I thought about asking in the post what everybody’s Best Concert Ever is.

REM, “Green” tour. I’d sort-of heard of REM before, heard a couple singles, etc. I liked them ok. I expected the concert to be something a bit cerebral, something that took itself just a bit too seriously – but hopefully in the good way.

What I got was a hyperkinetic joyous blast. Unreal. 15,000 people in the audience, and it felt like Michael connected emotionally with every single one. And revved them. Right. Up. Then chilled them down. We were all right there with him, and delighted to be there.

These days, when I read the blogs and they’re on a roll, I hear the rumble and roar of that night’s rendering of “Begin the Begin” – introduced by Michael with “… this is a song about personal and social activism.”

—
Silence means security silence means approval
On Zenith, on the TV, tiger run around the tree
Follow the leader, run and turn into butter

Let’s begin again, begin the begin
Let’s begin again like Martin Luther zen
The mythology begins the begin
—

Ok.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us…../s3930.pdf

A lot got changed in the final few days, so please base any analyses on the final version.

If anyone knows where to get a PDF for this document, pleasse let me know.

They Are Tantric On Pain & Suffering #8673

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot…..-true.html

took me back to readings of FBI wiretaps of Klansmen, so much so I couldn’t finish

Since the nature of it is so salacious, with the cover up reaching to the top of the Repug leadership, and with it being so close to the election, it demonstrates how corrupt the leadership is. A very distinct line has been crossed here. It’s not bribes, it’s involves kids, sex, and the abuse of power. All of which demonstrate how blatant the corruption of power is their party today.

IIRC, wording of that clause of the bill says something to the effect that after the bill is enacted everything in sight will be as if the bill had been enacted in 1997. At least that’s how I understood one of the earlier versions.

November, 26, 1997 IIRC. I’ve asked every staffer I’ve talked to this week what happened that day. Nobody knows. (Checks of news archives show nothing in particular–though there was a major terrorist attack on tourists in Egypt the week before.)

Wigwam –

I am not talking about ex post facto at all, I am talking about retroactivity — a different concept. I see three possibilities for a court to consider abut prior acrtions:

1) This legislation made acts in the past that were then illegal retroactively legal

2) The law grants a pardon to all past wrong doers and at the same time makes the actions in question now legal.

3) The law is actually a prohibition on prosecution for a specific set of offenses, whether the acts in question were legal or not.

I think it is the third. So my task is to prove that by its language and demonstrate how prosecutions can nonetheless happen whether the section is repealed or not.

Ah so. Thanks.

IIRC, wording of that clause of the bill says something to the effect that after the bill is enacted everything in sight will be as if the bill had been enacted in 1997. At least that’s how I understood one of the earlier versions.

BTW, does anyone have a link to the final bill?

– Illegal act is committed
– Later, Congress declares act legal, retroactively
– Still later, Congress repeals declaration of legal act.

An opinion was offered from someone with legal training that the person who committed the illegal act in the first place could not be tried in this scenario.

We did not discuss the outcome if step 3 above is replaced by

– Illegal act is committed
– Later, Congress declares act legal, retroactively
– Still later, Supreme Court declares law making act legal unconstitutional.

This seems like a scenario in which the SCOTUS might be saying that a fundamental constitutional right (such as habeas corpus) cannot be suspended except as allowed constitutionally, and therefore that an initially illegl act that was made legal on the basis of this unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority in fact would have been illegal throughout.

So for example, it would seem to me that if Congress meant to declare that Bush could now not be tried for a war crime for ordering torture, because the actions that he ordered were retroactively declared to be in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, there might be a little wiggle room left in the future. That is, the bill that will be signed next week reaffirms the Geneva Conventions. Could it not be found that the reinterpretation option offered by the new legislation was itself unconstitutional, especially when applied retroactively to the person who gets to decide what is, isn’t, was and wasn’t torture? This is self-pardoning, which seems unconstitutional to me.

In this scenario, I could imagine that others might get off, but wouldn’t Bush, in the special role as president (as described in the new legislation) remain in at least a little jeopardy?

There is also the problem for the administration that some of the prisoners have died as a result of their torture, that was ordered from above. That is behavior that remains illegal.

I offer these thoughts to the legal types for analysis. I am merely a physicist…

————————–

NJP: I feel that your husband could satisfy his conscience by making it crystal clear to Menendez how he feels, without working for his defeat with all his energy. That is, I feel he has the option of protesting until he is sure that Menendez understands how his vote was received by a former supporter. I would therefore choose a small venue for the protest, where it could not escape M’s notice.

I see no conflict between protest and acquiescence. In a democracy, Menendez should weigh the opinions of all his constituents. If your husband makes his opinion clear to Menendez, in a public and painfully obvious way, then he will have done his duty (in my opinion). I see no reason for your husband to try with all his energy to change the opinions of many people about the candidacy of Menendez, which would be the inevitable outcome of a more extensive effort. After all, there are good arguments that Menendez might be less bad than another choice.

I can’t hang around this morning…I’m already late for a great conference at which five of us (some who have traveled from outside the US) are learning how to get new treatment options for the rare form of cancer that we each have.

So much to do, so little time…

I’m just trying to figure out the best way to a) get out of this bill if/when we regain Congress and b) hold the Shrub accountable under any and all applicable laws.

Notice that Article VI of the Constitution makes Senate-ratified treaties “the supreme law of the land,” and this bill can’t change that fact. What it does is to over-ride (or repeal) the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes war crimes into federal crimes.

The President bears a special responsibility w/r/t enforcement of the supreme law of the land. GWB has not only failed to enforce it but has willfully violated it and encouraged others to do so.