Be A Great PresidentJJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082265494052859780noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8785387207570374478.post-63167760842164771522008-11-13T09:38:00.000-05:002008-11-13T09:38:00.000-05:00I'm about a week behind in reading up on this blog...I'm about a week behind in reading up on this blog, so probably no one will ever see this relevant comment, but nevertheless:<BR/>http://ccrjustice.org/files/GTMO%20Final%20Report%20Single%20Pages-1.pdfSamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06259311234137525113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8785387207570374478.post-49718349550542400672008-11-11T09:32:00.000-05:002008-11-11T09:32:00.000-05:00Completely true, but we lie about it to ourselves ...Completely true, but we lie about it to ourselves in the public narrative and that makes me crazy.Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805129493849457785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8785387207570374478.post-22822921118143232482008-11-10T23:45:00.000-05:002008-11-10T23:45:00.000-05:00If you want a taste of some more complexities, che...If you want a taste of some more complexities, check out Glenn Greenwald's interview with <A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/11/10/romero/index1.html" REL="nofollow">ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.</A> There's a ton of great stuff in there, but for a start he's got this to contrast with my point about law never being absolute:<BR/><BR/>"The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are brilliant in the fact that they are absolute. You have those kind of core rights regardless of what the crime is that's brought against you. And I understand it represents some conundrum because the Bush administration has wholly screwed it up by torturing these individuals first, and then getting confessions from them afterwards. And established the Supreme Court precedent -- what was it -- in 2004 a case I think that came out of Arkansas, where police officers were going in and getting confessions from people without reading their Miranda rights, and they were going in afterwards and then reading them their Miranda rights, and still getting the confessions afterwards. This conservative Supreme Court said, you can't do that. 'Cause once you violate the person's rights, you can't clean up that confession by doing it after the fact, and trying to use the second confession and disregarding the first one."<BR/><BR/>He's wrong about that first bit, though, or maybe just optimistic. Not in principle, since the constitution really should work like that (and, in practice, often does). But the Bush administration's treatment of detainees is hardly anything new – our history is littered with violations of the 4th and 5th. Right or wrong, that's the legal tradition that we're working with.6.54https://www.blogger.com/profile/16142293932150029874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8785387207570374478.post-56734859498259717032008-11-10T20:05:00.000-05:002008-11-10T20:05:00.000-05:00It's amazing, isn't it? Thank you for this post. ...It's amazing, isn't it? Thank you for this post. While his proposed solution isn't all that I would have wanted, you are make a good case that the complexities warrant it. And this solution is so, so much better than letting the situation linger in Guantanamo for even one more day. Hats off for tackling it immediately and head on!Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805129493849457785noreply@blogger.com