Justice for Guantanamo

in

Back in my undergraduate days, I wrote a research paper (25 pages, 125+ footnotes) analyzing how the NY Times reported on the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp. I made three conclusions:

  1. The Times reported the events at the camp thoroughly, compared to other media.
  2. The Times provided a clearly disapproving stance in its editorials.
  3. The treatment of detainees at the camp were below Geneva Convention standards and reflected poorly upon U.S. militia.

Finally, senators are uniting to address that third, most-important conclusion. Arizona Senator John McCain spearheaded a bill regulating the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by U.S. military, hopefully preventing a future Abu Ghraib and restricting questionable tactics at detainee camps like Guantanamo. Forty-six Republicans and 43 Democrats voted to pass the legislation 90 to 9 yesterday.

The bill was also endorsed by more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin Powell.

McCain, a famous Vietnam prisoner of war, emphasized the need for the U.S. to raise its standards of war above other countries in a closing statement on the senate floor:

"Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us - every single one of us - knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies."

This bipartisan effort is a major blow to the White House, which released a statement saying the bill threatens to "restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bringing terrorists to justice." I don’t know that interrogations have anything to do with the president directly, but, nevertheless, W. threatens to veto.

W. is scheduled to brief the nation today about our escapades in the Middle East. He’ll basically reinforce the same message: “Stay the course.”

New Halo Movie on the Way!

in

Every night you can find me and Scott playing best-selling Microsoft Xbox game “Halo 2.” I usually demoralize Scott, although he scores the occasional win, and we remain entertained enough to continue this nightly ritual to the disapproval of our girlfriends.

To my pleasant surprise, the Seattle P-I reported today that "Lord of the Rings" mastermind Peter Jackson has signed on to be the executive producer for a Halo movie scheduled for release summer 2007. No director or actors have been named yet, but I demand a Bill Gates cameo.

What Up, Boo?

in

This is for Katrine: Sergio as a thug looking for his boo.

I've posted a new photo album. I don't have too many pictures this time, but now people are back in town and I'll be sure to capture the moments for next time. I'm looking forward to a fun, but short, Thursday night. I do have to work on Friday.

Update: Matt Wood is quitting his preschool teacher post to try and work for DSHS. The question: Is this a good career move for the Radical Right? I look forward to hearing your responses.

John Roberts FTW

in

I'd like to declare my endorsement for John Roberts. His credentials are impeccable. The Washington Post has his profile neatly compiled for your viewing pleasure, so I won't go into details about his impressive history.

I liked the way he held his own during the confirmation hearing and handled some heated questioning from Democrat senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. He successfully upheld his judicial impartiality, as the following transcript demonstrates (pardon the length):

"Now, the only point I was going to make earlier, because I do think it's an important one -- you (Joe Biden) make the point that, "We stand for election and we wouldn't be elected if we didn't tell people what we stand for."

Judges don't stand for election. I'm not standing for election. And it is contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that, "This judge should go on the bench because these are his or her positions and those are the positions they're going to apply."

Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed.

That's inconsistent with the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court."

The NY Times wrote an editorial yesterday urging senators to vote against confirming Roberts while the Washington Post's editorial called Roberts "overwhelmingly qualified." The Post goes further to say that the only problem with Roberts is that he sets the standard for future nominees too high. I agree.

I think we need a conservative voice in the Supreme Court to address the latest federal district court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the "Under God" phrase. Let's celebrate our similarities for once -- We are all Americans. We ought to be able to pay tribute to our country, without having to deny its Christian roots. Go get 'em John!