They Are Ruthless, But Politely So
At Obsidian Wings and undoubtedly several other places, Eric Martin discusses the Obama Administration’s squalid effort to expand antiterrorism laws to cover such atrocities as “filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a terrorist group. Helping such a group petition international bodies is also a crime, [Solicitor General Elena Kagan] added.”
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 3, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
It does make me wonder whatever happened to Joe.
Comment by Jesus B Ochoa —
March 4, 2010 @ 9:09 am
beware the jabberwocky -
Comment by stras —
March 4, 2010 @ 10:09 am
“I’m sure the President has a very good reason for this and we don’t have all the facts and these are TERRORISTS, PEOPLE and SHUT UP.”
Comment by justinslot —
March 4, 2010 @ 10:14 am
If you mean joe from lowell I see him in MattY’s comments sometimes.
Comment by Ugh —
March 4, 2010 @ 10:18 am
I think Kagan’s argument is a straightforward reading of the law at issue. Which means (a) the law is an abomination; and (b) also unconstitutional and should be struck down.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2010 @ 11:59 am
See, this is all part of an 11-dimensional chess game, whereby making these awful arguments will result in over-extending and thereby invite SCOTUS to slap them down, which is a win for civil liberties.
In related news, the apologists for a different President have explained that invading Iraq is part of a clever plan to lure in a whole bunch of terrorists so we can fight them there instead of here, sparing us from the chaos. And, evenn better, by creating a chaotic battlefield there, we will foster the emergence of a stable liberal democracy that sets off a democratic chain reaction.
You just have to understand that Presidents are playing chess in 11 dimensions.
Comment by almostinfamous —
March 4, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
dude, BUSH played 11 dimensional chess – Obama plays 121 dimensional chess. you think you know, but you have NO idea!
Comment by Ugh —
March 4, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
I will say it would be nice if once in a while the executive branch would sit back and say it itself “geez, if this is what the law allows us to do, maybe we should work with congress to change it.”
Comment by dhex —
March 4, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
invading iraq was a clever honeypot, watergate was an anarchist plot to discredit the majesty of the presidency and every president since lincoln is part of a wide-ranging minarchist conspiracy to sully the concept of widespread and entrenched government.
Comment by Mirounga —
March 4, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
I think Kagan’s argument is a straightforward reading of the law at issue. Which means (a) the law is an abomination; and (b) also unconstitutional and should be struck down.
Golly! If only we had some elected official who was sworn to preserve the Constitution of the United States, who had the authority (indeed, the obligation) to enforce the laws of the United States in such a way as to uphold that Constitution, and who also had total control over everything the Solicitor General says to the Supreme Court. But apparently Article II of the U.S. Constitution covered everything but this, so I guess we’re just fucked.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
March 4, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
You know, I was thinking that this law is a bad…hey, who’s at the door. Wait one [bang]. Hey, who are you guys. OK, i’m stepping away from the computer….
Comment by von Laue —
March 4, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
He’s interested in the real debate, not interested in the glibertarianism of Thoreau and, erm, The Editors of The Poor Man. He already up an’ told yinz.
Comment by Julian —
March 5, 2010 @ 12:21 am
Just noticed that the Unqualified Offerings blog-roll now has links to “warehouses for rent” and “miami bail bonds” and “plastic surgery.” Wild!
Comment by bbartlog —
March 5, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Also, Wendy Mcelroy has gone missing from the blogroll. I was going to ask whether there was some disagreement with her but based on the prior comment it sounds more like your site has been compromised in some way.