Well, I think that as soon as they announce that we will start new drilling out there in previously 'banned' areas...that speculators in oil will begin selling off...and that should drop the prices almost overnight back to more normal levels. (IANAEconomist, although I did ace microeconomics and stay at a Holiday Inn Express.) I strongly doubt it. There's just not much evidence to show that oil speculation has a big effect on oil prices, one of the few things that the WSJ and Paul Krugman can agree upon.
What worries me about this ruling is if all the bill of rights apply to non citizens when does that begin. Will our soldiers be forced to mirandize prisoners of war? Will they have to start following rules of evidence in the middle of battle, bagging and tagging evidence?
I have to kind of agree with the dissenting opinion in that the court should have outlined what rights they felt applied and at what point do they come in effect otherwise they are seriously tying the hands of our military.
I realize this is way too long after the fact to allow for the possibility of response, and I'm sorry, but I think that today's post by Glenn Greenwald puts many of the concerns raised by this post in perspective. He's writing on the topic of former administration lawyer John Yoo's defense of their policies on prisoner rights:
Yoo, for instance, claims that the Supreme Court in Boumediene allows "an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention." But huge numbers of detainees in U.S. custody weren't "captured fighting against the U.S." at all. Many were taken from their homes. Others were just snatched off the street while engaged in the most mundane activities. Still others were abducted while in airports or at work.
Sami al-Haj, the Al Jazeera camerman who was encaged at Guantanamo for years until being recently released, was simply traveling with an Al Jazeera reporter from Pakistan into Afghanistan to cover the U.S. invasion for his news network when he was stopped by a Pakistani immigration officer, turned over to the U.S., kept in an underground Afghan prison for six months, and then basically disappeared off to Guantanamo, where he remained for years, interrogated not about Al Qaeda, but largely about the operations of Al Jazeera...
The other deeply misleading claim in Yoo's Op-Ed is even more transparent. He characterizes the Court's decision as "grant[ing] captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court." What minimally self-respecting law professor would be willing to make this claim with a straight face?
The whole point of the habeas corpus right is that without a meaningful hearing, we don't know if the individuals our Government is imprisoning are really "al Qaeda terrorists" or something else. That ought to be too basic even to require pointing out. As this recent superb McClatchy article documents, scores of individuals detained at Guantanamo for years weren't "Al Qaeda terrorists" -- or any other kind of terrorists -- at all.
[in the U.S. Constitution,] There is no provision on juridical persons. As for natural persons, key rights-related provisions including the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and the 14th Amend. due process and equal protection clauses, are phrased as applying to "all persons." These rights therefore have been construed as offering substantial protections to non-citizens residing within the U.S.
But look, you've actually read the Bill of Rights, right? Can you please identify where, in the Preamble to the Bill, or in the actual text of the Sixth Amendment, it says "this only applies to citizens?"
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1791 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
So when I say that the Magna Carta still has a bearing on modern judicial matters, don't assume I mean you don't have to read anything else.
Hello! This is US law we're speaking of. The Magna Carta has no legal bearing on US law, save as a historical footnote. God, I can't believe I'm actually responding to this, but really now:
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered â" most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution.
So the point is not that the Magna Carta is legally binding precedent under US law: it's that it any rights which were guaranteed to individuals under the Magna Carta should be considered obviously settled by now.
Clause 45 says that the King should only appoint royal officers where they are suitable for the post. In the United States, the Supreme Court of California interpreted clause 45 in 1974 as establishing a requirement at common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration is entitled to a trial overseen by a law-trained judge.
The principle we announce today is not a novel one. It dates back at least to 1215 and the Magna Carta (Â 45) where it was written, "We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly." We conclude that, under today's advanced standards, due process demands that henceforth fn. 13 a defendant charged with an offense carrying a possible jail sentence must be provided with an attorney judge to preside over the proceedings, unless he elects to waive such right.
So the Magna Carta is important for consideration not only because of its influence on the US Constitution, but also because it has been cited in US case law.
Jeez, what's in your anus? Coincidentally, that was the catch phrase in an early iteration of an ad campaign for a credit card company. I guess it didn't test well in focus groups or something.
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
I think that's about as clear a statement as you're likely to get.
Imagine Safeway asking you to buy stake based on the price it was sold for 20 minutes ago.. Seriously? That's a pretty bad comparison. I mean... it's not like steak prices are prone to precipitous drops because, say, the CEO of Angus International was caught siphoning off corporate funds to build a love nest for his heifer mistress.
Or something. Look, my point is that stock prices are a lot more volatile than food prices. If you want a good analogy, go to an analogy... making... person.
That all depends on whether fan recordings are expressly permitted at Cochella. If I sneak a video camera into a performance of The Philadelphia Orchestra performing the Brandenburg Concertos, I don't get to tell the orchestra to piss off just because the piece was written by Bach.
As a rule, any time you see a word like "citizens" used without mentioning specific ones (say, ones having their rights abrogated by some practice), the word can often by replaced by "the state". So when you say "TFA is about making corporations responsible to the citizens," it's more accurate to say "TFA is about making corporations responsible to the state." We're not talking about Joe Shmoe regulating corporations, we're talking about state agencies.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But it bears remembering that any time "the people" want to enforce rules without throwing molotov cocktails, the actual vehicle for doing so is often the state.
Quoth the original poster:
Itninja writes: "A few days ago Consumer Reports posted their first report on a specific video game: Wii Fit... Will this be a harbinger of things to come? Will CR be reviewing the next installment of Gran Turismo?" Great question. Let's go to the TFA.
Now let's see... aha! First sentence!
After an intensive few days of bending, jumping, and precarious balancing by Consumer Reports staff, under the watchful eye of expert testers from our Health franchise, we have our first test reports on Nintendo's Wii Fit, the wireless "balance board" that hit the market in North America earlier this week. Unless Sony starts making claims about the health benefits of Gran Turismo, I think it's safe to say no.
Obviously a 1-15 person gamut. Anything else would require more gamut-runners. I think having more than 15 people in a gamut is against indecency laws in most states.
And this how is this different than another group of Americans who will walk up and say "ok, who was the black guy again? oh yeah" and vote for the latest idiot from the democrats? Right, because the Democrats have fielded a black candidate how many times?
Yes, but they'll need some kind of thermal metric to accurately calculate the heat of the meat. Or perhaps they'll just calculate it, since they're inversely proportional.
So far so good, you were up $350 for your choice, which is a nice sum of money. Now, we need to look at the cost side of the choice. Let's value your time at $50 per hour and any distro would require a minimum of one hour's worth of time for the reformat, install and setup. So, up $300, which supports your point. As long as any problems took less that 6 hours, it was a net plus. Did the installation and setup go flawlessly? Attempting to monetize every last aspect of your life may bring joy to some contractors, but it's not necessarily a great way to bring peace of mind. Besides, as a former contractor, I can think of precisely zero times when I've thought to myself, "Damn, I wish I'd gotten this software pre-installed on my home PC - now it's stopping me from billing hours on my day job!"
And nobody modded up a "Bastard Operator From Hell" joke?
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Come on. What next? Will we start ignoring naked petrified Natalee Portman? <oblig> In Soviet Russia, naked petrified Natalie Portman ignores YOU! </oblig>
Lucas: "It's a film about trade disputes and tax reform... in space!"
Studio: "Next!" Okay - I thought that the prequels sucked too. But you've touched on one of the things that sorta bugs me about some of the reviews I've seen.
Phantom Menace isn't about a trade dispute. The trade dispute is a MacGuffin. It's not even that big of a MacGuffin - compare it with, say, The Maltese Falcon from the movie of the same name, which dominates the whole plot.
What the prequels are about (at least partially) are the way in which one man was able to blow a completely unimportant issue (the trade dispute) on some jerkwater nobody really cared about (Naboo) into a way to anoint himself Emperor and consolidate power. And put like that, it's probably the only thing about the prequels that I genuinely liked.
In fact, if I hadn't seen them, and you told me "that's what the prequels are about", I'd probably be excited about them. Feh. Makes the fact that they stunk all the worse.
Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.
Still, I'll think about it all I want. Wrong. But continue to think - or not think - about it as much as you like. I support free thinking that way.
The NSA's mission is specifically to provide SIGINT
You mean those PhD mathematicians sit around all day hitting Control-C's? Well, let's be fair. They probably have a bash script that does it pretty efficiently.
Given the supercomputing clusters they no doubt have at their disposal, they could be generating a lot of SIGINT that way.
Slashdot Mirror
What worries me about this ruling is if all the bill of rights apply to non citizens when does that begin. Will our soldiers be forced to mirandize prisoners of war? Will they have to start following rules of evidence in the middle of battle, bagging and tagging evidence?
I have to kind of agree with the dissenting opinion in that the court should have outlined what rights they felt applied and at what point do they come in effect otherwise they are seriously tying the hands of our military.
I realize this is way too long after the fact to allow for the possibility of response, and I'm sorry, but I think that today's post by Glenn Greenwald puts many of the concerns raised by this post in perspective. He's writing on the topic of former administration lawyer John Yoo's defense of their policies on prisoner rights:Thanks - very good point.
But:
But look, you've actually read the Bill of Rights, right? Can you please identify where, in the Preamble to the Bill, or in the actual text of the Sixth Amendment, it says "this only applies to citizens?"
Or there's Wikipedia...
So when I say that the Magna Carta still has a bearing on modern judicial matters, don't assume I mean you don't have to read anything else.
(Side note: IANAL.)
So the point is not that the Magna Carta is legally binding precedent under US law: it's that it any rights which were guaranteed to individuals under the Magna Carta should be considered obviously settled by now.
Incidentally, I found the following further down in that article:
That particular decision contains the following passage:
So the Magna Carta is important for consideration not only because of its influence on the US Constitution, but also because it has been cited in US case law.
Lamer. 8 TB isn't enough to hold my collection of midget furry porn, let alone the whole shebang.
I don't suppose there's any chance you could scan and post that somewhere, could you? Because that is cool.
Jeez, I remember that. Thanks for making me feel old.
And I was one of the few people here who liked Katz.
I think that's about as clear a statement as you're likely to get.
(link courtesy of Glenn Greenwald.)
Or something. Look, my point is that stock prices are a lot more volatile than food prices. If you want a good analogy, go to an analogy... making... person.
That all depends on whether fan recordings are expressly permitted at Cochella. If I sneak a video camera into a performance of The Philadelphia Orchestra performing the Brandenburg Concertos, I don't get to tell the orchestra to piss off just because the piece was written by Bach.
As a rule, any time you see a word like "citizens" used without mentioning specific ones (say, ones having their rights abrogated by some practice), the word can often by replaced by "the state". So when you say "TFA is about making corporations responsible to the citizens," it's more accurate to say "TFA is about making corporations responsible to the state." We're not talking about Joe Shmoe regulating corporations, we're talking about state agencies.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But it bears remembering that any time "the people" want to enforce rules without throwing molotov cocktails, the actual vehicle for doing so is often the state.
If you haven't seen it, try watching the director's cut. It cuts Ford's voiceover entirely, and I thought the film was much, much better for it.
Now let's see... aha! First sentence! After an intensive few days of bending, jumping, and precarious balancing by Consumer Reports staff, under the watchful eye of expert testers from our Health franchise, we have our first test reports on Nintendo's Wii Fit, the wireless "balance board" that hit the market in North America earlier this week. Unless Sony starts making claims about the health benefits of Gran Turismo, I think it's safe to say no.
It was worse than that - they fell all over Rudy, for god's sake. Look how far he made it.
Yes, but they'll need some kind of thermal metric to accurately calculate the heat of the meat. Or perhaps they'll just calculate it, since they're inversely proportional.
Doesn't everyone? You are in a basement, in front of a computer. It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
>
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Come on. What next? Will we start ignoring naked petrified Natalee Portman? <oblig>
In Soviet Russia, naked petrified Natalie Portman ignores YOU!
</oblig>
There, happy?
Studio: "Next!" Okay - I thought that the prequels sucked too. But you've touched on one of the things that sorta bugs me about some of the reviews I've seen.
Phantom Menace isn't about a trade dispute. The trade dispute is a MacGuffin. It's not even that big of a MacGuffin - compare it with, say, The Maltese Falcon from the movie of the same name, which dominates the whole plot.
What the prequels are about (at least partially) are the way in which one man was able to blow a completely unimportant issue (the trade dispute) on some jerkwater nobody really cared about (Naboo) into a way to anoint himself Emperor and consolidate power. And put like that, it's probably the only thing about the prequels that I genuinely liked.
In fact, if I hadn't seen them, and you told me "that's what the prequels are about", I'd probably be excited about them. Feh. Makes the fact that they stunk all the worse.
Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.
Still, I'll think about it all I want. Wrong. But continue to think - or not think - about it as much as you like. I support free thinking that way.
You mean those PhD mathematicians sit around all day hitting Control-C's? Well, let's be fair. They probably have a bash script that does it pretty efficiently.
Given the supercomputing clusters they no doubt have at their disposal, they could be generating a lot of SIGINT that way.