While I am amenable to the argument that non-citizens may not have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens (depending on the exact circumstances), I do adhere to the notion that there are fundamental hunan rights, many of which are, in fact, detailed in the US Constitution. As a result I cannot abide by the concept that we have the right to indefinitely detain human beings who “might” be a threat. Either they are a threat or they are not, and there needs to be a legitimate process by which to determine that fact.
The issue to me is that there has to be some standard applied to these detainees, and since it seems we have been unable to construct a viable one, I am not sure the proper course isn’t the Constitution.
Said
U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green in her ruling:
The main part of her ruling held the suspects can challenge their confinement and rejected the government’s position that all the cases must be dismissed.
“Of course, it would be far easier for the government to prosecute the war on terrorism if it could imprison all suspected ‘enemy combatants’ at Guantanamo Bay without having to acknowledge and respect any constitutional rights of detainees,” Green said.
“Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over two hundred years,” Green said.
“In sum, there can be no question that the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the Guantanamo detainees in this litigation — the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law — is one of the most fundamental rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution,” she said.
I am hearing some debate and commentary regarding the Iraqi elections by those who opposed the policy in the first place who are now downplaying the significance of the events of yesterday. As I noted yesterday: yesterday was not the pinnacle of victory in the sense that it was not the end of a very long process, or that it was a perfect process. Still, to deny the success of the day as an event is to be blinded by partisanship.
However: one can celebrate the events of yesterday and still acknowledge the difficult road ahead. Such a response is neither myopia nor triumphalism, rather it is a fair assessment. The fact of the matter is that millions of Iraqis were willing to dare danger, walk to the polls, vote and be marked in a very conspicuous way–these are remarkable facts which underscore the potential (and that word is the appropriate one) for the construction of democratic governance in Iraq.
The vote yesterday was not primarily a signal that the Iraqis want the American out–although I have encountered several arguments to that effect. Do I think that some knew that a road to the end of the occupation was the vote to move to the creation of a permanent Iraqi government? of course they did. However, the fact that the road to the end of the occupation is the construction of a stable, permanent Iraqi government is quite signigicant–and the fact that a majority of the population has agreed to use elections as the method to establish that government is rather important. Those millions could have instead chosen to support or join the insurgency–and yet they did not do so.
Those who seek to minimize the signifiance of the events of yesterday have to deal with that fact, and I do not, at this point, think that many (if any) of them are doing so.
Here are some of the editorial page responses to the elections of yesterday. They are all celebratory and congratulatory to the Iraqis. Most feel the need to provide a caveat elector and point out that the elections don’t solve everything (which we all know, I should think) and there is much hand-wringing over the Sunnis. General comment on Bush administration policy is at a minimum in the pieces in question. The LAT specifically notes that the administration was correct in sticking to the election timetable.
This page has not hesitated to criticize the Bush administration over its policies in Iraq, and we continue to have grave doubts about the overall direction of American strategy there. Yet today, along with other Americans, whether supporters or critics of the war, we rejoice in a heartening advance by the Iraqi people. For now at least, the multiple political failures that marked the run-up to the voting stand eclipsed by a remarkably successful election day.
The piece starts with a general congratulatory tone, but concludes with much hang-wringing about the Sunnis. While I concur that the political question of how to deal with the Sunni minority, I find the obsession with the Sunnis to be remarkable, insofar as one would think that 20% of the population is somehow more important than the remaining 80%.
WaPo’s lead editorial (A Vote to Persevere) on the subject is more straightforward, while expressing an obligatory “this isn’t the end� quite of statement, the first paragraph of the piece focuses on the most stunning aspect of yesterday’s vote: the courage of the Iraqi voters:
FOR MONTHS news from Iraq has told the story of the extremists, those who destroy themselves to murder others and to proclaim the cause of a religious or Baathist dictatorship. Yesterday the world saw and heard, at last, another Iraq, one in which millions of people from all over the country turned out to vote — even in places where their nominal leaders had proclaimed a boycott, even at polling stations where mortar rounds fell or gunfire rang out. Some danced or distributed chocolates, some wept with joy, others grimly pressed forward as if their lives literally depended on it. A 32-year-old man who lost his leg in a suicide bombing arrived at the polls in Baghdad and told a Reuters reporter, “I would have crawled here if I had to.” There were nine suicide bombings, and at least 44 people died, including one U.S. soldier. But the day’s message was unmistakable: The majority of Iraqis support the emerging democratic order in their country, and many are willing to risk their lives for it.
The LAT piece is similar in tone to WaPo’s, although with some Sunni-concern thrown in a la the NYT: Courage Under Fire
It takes courage to vote with the sound of mortars and gunfire still ringing and memories of terrorist beheadings still fresh. Whatever the final tally of the turnout Sunday in Iraq, the willingness of millions to defy suicide bombers and killers who threatened havoc at the polls provided some unequivocal good news. Not least, the world could honestly see American troops making it possible for a long-oppressed people to choose their destiny.
By any measure, Sunday’s elections in Iraq were a success, though one that brings with it a new set of challenges.
[...]
For one day, however, Iraqis can take pride that they braved insurgents’ threats, bombs and bullets to cast ballots. And Americans who don’t bother to vote even under ideal conditions should take note of the enduring potency of the idea that each person can make a difference. The millions of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote on Sunday were an inspiring reminder of democracy’s appeal — and brought at least the hope of a new beginning for their tormented country.
As I mentioned last week, I have been a weird problem with WordPress (as have some readers trying to comment) wherein the login screen pops up for no reason. Indeed, it seems any attempt to access WP fucntions can cause this to take place. So, for example, the acting of hitting “Publish” can cause the screen to pop up, which means the post that I was in the process of publishing goes away forever.
Does anybody have any idea what the problem could be? Has anyone had a similar problem?
I am beginning to be concerned about WordPress’s stability.
Iraq’s Electoral Commission said counting in the country’s historic poll was going smoothly on Monday, as millions of Iraqis anxiously settled down to wait for the results, a process that could take up to 10 days.
Electoral officials estimate about eight million people cast ballots in Sunday’s election, a little over 60 percent of those registered and a greater number than expected, even if there is evidence turnout was low in many violence-torn Sunni Arab areas.
Arabic media channel Al Jazeera has been voted the world’s fifth most influential brand in a poll of branding professionals that gave the top slot to U.S. iPod and computer icon Apple.
In some small way maybe this is indicative of some inculcation of capitalism in the Arab world. Regardless, there is no denying the global brand-identity of al-Jazeera.
Here are the lists:
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL TOP FIVE LISTS (1,984 respondents to the question “which brands had the most impact on your life in 2024?”)
GLOBAL
1. Apple
2. Google
3. Ikea
4. Starbucks
5. Al Jazeera
CENTRAL & LATIN AMERICA
1. Cemex
2. Corona
3. Bacardi
4. Bimbo
5. Vina Concha y Toro
ASIA-PACIFIC
1. Sony
2. Samsung
3. LG
4. Toyota
5. Lonely Planet
EUROPE & AFRICA
1. Ikea
2. Virgin
3. H&M
4. Nokia
5. Al Jazeera
NORTH AMERICA
1. Apple
2. Google
3. Target
4. Starbucks
5. Pixar
In the survey of almost 2,000 ad executives, brand managers and academics by online magazine Brandchannel, Apple ousted search engine Google from last year’s top spot, but the surprise to many will be Al Jazeera’s entry into the top five.
She’s being touted on liberal blogs as the Democrats’ best hope for president in 2024.
I guess that just shows that blogs aren’t an automatic fount of wisdom.
The piece makes an apt observation:
Maybe it’s not that Boxer’s gotten louder but that other Democrats can barely be heard at all.
One does wonder where the leadership is in the Democratic Party. One thing I can guarantee: the part will not succeed if their loudest voices are Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.
