Kiyemba v Obama

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Kiyemba_v._Obama

Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder

http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project

A new check on the Congress?

It just struck me that the president doesn't get to exert his check on the Congress (the veto) unless the bill in question is passed by both houses. Considering that the Senate is much more reactionary than the House and that it has its own tools to obstruct bills from ever getting to the president's desk, should we start thinking about providing the president with another check on the more reactionary, less representative Senate when they kill bills?

A Riddle

What is the difference between terrorism and a man that flies his plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX?

In a desperate attempt not to call this ambush terrorism, an FAA official called it "apparently a criminal act" to deflect concerns it could have been terrorism.

I guess he didn't fit the government's profile of terrorist: foreign brown person...

Shoot First, Ask Questions...Never

A recent WaPo article reveals that Obama's weapon of choice for dealing with high-value terrorism targets has been just that...a weapon. In lieu of capturing the target for further questions, he has erred toward killing from afar. In fact, this shift in policy has led to "dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions." Although some may say that missiles launched from a helicopter, for instance, are sure ways of eliminating a threat (and, therefore, enhancing national security), such a tactic forfeits valuable intelligence that no corpse could give. For me, this policy is misguided from both a utilitarian and a moral point of view.

That isn't all to say that we should torture the suspect once he or she is in our custody. In fact, there are utilitarian arguments against that, too. All I'm saying is that, if we truly are in a battle of good intelligence, why wipe out the source?

Why the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy is doomed

Recently, the Pentagon went on record in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). Two columnists from WaPo think that this position undermines the government's assertion that allowing openly queer individuals to serve in the military would be a threat to national security. Now we finally get to call a spade a spade! We can finally assert that discrimination against gays serving in the military is unequal protection under the laws. In other words, it's violative of the 14th Amendment.

Why the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy is doomed: "Washington Post - By David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey - Feb. 13 (Opinion) - When the Pentagon's top brass announced last week that they no longer believe military unit cohesion suffers from the presence of openly gay men or women in the ranks, they effectively transformed a policy question into a legal one, to which the answer is clear: Congress can no longer mandate discrimination in the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.4 average (not enough reviews) - See Reviews » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Under plan, intelligence agencies would be consulted before reading of rights

Under plan, intelligence agencies would be consulted before reading of rights: "Washington Post - By Walter Pincus - Feb. 13 (News Report) - The Justice Department and the FBI will consult with the intelligence community on information about terrorist suspects arrested in the United States before deciding whether to read them their Miranda rights under a plan now under review in the White House, according to senior administration offi...

NewsTrust Rating: 3.1 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)