<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WaPo Publishes A Liberal Fantasy Story</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059</link>
	<description>High Flying Political Debate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:03:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Simon</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/comment-page-1#comment-14185</link>
		<dc:creator>M. Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059#comment-14185</guid>
		<description>Re: Smackdown of Georgr,

George wanted to  give the poor detainees a trial. The Supremes said the trial must accord with treaties, the UCMJ, or law.

If Bush doesn&#039;t like thos options he can hold them until the war is over.

I like the second option myself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Smackdown of Georgr,</p>
<p>George wanted to  give the poor detainees a trial. The Supremes said the trial must accord with treaties, the UCMJ, or law.</p>
<p>If Bush doesn&#8217;t like thos options he can hold them until the war is over.</p>
<p>I like the second option myself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Simon</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/comment-page-1#comment-14182</link>
		<dc:creator>M. Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059#comment-14182</guid>
		<description>AJ,

You really need to get up to speed on the drug thing. Even the NIDA says drugs do not cause addiction. They say it is half genetics and half environmental factors (what I prefer to call trauma).  My take:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-addiction-real.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Is Addiction  Real?&lt;/a&gt;

The Rs are going to get gobsmacked hard by this if the Dems ever wake up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AJ,</p>
<p>You really need to get up to speed on the drug thing. Even the NIDA says drugs do not cause addiction. They say it is half genetics and half environmental factors (what I prefer to call trauma).  My take:</p>
<p><a href="http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-addiction-real.html" rel="nofollow">Is Addiction  Real?</a></p>
<p>The Rs are going to get gobsmacked hard by this if the Dems ever wake up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ReidBlog</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/comment-page-1#comment-14147</link>
		<dc:creator>ReidBlog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059#comment-14147</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The smackdown of King George...&lt;/strong&gt;

Call it a liberal fantasy if you want, but the Supreme Court&#039;s legal smackdown of the Bush White House&#039;s monarchical terror &quot;war&quot; was the first real hint of the return of oversight and sanity in at least some quarters of American government and jur...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The smackdown of King George&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Call it a liberal fantasy if you want, but the Supreme Court&#8217;s legal smackdown of the Bush White House&#8217;s monarchical terror &#8220;war&#8221; was the first real hint of the return of oversight and sanity in at least some quarters of American government and jur&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crosspatch</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/comment-page-1#comment-14142</link>
		<dc:creator>crosspatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059#comment-14142</guid>
		<description>Having failed in their attempt to cast Iraq as Vietnam, they are now attempting to adjust the &quot;spin&quot;.  The war on terror is now being cast as the personal war of a megalomaniacal President Bush who would use terrorism as a pretext to strip Americans of their rights and use the military as his personal six-shooter in global adventures.  To the press now, America isn&#039;t at war, President Bush is.

It&#039;s just the Democrats making a slight adjustment in strategy since the last direction failed.  The good news is that the people don&#039;t seem to be buying this tack either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having failed in their attempt to cast Iraq as Vietnam, they are now attempting to adjust the &#8220;spin&#8221;.  The war on terror is now being cast as the personal war of a megalomaniacal President Bush who would use terrorism as a pretext to strip Americans of their rights and use the military as his personal six-shooter in global adventures.  To the press now, America isn&#8217;t at war, President Bush is.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just the Democrats making a slight adjustment in strategy since the last direction failed.  The good news is that the people don&#8217;t seem to be buying this tack either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: For Enforcement</title>
		<link>http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059/comment-page-1#comment-14133</link>
		<dc:creator>For Enforcement</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2059#comment-14133</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I&#039;ve read some of what I consider the pertinent parts of the SC decision and I don&#039;t even see it as a real set back to the administration.

First of all, it doesn&#039;t apply to the prisoners at Gitmo, it applies to Hamdan only.  It said they can let him rot in hell if they want to(they didn&#039;t exactly phrase it that way, but the meaning was the same)  All they said is, if you don&#039;t want to try him with a civil court or court martial, you have to get congress to agree with how you want to do it.

So far, I don&#039;t see where the decision said anything at all about the Presidents role as Commander in Chief.  The SC can&#039;t change that anyhow, that is constitutional authority.  

Now, let&#039;s say the President doesn&#039;t agree with the Supreme Court and still maintains he is doing what he is doing thru his constitutional authority.   If the Supreme court still doesn&#039;t agree, what is the remedy.  I guess they could ask Congress to impeach him.  I would say that the Pres could just ignore them and absolutely nothing would  happen.  
At any rate, your assessment that the WaPo is in fantasyland is most certainly the case.  

I watched LtCdr Charles Swift on Greta&#039;s show, and he said the decision means Hamden gets a trial based on our rules.  Everything I&#039;ve read in other places don&#039;t agree with that,  I&#039;m not sure who&#039;s correct, but I suspect  LtCdr Swift is not correct.

If there is somenone that knows for sure, it would be helpful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I&#8217;ve read some of what I consider the pertinent parts of the SC decision and I don&#8217;t even see it as a real set back to the administration.</p>
<p>First of all, it doesn&#8217;t apply to the prisoners at Gitmo, it applies to Hamdan only.  It said they can let him rot in hell if they want to(they didn&#8217;t exactly phrase it that way, but the meaning was the same)  All they said is, if you don&#8217;t want to try him with a civil court or court martial, you have to get congress to agree with how you want to do it.</p>
<p>So far, I don&#8217;t see where the decision said anything at all about the Presidents role as Commander in Chief.  The SC can&#8217;t change that anyhow, that is constitutional authority.  </p>
<p>Now, let&#8217;s say the President doesn&#8217;t agree with the Supreme Court and still maintains he is doing what he is doing thru his constitutional authority.   If the Supreme court still doesn&#8217;t agree, what is the remedy.  I guess they could ask Congress to impeach him.  I would say that the Pres could just ignore them and absolutely nothing would  happen.<br />
At any rate, your assessment that the WaPo is in fantasyland is most certainly the case.  </p>
<p>I watched LtCdr Charles Swift on Greta&#8217;s show, and he said the decision means Hamden gets a trial based on our rules.  Everything I&#8217;ve read in other places don&#8217;t agree with that,  I&#8217;m not sure who&#8217;s correct, but I suspect  LtCdr Swift is not correct.</p>
<p>If there is somenone that knows for sure, it would be helpful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

