[seahorse2]

There are only two choices, allow the common man to sue or allow him to send them to the guillotines like the French Revolution. I would argue the rich instituted civil court systems to prevent a return to the guillotines.

[Denny]

Is it just me, or does this article sounds like something out of the Orwell book 1984:

From NY Times: "Letter give leagl rationale"

"WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law."

I can understand it if the Defense department say were to make that argument, but the Justice department?

It seems that in the past five years or so, the protection of rights has dropped lower on the scale of priorities for the Justice department. You keep reading this kind of thing, and it does not look good for the nation as a whole, a nation trying to extend freedom. Didn't Bush once say, in describing the Afghanistan situation that it displayed "Freedom on the march"? Lets make sure freedom does not waltz right out of America.

I guess we should all be happy that at least this matter is out in the open, its not a case of agreeing to comply with international conduct norms and then secretly violating these.

[dukey]

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukey', '[')img]http://alternet.org/images/managed/storyimage_picture1_1209188729.jpg[/img]

[DomusAlbion]

Two points about your list Dukey.

1. You must look at spending as a percent of GDP, in which case China (4.3%) actually spends more than the US (4.06%). There are 27 countries that spend more on their military than the USA (CIA factbook).
2. Countries 4 through 9 on your list can spend less because the US spends more and assists them in their national defense, directly or in the case of France, indirectly.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DomusAlbion', 'T')wo points about your list Dukey.

1. You must look at spending as a percent of GDP, in which case China (4.3%) actually spends more than the US (4.06%). There are 27 countries that spend more on their military than the USA (CIA factbook).
2. Countries 4 through 9 on your list can spend less because the US spends more and assists them in their national defense, directly or in the case of France, indirectly.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')But "we" can't afford "those" social programs any longer..........

[DomusAlbion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')But "we" can't afford "those" social programs any longer..........

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DomusAlbion', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')

[DomusAlbion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'D')oes taht mean you admit you are WRONG an full of poo.

[Kingcoal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')But "we" can't afford "those" social programs any longer..........

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, as resources deplete and resource wars loom ever more likely, we can either invest in our military or squander our money on SHDs (Smelly Homeless Dirtbags).

I choose more military spending.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DomusAlbion', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'D')oes taht mean you admit you are WRONG an full of poo.

[Jenab6]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', '"')WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law."

[Plantagenet]

I've watched Jack Bauer torture enough terrorist bastards on "24" to know that sometimes you've got to use coercive methods to break down the terrorists and get them to reveal their plans so you can thwart their evil terrorist plots and save American lives.



The justice department has got your back, Jack.

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', '"')WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law."

[AlexdeLarge]

In a post oil world and no guns, how do think you will survive the hungry mobs?

Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/ ... id=topnews

One comment I agree with was as follows:
"The Bill of Rights is NOT about individual rights. It is about the limitations of the government. The constitution and the Bill of Rights do not GIVE you any rights. They PROTECT them by defining what the Gov't can and can't do. The rights are already yours."

Think your vote doesn't matter?

[lawnchair]

I'm still expecting a pretty narrow ruling. DC being a federal ward makes it a special case. Beyond that question, though, the bigger issue is whether the 2nd amendment applies as a restriction to state and local actions. It pretty clearly didn't for the first 77 years of the Bill of Rights. States and localities had established churches, restrictions on free speech, etc, throughout that era. The 14th Amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses have been interpreted to mean that states and localities can't violate your rights to speech, religion, etc. But, the last reading of it by the Supreme Court (1875) held that states/locales could infringe on gun ownership, so long as it was equally enforced.

More than many other laws (contracts, internet law, etc), I don't see it as unreasonable that different states might have different gun laws.

I don't see the court 'incorporating' the 2nd amendment broadly tomorrow. We'll see.

[Cashmere]

I'm very worried that the SC explicitly finds no individual right to own guns.

If they do that, by the way, there is going to be a massive run on shotguns and other no BGC guns.