Scribes
saurabh is a manic- depressive graduate student with delusions of
overturning well- established social hierarchies through sheer weight of cynicism. in his spare time he writes self-effacing auto- biographical blurbs.
dan makes things up casually, effortlessly, and often. Never believe a
word he says.
hedgehog burrows between San Francisco and other areas rich in roots and nuts. His father says he is a literalist and his mother says he is very smart. Neither of them say aloud that he should spend less time with blegs and more time out of doors.
Pollocrisy
Blegs
- scrofulous
- wax banks
- a tiny revolution
- under the same sun
- alt hippo
- isthatlegal?
- informed comment
- abu aardvark
- crooked timber
- bob harris
- saheli: the gathering
- john & belle have a blog
- red state son
- pharyngula
- critical montages
- living the scientific life
- pass the roti
- attitude adjustor
- pandagon
- this modern world
- orcinus
- a lovely promise
- ufo breakfast
- sabdariffa
- to do: 1. get hobby, 2. floss
Links
Archives
- 11.2003
- 04.2004
- 05.2004
- 06.2004
- 07.2004
- 08.2004
- 09.2004
- 10.2004
- 11.2004
- 12.2004
- 01.2005
- 02.2005
- 03.2005
- 04.2005
- 05.2005
- 06.2005
- 07.2005
- 08.2005
- 09.2005
- 10.2005
- 11.2005
- 12.2005
- 01.2006
- 02.2006
- 03.2006
- 04.2006
- 05.2006
- 06.2006
- 07.2006
- 08.2006
- 09.2006
- 10.2006
- 11.2006
- 12.2006
- 01.2007
- 02.2007
Search
Site Feed
Rhinocrisy
|
29 June, 2006
War crimes
The U.S. government wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden's driver, a dude named Hamdan, for war crimes. They wanted it so bad they went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to promote their interpretation of Congressional, Constitutional and U.S. treaty requirements. Oops - the court decided that the war crimes tribunal was itself a war crime, as it violated the Geneva Conventions. It's nice when hubris runs into itself, at least a little bit.
Comments
It still worries me that our civil liberties in "war" time depend upon the decision of one Supreme Court justice to stay on the bench or to continue breathing.
Posted by judevac
Posted by judevac
Oh, come now, that's a bit unfair. The man had a conflict of interest, and he stayed away. He did what he was supposed to do. Give him that much credit.
Besides, our side would have won even if he HAD decided to stay on the bench. FIVE justices decided to uphold civil liberties. That's a majority. I'm willing to take a victory wherever I can get it.
Posted by DearDarlingDidi
Besides, our side would have won even if he HAD decided to stay on the bench. FIVE justices decided to uphold civil liberties. That's a majority. I'm willing to take a victory wherever I can get it.
Posted by DearDarlingDidi
when hubris runs into itself, at least a little bit.
This is a very good definition for "separation of powers" :)
Posted by Saurav
This is a very good definition for "separation of powers" :)
Posted by Saurav
2nd on that as a good definition. hubris-on-hubris is how it's supposed to work. that things are cockeyed at the moment seems to be because it's a little optimistically individualist to assume that no conspiracy would ever be so large - and the economy would never be so hollow - as to generate a consensus around holding almost a maginot line of high level results regardless of results on the ground, or long term effects. it's a disaster.
Posted by hibiscus
Posted by hibiscus
