Thursday, January 18, 2007
just your nuts laying on a fucking dresser:
So what does the Military Commissions Act of 2006 mean for admissible evidence at Guantanamo Bay? Today the Pentagon released its manual detailing the rules of the road. It's very long and I haven't finished wading through it, but seeing this made me not want to read further:
(g) Statements obtained by torture are not admissible (10 U.S.C. 948r(b)), but statements "in which the degree of coercion is disputed" may be admitted if reliable, probative, and the admission may best serve the interests of justice...
Non-shrill analysis: Those at Guantanamo were tortured. Tortured. Some were subjected to hypothermia so severe they developed an irregular heartbeat. If there was any evidence, aside from battlefield decisions to detain, justifying commission of war crimes that didn't result from torture, there would be no need to discard a basic tenet of civilization. In 30 years, this will all be declassified, and we'll find out the extent of the damage we have just done. For now, the U.S. military is about to disgrace itself by marrying abuse and prerogative and calling the result justice. Thank God for honorable men like Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift.

Shrill analysis: I hope Bush is proud. This section of the manual should be chiseled on his headstone. Better yet, tattoo it on his chest, so every time he and Laura are about to make love, she sees what a monster he is.
--Spencer Ackerman
Are you allowed to go with lyrics from a skit as your post title?
Blogger Pooh | 5:26 PM

And while we're banging shit with a spiked f'n bat (blau), the piece you quote instantly brings the phrase "exception swallowing the rule" to mind.
Blogger Pooh | 5:28 PM

What do you think, commenters? Are skit lyrics acceptable as headlines? (Do skits even have "lyrics," per se?)
Blogger spencerackerman | 5:48 PM

statements "in which the degree of coercion is disputed" may be admitted.

Just a guess, but "disputed" isn't going to mean anything more than the government simply saying "hey, we didn't torture the guy", right? Meaning this isn't even a half-assed measure--it will literally do nothing to keep coerced statements from being used in court.

Yeah, fuck them.
Blogger Matt | 7:03 PM

Citing the extensive precedent of using Simpsons quotes, I have to say yes...
Blogger Scott Lemieux | 7:55 PM

I kinda think of that skit as the beginning of the song, since it's on the same track. Acceptable.
Blogger Andrew | 7:58 PM

I kinda think of that skit as the beginning of the song, since it's on the same track. Acceptable.
Blogger Andrew | 7:58 PM

I have a feeling Bush's post-presidency is going to be rather like Reagan's, only far less popular. This includes the rapid descent into dementia, despite being much younger than Reagan was when he left office.

Seriously, the dude's brain is melting as we watch. He's actually getting dumber.

I bet by 2014 he won't be making public appearances anymore, and at that time he'd only be the same age Reagan was when he was elected to his first term.
Blogger Jon Hendry | 8:18 PM

Jon Hendry, I've thought about this myself from time to time. Will Bush pen op-eds for the NYT or WaPo or WSJ in his post-presidency, weighing in on the issues of the day? Will he be like Nixon, an embarassment to the GOP come convention time, but still retaining some of the old loyalists?
Blogger spencerackerman | 7:55 AM

I don't see Bush engaging in the op/ed pages, unless a lobbyist pays Bush's people to generate something for the WSJ. I don't see him being an activist.

I'm rather baffled at his evident intention to turn his library into some kind of massively funded brain trust and think tank. I mean, it's obvious he's overcompensating in a vast, vast way. But he doesn't really have any deep principles of his own for such an institution to push. It'd be more genuine if the interior of the library was dedicated to a tee-ball field.
Blogger Jon Hendry | 5:12 PM