News: Paris Attack, Bus Driver Bigot, Brokeback Bee Gee
A Minneapolis Metro Transit bus driver who requested to be allowed not to drive buses with gay-themed advertisements because of religious beliefs is having his wish granted, according to public transit officials. Union leaders accused Metro Transit of "condoning intolerance". The ad that brought up the objection was one taken out by Lavender Magazine emblazoned with the catchphrase "Unleash Your Inner Gay". So the bus driver instead unleashed his inner bigot.
Paris under attack by hungry Fembot.
Gay Iranians offered asylum in The Netherlands. Gay rights group applauds: "Homosexual Iranian asylum seekers can now find a safe haven in the Netherlands from the persecution and inhuman treatment they face in Iran. A year ago, an Iranian asylum seeker with a death sentence hanging over his head was still sitting at Schiphol airport waiting to be deported."
Bee Gee Barry Gibb and buddy release DVD featuring Brokeback Mountain parody.
American Idol contestant RJ Helton comes out of the closet.
Keith Olbermann calls out Bush on Military Commissions act: "And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you? This President now has his blank check. He lied to get it. He lied as he received it. Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?"
"2) You know, if I were a reasonably competant citizen detainee defense lawyer, my line of argument would be that Congress intended the MCA to override Ex Parte Quirin, as to the whole citizen habeus question. Makes perfect sense, does it not...why else would they have wrote "an alien" in that sentence dealing with denial of habeus to enemy combatants?"
--------
The MCA completely removes habeas writ petitions by alien combatants from the jurisdiction of any court. In other words, it dissolves habeas corpus as to non-citizens deemed unlawful enemy combatants by making them personae non gratae to the courts. It does not follow that any application for writ of habeas corpus by a citizen deemed an unlawful enemy combatant must be granted. And in fact, Ex Parte Quirin holds just the opposite. It defines a precedent whereby citizen detainees who apply for leave to file habeas petitions may be *denied* such leave based solely on "unlawful combattant" status. So no, the two are not incompatible.
----
"If the MCA helps override a terrible 1942 precendent...then it might actually improve matters, no? Now wouldn't that be ironic!"
----
It hasn't, and in fact, Ex Parte Quirin has been reaffirmed as good law as recently as 2004, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
----
"In any case, we are a long way from the whole original Olbermann notion of Pres. Bush snapping his fingers, pointing at citizens, then having them legally sent off to prison to rot forever without trial."
----
How do you figure? Oh, it might be a *tad* harder to keep them in prison permanently, but as for detainment? Simple. Designation as an unlawful combattant under executive authority is all it would take. The detainee's only recourse would be to challenge that designation in a special hearing, mandated by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the normal procedural rules of trial (most notably, hearsay) need not apply. Essentially, you could be kept in prison indefinitely based on nothing more than hearsay evidence.
Do I think that people are going to be randomly "disappeared" tomorrow? Of course not. But in a national emergency, this kind of power is highly dangerous for any government to possess. I would hope that anyone who claims to value freedom could see that.
Posted by: nuflux | Oct 19, 2006 11:31:55 PM
The problem is that the concept of "hostilities" so crucial to defining War, and granting presidential emergency powers, is now too vague to allow clear cessation of these powers. How does Al Qaeda surrender to us?
The courts were aware of this issue and so were steering to a middle ground between conventional war and law enforcement. Bush wants all the powers granted during a conventional war, but the problem is that this is not a conventional war. In fact, the Cold War serves as a marker for the struggle in many ways.
No president had full war-making authority during the Cold War because it was not a conventional war. Let's say that we leave Iraq and Afganistan, so we have no conventional troop deployments at all. In what context are we fighting this thing? Is the CIA an army?
The real distinction that needs to be made is that what the military does is one thing and what the other federal agencies do is another. This law should only apply to military situations. Likewise, CIA agents themselves, by the Geneva Convention, are unlawful "combatants" in a conventional war. So, how is that for irony?
Posted by: Anon | Oct 20, 2006 12:13:43 AM
Mmmm...my gut impression is that you are making too fine a distinction between "dissolves" and "may be denied" up there. But I do see your point. Again, it all gets back to arguing what Congress intended when it wrote "an alien" and if it was not to supercede Quirin...well, I don't what other purpose it could serve.
We'll see. You are right the MCA has not been used to overturn Quirin yet, but it has only been law now for a day...so give it a little time...LOL!
And like I said above, the best remedy against government tyranny, be it "lawful" or unlawful, is without a doubt the dererrent effect of a robust and popularly embraced 2nd Amendment. That is where I and many others prefer to put our faith in, in this regard.
Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 20, 2006 12:19:30 AM
Let me be a little clearer: the courts really don't care what the law says, they are steering the federal policy towards some sort of compromise of emergency and non-emergency powers for the purposes of addressing the issues of non-conventional warfare. Debates over precident are pointless. The courts are not going to give any deference here because, unlike WWII, the political will behind the war against terrorism is not universal.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 20, 2006 12:35:14 AM
RJ hasn't been exactly hiding out - I've seen him out at gay clubs here in Atlanta and he was walking around Gay Pride hand in hand with a guy. He seemed a little disappointed that no one was noticing him.
Posted by: ThatGuy | Oct 20, 2006 9:16:11 AM
From the time RJ walked on the stage for his first AI performance, I had this feeling.
Now, I can die in peace.
Posted by: Steven. | Oct 20, 2006 2:54:49 PM
A billboard advertisement from homosexual magazine publisher, Lavender Magazine, has sparked off intense debate as people many people have alledged the ad attacked their religious beliefs. The billboard ad appeared on the sides and backs of Metro Transit buses for a little over a week. I feel the punch line “Unleash your inner gay” is a command to non-gays to conform.
The spark that lit the flame for the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual monthly magazine came when a Twin Cities Metro Transit bus driver “came forward and said that the ad offended her religious beliefs.” I live in Minnesota and have seen the ad around the Twin Cities/Metro area where the Metro Transit routes are. I kind of chuckled when I saw the ad and thought “boy, this is going to create a buzz around the city.” Many marketers would pray to get this much free exposure for their ad. I don’t think this was the intention of Lavender Magazine but they shouldn’t feel their advertising dollars were wasted admist the controversy.
http://www.caffeinemarketing.com/billboards/lavender-magazine-bus-ad-controversy/
Posted by: Lavender Magazine Bus Ad Controversy | Oct 23, 2006 5:02:16 PM