chucK

I attended the gathering at the start of the march at the UW yesterday and there was one lady with a sign that made me think. Jim's commment above reminded me. The sign said, "name one good thing he's done". I don't know if Underworld attempted to address this. From my perspective his last sentence seems to be more of an apology than citing anything good about Bush. It seems to me that this has been a fairly reasonable discussion. Underworld seems to be upset about name-calling, but shit man, you've been around cc.com for ~700 posts. Don't you think this was a fairly reasonable discussion? Anyway, I'd just like to sincerely ask that lady's question to you folks. There seems to be a bunch of you in the discussion who are either against or definitely not for the ideas behind this protest (get Bush out, the world can't wait). Be brave in the face of these nasty liberal namecallers. Name one thing you think Bush has done right. I think that would be an interesting discussion. Just wondering if it's that you actually support Bush's policies, or if you like specific Democrat candidates less, or something else that's making you support him. To me it's unfathomable. I really can't think of one thing I support, and anybody who slogs through my posts understands there's a lot of stuff I don't like. You got this far. Educate me? I'd appreciate it. I won't namecall, but I can't vouch for everyone in the discussion.

If you want more routes to climb at Snow Creek Wall, I guess you could try to find an unclimbed line and go for it. However, looking at the guidebooks, it looks like there's not much unclimbed terrain up there. Thus, I'd suggest scrubbing some long forgotten classic and and replacing any the existing bolts with new fat ones. I doubt that would upset very many people. It was done with the second pitch of RPM and on Mary Jane Dihedral. I'd think a good candidate for refurbishment would be the 3rd pitch of RPM. Also, it might be cool if someone scrubbed and replaced bolts on those crazy runout chickenhead pitches to the right of Outer Space. Anybody got any other good refurbishment projects for Korrigan? Oh yeah, and you might reconsider the Bosch idea since it's probably illegal up there at SCW.

Does the Blue Star like us again? I remember last time we were there, they wanted us out (bad) at 10pm. We ended up staying later and all sorts of uncomfortable things happened. But if you wanna go to the Blue Star....just make sure it's all wrapped up by 9.

The US is "inherently" good because we have followed the rule of law, and the law works well (225+ years) in preventing the excesses of extreme power. The current govt. has been consistently working to remove safequards against governmental excesses. Signing on to a program that restricts your rights because "i dunno", is stupid. Head in the sand.

Your search didn't work, but I think I found the provision removing the ability to file a habeas corpus action. Here you go: "Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter." From here I guess you can see why people had a tough time digging this up. It's pretty boggling legalese. However, I have a hard time believing that your doubt is genuine. There are countless stories in the news, especially the ones relating to the Specter Ammendment that talk about how a writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied to detainees (the Specter Ammendment was the one that specifically tried to remove the restrictions to Habeus). You think every newspaper online is playing loose with the facts, but Prez Bush is the only one not? In fact, has Prez Bush even said anything about Habeas? I'd be surpised if he did. Finally, here's a bit from Wikipedia on Habeas Corpus : "On 29 September, 2006, the U.S. Senate approved a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for anyone determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[1], [1] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.)" full page here Do you not believe this either? What is so wrong with Habeas? In the US people are still locked up, but they are given a chance to contest their confinement. What is wrong with this?

Perhaps, but this "war" is different, remember? The main difference being that this war is indefinite. The battlefield is anywhere in the world. This law gives our executive branch authority to imprison anybody, anywhere in the world (i.e. someone the president or secretary of defense deem an "enemy combatant") indefinitely. No recourse, no official way to say, "wait, you got the wrong guy". You guys are all focusing on terrorists who blow people up. What I worry about is all the innocent people who are getting swept up in the net. Our policy is to offer big monetary rewards for turning in "terrorists" (what's the reward for Bin Laden now?), then when somebody is turned in they have no way of protesting their innocence. Is this a good way to keep innocents out of our jails? This is all just considering possible mistakes by otherwise good people. Just think what could happen with a slightly corrupt Executive Branch (main detained for mouthing off to Cheney )? If we know someone blew up 10 people, I'm sure we can bring that evidence into some sort of military court. Make it necessary to have some surety before locking people up forever. That's all I ask.

Sorry, GWB has many things to dislike, domestic and foreign. What's there to like, oh, he did cut taxes. Oh wait that was mostly only for the rich, oh nevermind. Besides FDR won his war. Bush and his handpicked cadre of high-level contributors to the GOP just seems to fuck up more every day in his.

I read your link. Where do you get the number 3 million? And I would guess that FDR is beloved by the left because of his legacy of domestic social policy.

Yes. You can walk/scramble down the ramp that goes to the base of Crack of Doom.

Wasn't it Truman who had the tough decision on whether to drop the bombs? And jesus, where do you get the number 3 million? Have you been drinking?

Saints is pretty cool. There is some lichen to deal with but you should be able to find the path through it. Go up to tree on first pitch. Then on second, follow obvious LFC corner up to a ledge below a RFC. There is an old bolt on this ledge. Instead of taking the RFC (less exposed but perhaps harder?) walk down the ledge to the right then follow a sequence of jugs directly up the arete. Way cool. With a 60m we were able to stretch it from the tree to the top. After Old Gray Mare you should do Crack of Doom of course!!!

So you were the asswipe that jabbed me with those fruity trekking poles!

That might have been because at least one of the people involved was the rare cc.commie who does not jealously guard their anonymity online. Post pictures of yourself out climbing (of something other than your butt) and use your real name online and you'll be more likely to meet cc.commies out in the field.

A lot of that bill is probably necessary and maybe even good (stuff like setting up a system for actually trying the detainees, and prohibiting at least some forms of torture), but what is most shameful is the voting down of the amendment to remove the restrictions on Habeas. Those are 51 people who may end up with some bad shit on their consciences. All I gotta say is hopefully the next president, who inherits all this power, will be more trustworthy and competent than the current guy. Serve those 51 right if it's a democrat with vengeance on her mind In fact, that might be the GOP slogan for 2008. "Now that we've made the presidency all-powerful, we must now, more than ever, AT ALL COSTS, keep Hillary out of the White House!" Sorry for lapsing back into blatant partisanship .

I think you're confused at to where Laurelhurst is.

They should move the UW Rock to Magnuson Park! That would be cool. YIMBY!! Either that or move the freeway to Magnuson. It'd actually be much more direct to U Village if the freeway ran right through Laurelhurst.

Nooooooo! Though I do agree the Montlake and Pacific Ave backups are a nightmare. NIMBY-ism seems like a major impetus behind this. The residents of the Montlake Area want to foist their problems on someone else, the University and the Arboretum. Gonna be a big fight I expect. The University is not powerless.

Those are probably labeled war crimes in the Geneva conventions. But before you sentence someone for a war crime in the Geneva conventions the SUSPECT needs to have a fair trial. What we are discussing here (or at least the subject of my overwrought initial post) is the current administration's goal of letting us skip this little part about a trial. Habeas Corpus is the right to a speedy, fair trial before you are punished. This seems like something JayB would agree to be a good concept, and is probably also something we could get the Euro's to agree with us on. With respect to uniformed soldiers picked up on a battlefield in a regular war, the Habeas part is probably a bit moot as it is usually pretty obvious these people are fighting against you. No need for a trial because you are going to want to hold them until the end of hostilities so they can't shoot at you anymore. Unfortunately, now we have the complicating factors that guerillas and terrorists don't wear uniforms AND that our current "war" basically has no end. In order to protect the many innocents from being unjustly swept up and confined indefinitely for whatever reason, there has to be some form of habeas. As I'm sure Underworld would agree, you can't trust any govt. to be all-knowing and always perfect in their motives. There has to be some redundancy or oversight in determining who is imprisoned.

So, I guess you're saying "all of the above"?

Maybe because it took place on 12OCT00 during the previous administration. So was the inaction a statute-of-limitations type thing or a it's-not-my-job type of thing?

Underworld, Did you read the recent story of the innocent Canadian detained by the US govt. then shipped to Syria for torture? What about Jose Padilla? They pointed a finger at him, kept him in prison for 3 years, then when his case was possibly coming up in court, they changed their mind (and their legal reasons for wanting him locked up). You want this codified? Put into the lawbooks that this is perfectly legal? For what reason? Because if we let people our govt. has imprisoned come to court, then our courts would be clogged up? Doesn't that reasoning sound a bit weird? Your argument that the lefties want to give up their rights to what car they can drive is totally stupid and not to the point. We are not talking about govt. medical care or pollution standards. We are talking about locking someone up indefinitely without ANY recourse. Surely you don't equate the right to drive any car you want with the right to not be indiscriminately imprisoned?

Jeezus, you do seem to have a burr up there hawkeye. I just looked through this thread and found 1 post where someone took a know-it-all/unhelpful/discouraging tone. Everybody else just provided information. If you're hoping for better 9 out of 10, you're gonna be disappointed, a lot.

Yep. I would guess that climbing takes up a lot of your time.

Hey Ericb, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why it is necessary to remove the most important protection a citizen of the United States has against unlawful imprisonment.

HABEAS CORPUS!! Please do not let the most important concept in our constitution be stricken. Thank you for supporting the Specter-Leahy amendment. But since that narrowly failed, it seems vital to the interests of all Americans to protect Habeas. PLEASE FILIBUSTER the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Thank you for your attention.