The Distant Ocean

new-CLEAR! new-CLEAR! Is that so hard?

I saw some excerpts today of Bush blathering on about Iran's "nucular" program, and I finally snapped.  Look, dammit, it's just new-CLEAR.  Got it?  new-CLEAR.  Is that really so difficult?  If you can pronounce both of those words, it is clear that you're capable of pronouncing "nuclear."  Am I being clear?  Are we clear on this?

If that's not clear enough, let me ask: are you familiar with the works of Paul Klee?  You knew of them once, you say?  You knew Klee, er, at one time?  Ok, you didn't, but can you at least say that last frigging sentence?  Then you're capable of pronouncing "nuclear."

Really, I don't get it.  Does Bush walk around saying "that's not cyuleer to me...could you explain it again?" or "hey, look, this glass is cyuleer!" or "I'm cyuleerly an idiot!"  I must assume he does not, though I think he should consider the last one.

There should be three rules:

1) If you can't spell it, you can't invade it.

2) If you can't find it on a map, you can't invade it.

3) IF YOU CAN'T PRONOUNCE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN YOUR FEEBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR INVADING IT, YOU CAN'T INVADE IT.

Gyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Habeas corpus grab bag

Light reading: the transcript (PDF) of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the cases of Boumediene and Al Odah vs. George Bush, regarding the habeas corpus rights of prisoners at Guantanamo.  It's actually good stuff; I particular liked the dissection of minute details of cases from the 1700s.  You can see more documents related to the cases here.

I did a double take when I saw this paragraph in a Washington Post story:

"Habeas is a judicial remedy," former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman, who will argue for the detainees, said in a brief. "It cannot be replaced by a process that (like the CSRT) is ultimately controlled by the jailer."

The position is supported by a long list of organizations that have filed briefs with the court on behalf of the detainees: Israeli leaders, who say that terrorism suspects in their country receive a detention hearing within 14 days; a group of 383 European parliamentarians; former U.S. diplomats; law professors; retired military leaders; and even Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who voted for the Military Commissions Act and said at the time that the court could "clean up" the parts of the law he thought were unconstitutional.

I find it hard to believe that "Israeli leaders" would nosh the hand that feeds them by filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Guantanamo prisoners.  The Post is probably referring to the brief described here, which is attributed to Israeli lawyers and military law experts--not the same thing as "Israeli leaders" by any stretch, of course.  I can't find the actual brief in the list for either case, though; if you see it please do point it out.

The bit about Arlen Specter is amusing as well.  Here's a longer version of his dog-leg maneuvering at the time of the vote:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.

So Specter, who took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution," voted for legislation that he openly asserted was "patently unconstitutional on its face."  At least we know who the Democrats should try impeaching after they get done with Bush and Cheney.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that this is yet another instance of the Center for Constitutional Rights and its associates dragging the government before a court.  Thanks again, lawyers!

(More fun with the judiciary here, if you're interested).

Send Bush some unfamiliar reading material

CCR plans to send George Bush a copy of a document he apparently hasn't read.  Here's the beginning of their cover letter:

Dear President Bush:

Enclosed please find a copy of the U.S. Constitution.  I wish you'd make some time in your busy schedule to read it.

I would have hoped that you'd be pretty familiar with it already, because you have at least three times in your life taken a solemn oath to uphold, protect and defend it, but all the signs indicate that you either don't know what's in it, or you don't care.

For example, do you recall what the Constitution says about habeas corpus?  It's only 26 words, and they are very clear: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, what were you thinking when you signed the Detainee Treatment Act, which does precisely what the Constitution forbids by suspending habeas corpus?

You can read the rest of the snarkiness here, and then sign up.  Let's help get them over 50,000 signatures!

A protective buffer of cuteness

I'm just as tired as many of you probably are of seeing the hideous mug of that Cuban scumbag at the top of the site.  So without further ado, as an insurmountable buffer of cuteness against that jpeg of villainy, here's the largest and inarguably the most adorable of all rodents--the capybara:

The bigness of the critter in this image is not a result of an extreme closeup; if a capybara fell on your chihuahua, it would surely smoosh it, for it is large (adults are up to four feet long and may weigh up to 175 pounds, according to reliable sources).  And though it is known as a carpincho in Spanish, there are actually no recorded instances of capybaras stealing cars.

So let us bask in the protective shield cast by this fetchingly diffident rodent, and suffer no more.  And if one isn't enough for you (and really, how could it be?), they await you in large numbers here.

[ NOTE: "Capybara" is considered a typo by the default spell-check configuration of Firefox, as is "smoosh".  I will of course file this as a critical bug. ]