HOUSE Meeting Hamdan Challenge - NOW C-span 3 - NOT A REPEAT - LIVE

[helderheid]

http://c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

[helderheid]

1. it's been going on for a half hour already - sorry to be late - details:

FROM THE HOUSE
Meeting Hamdan Challenge
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Cmte., conducts a hearing on the Hamdan Ruling. Witnesses discuss legal issues raised by the Supreme Court decision. Acting Asst. Atty. General Steven Bradbury and Fmr. U.S. Solictor General Ted Olson are among witnesses testifying.

[hootinholler]

2. Is Swift going to testify?

Also to all interested in Hamdan, please support the resolution in my sig.

-Hoot

[helderheid]

3. I don't know but Bradbury will - wonder if he'll drop another

"the president is always right" kind of line

[helderheid]

4. anyone else watching? I had to step away so I'm out of the loop

[helderheid]

5. we can keep detainees until "end of conflict". When will THAT be????

[helderheid]

6. They are talking about the prisoners as if they are guilty until proven

innocent.

[helderheid]

7. Rep Snyder up

[helderheid]

8. miranda rights argument is a red herring

[helderheid]

9. Jesus I guess I'll just let this thread drop - can't believe I'm the only

one watching and commenting.

[helderheid]

10. Oh hell - ONE more post - PSYCHO "Pres is always right" Bradbury just

spoke

[helderheid]

11. some crazy member is painting those in Gitmo as subhuman

[helderheid]

12. Rep Sanchez CA-D up

[bdamomma]

13. wait I'm listening

[helderheid]

14. Nice not to be alone.

:hi:

[madokie]

22. i am listening too, thanks for the heads up

[helderheid]

35. you bet!

:hi:

[bdamomma]

15. these hearings are so whitewashed

I don't know these guys are going to continue to do what they are doing. Maybe the wrong king of thinking on my part.

[helderheid]

16. The Dems seem to be concerned about the laws - the NeoCons

just have a lynch mob mentality.

[bdamomma]

17. not to get away from the hearings

but read this about RW authoritarian personality

it is exactly what these people are. John Dean mentioned this.

Significant Correlations
Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years, which can be organized into four general categories.

1: Faulty reasoning -- RWA’s are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups -- RWA’s are more likely to:

Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty, such as the Bill of Rights.
Punish severely ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Admit they get personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Be prejudiced against many racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
Be hostile toward homosexuals.
Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
3: Profound Character Flaws -- RWA’s are more likely to:

Be dogmatic.
Be zealots.
Be hypocrites.
Be bullies when they have power over others.
Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings -- RWA’s are more likely to:

Believe they have no personal failings.
Avoid learning about their personal failings.
Be highly self-righteous.
Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
RWA is also correlated with political conservatism—not so much at the level of ordinary voters, but with increasing strength as one moves from voters to activists to office holders, and then from lower to higher-level officeholders.

Altemeyer's own statement about this may be worth noting (From p. 239 of "Enemies of Freedom"):

"right-wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party".

So the type of conservatism studied by Altemeyer is a rather peculiar subset of it -- one with virtually no everyday political relevance. Like the Adorno F scale which was its ultimate inspiration, the RWA scale would seem to tap a particularly old-fashioned type of conservatism

[helderheid]

18. That certainly describes them!

[bdamomma]

19. describes them to a T

maybe I should send to my hometown paper, that would be interesting to see if they print it.

[leftchick]

20. "a new kind of war"

I appreciate this thread because I have to turn this shit off. And What the hell is Ted Olsen doing there?

:argh:

[bdamomma]

21. my audio feed keeps on stopping.

I try back later.

[helderheid]

23. this guy scares me

[Solly Mack]

24. Just saw this thread. I've been watching them on the Pentagon Channel

here in Germany

[helderheid]

25. Hey Solly Mack!

:hi:

We can watch together then :)

[Solly Mack]

30. Hey!

I'm doing a lot of head shaking and snorts of disgust

The guy who claims he doesn't want the law to be arbitrary but feels laws pertaining to citizens shouldn't apply to "terrorists"...somehow that's not arbitrary? Him I wanna smack.

The thinking that this person deserves a fair and equal due process(not that citizens even get that)...but this person doesn't because we think he's bad is so against everything America claims to stand for

Maintaining a fair and equal due process protects all people...doing otherwise subjects us all to the whims of a corrupt government, corrupt law, a corrupt judge, a corrupt cop...etc.

Yet these "witnesses" are claiming just the opposite..that to deny others due process protects America

[hootinholler]

26. Please let us cube rats know if anything important or funny happens

My network admin frowns on my consuming too much bandwidth, if I start streaming it will be noticed.

-Hoot

[helderheid]

28. They are basically saying that their hands are tied from getting info

from these criminals. If they try them then they have to assume innocence until proven guilty and they find that unacceptable. They really lay it on about them being subhuman without any right to humane treatment.

[myrna minx]

27. Thanks helderheid.

I can't listen right now, but it's nice to read the play by play.
:hi:

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. "Unlawful Combatant"

Dell'Orto keeps repeating that over and over. Yesterday it was being said as well. Is that a morphed term that's now getting into the mix? I thought Bush's official new category was "enemy combatant". :shrug:

[helderheid]

31. he actually referred to CSI Miami?

[Solly Mack]

32. Yeah he did

lol

[helderheid]

33. "we need to justify those variations" and make legal what is illegal

[helderheid]

34. Rep. Butterfield - D

Read Hamdem case multiple times - what he has to say should be interesting

[helderheid]

36. Rep Ryan - D Ohio

[helderheid]

37. they want NO limits.

[helderheid]

38. I'm beginning to think Bradbury is a robot.

[helderheid]

39. Good point! WHY haven't they conferred with Congress?

[Norquist Nemesis]

41. "The President is always right" was a joke?

:grr: :grr:

No it wasn't. That was his truth. Now that he's been called out on it, Oh...I shouldn't try to be funny when testifying. :eyes:

[helderheid]

44. I hope to GOD KO and JS cover both him saying it and now retracting it!

[helderheid]

40. WOOT BROUGHT UP THE PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT - HE

SAYS HE WAS JOKING!!

[Solly Mack]

42. I don't know why I watch these things

My head damn near explodes when I do

They want to modify the UCMJ to "accomodate" the "new" set of circumstances (you know, that post 911 world)

So instead of requiring counsel from the get go, they want to be able to hold them indefinitely until they are charged and then, and only then, allow them counsel.(maybe)

Now the mealy-mouth government witness wants to claim that "they" (Bush) can hold a detainee as long as the conflict is in progress without letting them go or charging them...and that wouild be true IF they were labeled as POWs. So, what the Bush Regime is doing is fairly simple to follow. As long as the Geneva/Hague and federal laws allows them to do something they want, they'll use the rules pertaining to POW's....but if those rules go against something they want then the Bush Regimes claims the detainees are outside the protections of federal and international law...which itself is a lie.(since the detainees are entitled to those protections under the law regardless of what Bush claims)

POW's can be legally held until the end of a war/conflict....but with protections in place. So this guy is using the rules that apply to POW's as an excuse to hold detainees until the "war on terror" is over. BUT at the exact same time, wanting to claim that the detainees are outside the protections of federal and international law. The Bush Regime is cherry picking the laws to use that suits their agenda and ignoring the laws that don't aid their agenda.

If they applied the UCMJ as it stands, then the detainees would have rights they don't currently have under Bush's commissions. So now members of this Congressional hearing are saying things like "modify the UCMJ" and "tweak the UCMJ"

ACK! Ted Olson. Blech. Ick. THUG!

Claiming US law does not apply to GTMO. (which is a lie)

the UCMJ IS federal law...that would be US FEDERAL CODE...ergo...US law applies to military tribunals...so US laws applies to GTMO.(The UCMJ is found in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code)

My head is about to blow!

[helderheid]

43. I couldn't have said it better.