« The Return Of The Undead | Main | The Wheels Of Justice Grind Slow, But They Grind Exceeding Fine... »

February 09, 2006

Comments

Lastly, and apologies for not saying this in one comment, RonK's cite is one guy's opinion. "Alan Hirsch, a freelance writer and constitutional scholar, received a B.A. from Amherst College and a J.D. from Yale Law School."

It seems like a reasonable piece, but it's still just one guy's opinion.

"You accuse me of argument by assertion."

And finally finally: in point of fact, I hadn't even read what you'd written, Bob, let alone "accuse[d]" you of a damn thing. I'd just like to be very clear about that.

When I have something to say to someone, I try to remember to quote what they say, and to address them. Occasionally I will forget, or write carelessly, but it might be a good idea to ask me first, rather than to attempt mindreading, if you might be so kind.

"You accuse me of argument by assertion."

Shall I go through the archives?

In any case, I should have added some meaningful emphasis, for you have accused me of it, and in fact do so in the next thread, but with:

"No. (And since it seems to come up a lot, members of Congress can't be impeached, either; they can only be censured, or expelled, and/or then tried by the courts.)" ...7:33

You plainly do the same yourself, without cite or supporting evidence.

And this kinda goes to the point of battling citations. Since my cite didn't persuade, as usual, I am less convinced of the usefulness of cites and evidence in argument. It is as often used to distract, delay, and obfuscate as to arrive at a consensual agreement. Facts have been of little to no use to the left in last few years.

Withholding judgement until certainty is universal may work in science, but is the exact opposite of what is necessary in politics and morality.

People say I am mean to the likes of charleycarp for not appreciating his efforts. I do appreciate his efforts, but they are under the old understanding, that the laws and courts and decisions are important. Those thing are no longer important, no longer matter.

I've missed anyone saying such things to you bob. I've never felt this way about your views -- I understand where you're coming from, and although I am not ready to agree with you that our old system is gone, I'd never take your opinion that it is personally.

I've got a couple of clients who would say you've the better of the argument, by the way.

If I agreed with you that the situation is completely hopeless, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'm never really sure what it is that you think should be done. I'm not ready for violence, personally, and think my side of the political divide would do even worse at that than under whatever remnant of the old system survives.

Let me put it another way. We're currently getting what we deserve. I'd like us to deserve better. You have an idea how to get there?

"Shall I go through the archives?"

To demonstrate something said in the present tense? I wouldn't suggest it, no.

"In any case, I should have added some meaningful emphasis, for you have accused me of it, and in fact do so in the next thread...."

Bob, first you say I responded to a comment I hadn't even read, and in response to my noting that, you hare off to justify your mistaken response by bringing up something -- whatever it is -- entirely different.

I think it's probably more useful if I don't offer further comments on this for you to respond to.

I can't resist, however, responding to this: "Facts have been of little to no use to the left in last few years."

Whatever works for you; I'm unlikely to surrender a fondness for them.

Bob, I really do disagree about whether the courts matter, and I think the Pres shows his fear of the courts often enough to give me reason to think we're still in this game.

The Pres has been strutting about for 4 years bragging about how he's bringing terrorists to justice. See how many foreigners he's had tried? He's scared, because the only people on earth he can't intimidate are in the federal judiciary. And even plenty of conservatives in the judiciary realize this, and being actual conservatives, rather than [insert derogatory phrase here], they'll stand up to the Admin in favor of the rule of law.

{I wonder if it isn't because judges have been under serious physical threat for a long time. People on the front line -- and I work close enough to the WH to be on the front line too -- either go crazy, or find a way to go on living despite the dangers. It's the armchair fraidy-cats that are such a pain . . .}

"Whatever works for you; I'm unlikely to surrender a fondness for them."

A passionate and sincere rhetoric (or any other effective rhetoric) seems to be makes the world go round, from personal relationships to foreign affairs. I am not disturbed or discouraged that many people are not logical or scientific or informed and open enough to be approached on those grounds, but it does give cause to adjust tools, tactics, methods.

Facts can be a safe harbor. What I put out there may not be adequate or effective, but at least I do my best to be certain it is me and not a shield or mask.
...
Charley, I of course hope you are right. After the behaviour of the administration following the last detainee decisions at SCOTUS, I would be surprised if we don't have a Jacksonian ("Let him enforce it") moment of open defiance. Courts might be hesitant to provoke a constitutional crisis. Luttig encouraged some people, but I don't trust him.

(Sorry haven't read all the comments)
Just curious, but when, between now and the scheduled elections of DEC2007 will he name himself leader of the US for the duration of the war?
Even scarier is that he could probably get away with it, as he is currently succeeding in scaring the pants of a majority of the american people(re terrorists).
If the US is gone (in its current form) then we are sure to follow. What can we do?

Debbie, I consider it more likely that Jeb Bush (or some other suitable custodian) will be put forward as the next Presidential candidate it won't-matter-if-you-vote-against-him. The principle is that they want to stay in power, and that their President shall have monarchical powers: they only have to find another Presidential candidate with a sense of privilege uncontrolled by any sense of responsibility - someone who won't watch the news and always goes to bed at nine. The kind of guy who does what his staff tell him in times of national emergency, and reads from an autocue well. George W. Bush has been the perfect President from the point of view of Nixon's and Reagan's crowd: I'm sure they can find another Republican just like him for Diebold to vote for.

I haven't read thru all the comments to see if anybody else has noted this, but the NSA program is at least somewhat consistent with what the Senate Intelligence Committee recommended doing in 2002

These are some excerpts from the (PDF) Recommendations of the Senate Intelligence Committee in December 2002, in response to the Sept 11, 2001 attacks:

pg 3

fully utilize existing and future techbnologies to better exploit terrorist communications; to improve and expand the use of data mining and other cutting edge analytical tools; and to develop a multi-level security capability to facilitate the timely and complete sharing of relevant intelligence information both within the Intelligence Community and with other appropriate federal, state, and local authorities;

pg4

have full and timely access to all counterterrorism-related intelligence information, including "raw" supported data as needed;

pg5

implement and fully utilize data mining and other advanced analytical tools, consistent with applicable law;

pg6 (FBI)

increase substansially efforts to penetrate terrorist organizations operaating in the United States through all available means of collection;

I think that there were at least some Democrats on the committee when these recommendations were made. Did they change their minds after that?

I'm certainly all for bringing this NSA matter up for a vote in the Senate, just like the House vote on Murtha's suggestion to immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq. Just so the American people can see where the various Senators stand.

I suppose though that if this is debated, though, that even more details that will damage the effectiveness of the program will leak out, because Senators (from both parties) are unable to keep their mouths shut when entrusted with classified information.

implement and fully utilize data mining and other advanced analytical tools, consistent with applicable law;

I think you bolded the wrong part.

That first post is a very fair point, DaveC, but don't forget this

implement and fully utilize data mining and other advanced analytical tools, consistent with applicable law;

It's been suggested that there are other programs, and if Congress is not being adequately briefed, I don't think it is a matter of changing their minds.

.I'm certainly all for bringing this NSA matter up for a vote in the Senate, just like the House vote on Murtha's suggestion to immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq.

Dave, you know damned well that a) that was not Murtha's suggestion, and b) what the House voted on had nothing to do with Murtha's ideas. Why let yourself be used as a tool to peddle someone else's lies?

DaveC,
appreciate it, and although the program may be like this (since we have little to no details, it is hard to say) the line above you didn't highlight is "consistent with applicable law;"

That is the main issue.

There are two aspects under discussion with the NSA program.

The first is what it does. Hard to discuss without the facts of what the program is. It is entirely possible it is a wonderful system that may do wonderful things, and 99% of the American people would be fully in support of it.

The other question is whether or not it is legal. And if it is constitutional.

The adminsitaation says it is. Many people in both parties are skeptical. And Gonzales with his little side-stepping didn't help.

Looks like a few of us caught the wrong line being bold.

Ahh, lockstep liberals...

(I insert a brief note acknowledging that Phil might take exception to this, but I'm only going for the laugh)

The consistent with applicable law clause was in the section on the FBI doing domestic surveillance, which teh liberals present as the whole purpose of the NSA program. I disagree with that claim, especially when it is made at funerals and such.

You should credit me with my restraint in saying teh liberals instead of ALL YOU LIBERALS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

I did that for Gary's sake.

DaveC, which liberals are saying that the "whole purpose" of the NSA program is domestic surveillance?

Just curious.

john, The 1st sentence of this post is

For several days now, I've been meaning to write about the Judiciary Committee's hearings on the NSA domestic surveillance program

That's the way this issue is presented, consistently on in the papers and on the radio and TV news. and even on smart peoples' weblogs. and insinuated by ex-president at a large funeral.

I don't think that this is by and large a domestic spying program, but it is being framed that way for maximum possible political damage to the Bush administration.
And I think that in the course of the leaks and these charges our country's security has been compromised. I am not unaware that there are people who disagree with me.

Related discussion about problems with FISA program were discussed on the Hugh Hewitt show.

We'll see, bob, we'll see. I think there's plenty of support in the base for an Andrew Jackson moment, but not more than 15% in the general population. Especially if the Court makes orders like Rasul: directing a procedural remedy, not actual release of anyone.

I just checked the docket in Qassim (that's the case Hil has been posting about, much more than Hamdan or Al Odah). There's one judge on the Q panel also on the AO panel: Sentelle. Just ask yourself 'how would Jesse Helms vote' and you'll have a reasonable prediction. Others on the Q panel, though, are Tatel and Garland. Both of the latter are fully capable of summoning outrage.

Briefing in Q concludes March 22.

will he name himself leader of the US for the duration of the war? Even scarier is that he could probably get away with it....
I think not.

DaveC:

I think that there were at least some Democrats on the committee when these recommendations were made. Did they change their minds after that?
No. If you can point to the part that recommends "and violate FISA," or "and we've now realized that FISA is un-constitutional, and thus can be ignored," let us know.

"I suppose though that if this is debated, though, that even more details that will damage the effectiveness of the program will leak out..."

Name three details that have leaked that damage the effectiveness of the program, please.

"just like the House vote on Murtha's suggestion to immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq.

That wasn't Murtha's suggestion, and his actual proposal wasn't put forward, and wasn't voted for.

But if you're willing to stand up for the principle that the opposing Party gets to write the Bill putting forth the "ideas" of the other party, I'll be right with you in favoring that so long as the Republicans are in the majority. I look forward to your posts advocating this, in consistency with your present advocation of this idea as regards Murtha, DaveC. When do you think you might have your first post done?

"The consistent with applicable law clause was in the section on the FBI doing domestic surveillance, which teh liberals present as the whole purpose of the NSA program."

Quote me or Hilzoy making such a claim. Alternatively, quote and cite three prominent liberals making such a claim.

"I don't think that this is by and large a domestic spying program, but it is being framed that way for maximum possible political damage to the Bush administration."

No, DaveC. It's being "framed that way," because the domestic aspect is the concern, and the surveillance of non-U.S. citizens aspect isn't. Few object to the U.S. bugging non-citizens overseas (sorry, non-U.S. citizens, but, no, you don't get the benefits of the U.S. Constitution, for the most part, when you're not citizens and not on US territory, any more than we get the benefits of your constitutions over here). But we do have an odd insistence that the Constitution applies on US territory and to US citizens whereever they are, Dave. Do you object to that?

Gary, thank you.

I actually had to do some work and didn't get an opportunity to get back to Dave about his last statement. You, as usual, covered it in detail.

Now back to doing what I am theoretically being paid for.

"And I think that in the course of the leaks and these charges our country's security has been compromised."

Fine. Support your thinking with facts. Cite three.

Incidentally, I'd like to ask: where did you stand on the Waco incident? The shooting at Ruby Ridge? On the Brady Bill?

"Related discussion about problems with FISA program were discussed on the Hugh Hewitt show."

Say, DaveC, who appointed the chief judges of the Foreign Intelligence Court?

You cite Hewitt's (how, there's a guy always ready to challenge President Bush, right? How credible!) two "smart guys" discussion, including Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of law at Duke University Law School. Here's some of what he said:

EC: I very much disagree with John. I think he's confusing here what the president has the power to do as commander-in-chief, and what may be introduced as evidence into a court. Just because the president has the power to do it doesn't mean it's lawfully obtained evidence, and can be used against a criminal defendant. And what these judges were saying is look, if it's not gained in compliance with the 4th Amendment, and it's not gained in compliance with the FISA statute, it has to be excluded. So let's devise a procedure where we can make sure that we don't have to let dangerous people go free, because there was wiretapping, eavesdropping grounds in violation of the 4th Amendment. And that's why they created this procedure. That's why I think they were acting with noble motives. It's just that it should have been done by Congress, not by them.
So, he has a problem with what the President is doing, but he thinks it needs to be solved by Congress. Meanwhile, you, DaveC, are objecting to Congress interfering, or investigating. Right?

EC continues:

y engaging in wiretapping that clearly did not meet the 4th Amendment or FISA, even if he had the power as commander-in-chief, the evidence would have to be excluded. That's the cost of doing what the president was doing. That's why there should have been a legislative fix consistent with the 4th Amendment, not unilateral action by the president or these judges.
Disagree, DaveC, with your own cite?

To answer a question I asked you earlier: "FISA judges were appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist."

I guess we shouldn't have liberal Justices like Rehnquist making such appointments, eh?

Gary beat me to the Hewitt link. I'll just excerpt the closing remark.

JE[John Eastman, Chapman Univ. Law]: It could be. But look, there may well be another reason why the Department of Justice didn't seek a writ of mandamus to press the issue. I mean, for the very reason that since December 19th, when the New York Times published this story about this program even existing, they have been worried that the broader the distribution of what's going on here gets out, the more severely it undermines the effectiveness of the program in pursuit of our national security.

That writ would be filed with the FISA reviewing court.

Brilliant analysis by John "[Yes to searches and] 'he could detain you without a warrant as well'" Eastman.

His "undermine the whole notion of appellate process" quote earlier in the piece is particularly nice when combined with his closing statement, too.

Hewitt, I suppose, at least deserves credit for making the transcript available. Thanks for the link DaveC, but good luck defending the pro-administration side of that content.

It's worthy of note and emphasis -- the man who stood on principle (the principle that George Bush Is Always Right) to defend the nomination of Harriet Miers to SCOTUS right up through her withdrawal -- that Hewitt entitles his segment, and repeatedly refers to, "freelancing FISA judges."

That's the Court created by statute (by bi-partisan vote, in 1978, via FISA), whose judges, as previously mentioned, are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, hitherto of late, CJ Rehnquist, that noted radical leftist, and henceforth untrustworthy liberal John Roberts, which is appealable to a special Appeals Court, and then to the full Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So when Mr. Hewitt refers to "freelancing," what he is objecting to is the entire concept of an "independent judiciary."

Let's all take note of that, and of what's overtly suggested here. You, too, DaveC. Is having an independent judiciary, and three independent branches of government, each checking and balancing the two others, a principle conservatism now rejects? Do you reject it? Please let us know.

Short answer: the NIE need not be declassed in full.

For instance, here.

Short answer: the NIE need not be declassed in full.

For instance, here.

Okay, maybe it's not the most elegant NIE ever written, but that doesn't mean it's déclassé.

But we do have an odd insistence that the Constitution applies on US territory and to US citizens whereever they are, Dave. Do you object to that?

Well, I suppose I would argue that Mohammed Atta and his 911 gang should not be protected from surveillance because the had actulayy made inside the country, if that is what you are saying. Yes, they were in US territory, but if that situation occurs again, I would prefer that the NSA monitors terrorist phone calls from within the US.

Disagree, DaveC, with your own cite?

See, that was a discussion, with both sides represented. Hard to believe that could happen on a right-wing radio show? I linked it because it was interesting, and a real discussion.

"Well, I suppose I would argue that Mohammed Atta and his 911 gang should not be protected from surveillance because the had actulayy made inside the country, if that is what you are saying."

No, Dave. That's not remotely what I'm saying. That's not remotely what anyone is saying.

As I've pointed out, I used to work in the World Trade Center. I used to live in walking distance of the World Trade Center. I have friends who lived within a block of the World Trade Center, who were unable to return to their homes for most of a year. I have friends whose close friends and relatives died in the World Trade Center. I grew up and spent most of my life within viewing distance of the World Trade Center, though the early years of my life were, of course, before it was built.

I'm unclear if any of the above is true of you.

I feel a need to say at this point that I am becoming extremely offended at your insinuations and outright statements that anyone who is a Democrat doesn't care about Mohammed Atta, September 11th, and/or terrorism.

More correctly, I am past the point of remaining patient with how extremely offensive you have been in making such remarks for several days now.

I ask you to either defend your remarks, including those I've now asked to to respond about several times, over a number of days, or withdraw them, and to meanwhile please consider not repeating variants of them.

I like you, Dave, but you are being immensely, immensely, immensely, offensive.

Until you defend or withdraw your repeated remarks -- let me know if you need a link to the previous iteration and a reminder -- I have no further interest in responding to such comments as "Yes, they were in US territory, but if that situation occurs again, I would prefer that the NSA monitors terrorist phone calls from within the US," as if anyone disagreed with you. Such remarks are unworthy of you; I prefer to think that you are a better person than this, and that you have some excuse for making such remarks, which I shan't speculate about. But clearing that up is up to you.

DaveC:

Did you see http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/>Riverbend's February 11 post about a raid she experienced? See, this is where you end up without a Fourth Amendment. And your willingness to allow the Fourth Amendment to be suspended for anyone effectively means it's suspended for everyone -- because the state can't tell before it searches your house, or before it listens to your calls, that you're not a member of AQ.

And you can't say they'll only search the people they know are affiliated with AQ, because the whole point of the controversy is that they are searching people of whom they are not sure enough in their suspicions -- much less knowledge -- to get a warrant. The standard for a warrant is quite low, and the judges quite generous, and yet the imposition of any restrictions at all are unacceptable.

Now, I expect from you some kind of partisan nonsense. Of course this is a losing issue for Dems. Standing up for freedom against the tyrany of the majority nearly always is.

To be fair, it seems that your conception of what NSA ought to do has some limits, ie, that you're not now willing to completely suspend the Fourth Amendment. So here are the questions for you: (a) what exactly are those limits (and you have to assume non-omniscient humans living within them); and (b) who makes sure the state stays within them (and how)?

And DaveC, my bet is that if you had a blank slate to work on, and the agenda expressed above, what you'd end up with wouldn't be materially different from FISA.

Or close enough that the changes that would have to be made to FISA would command substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, and among both caucuses.

Thank you for reminding me to check Baghdad Burning, charley. My bloglines doesn't show her updates.

I don't think I have anything adequate to say about her and her posts today. What and how she writes makes me feel she is my sister. She is Iraq to me.

Americans came to the neighborhood, took four men away, never see or heard from again.
Disappeared. This kind of disciplined brutality has a name.

This should have gone here, where perhaps DaveC and Blogbudsman and others are more apt to see it, than on the open thread:

Again, the Guantanamo lies. Stuart Taylor, and Corine Hegland, at National Journal. Absolute must reads, though nothing new to anyone here who has been reading Katherine and Hilzoy all along, or who has read certain other blogs all along.

Save for those lost in fantasy, denial, and wishful thinking. At best. Hi, DaveC! Hi, Blogbudsman!

Also: more Republican traitors. And I've added a set of my NSA Program-related links here. Get back to me when you're done, if you feel like checking out the facts.

Bob, did you read about what we did to the Turks, and the results?

Tangentially, on Gonzales testimony and Glenn Greenwald.

On the other hand (sort of, not quite), what Iraqis think.

CC: "Now, I expect from you some kind of partisan nonsense."

Not necessarily civil.

RF: Fair enough. But what I meant was an assertion either (a) that Dems would be making a mistake to emphasize this or (b) that Dems in Congress were briefed and didn't stop it.

I view either of these as 'partisan nonsense' in the context of the discussion, and that the term 'partisan' is meant to describe the subject of the nonsense, not merely the identity and motive of the purveyor.*

To respond, preemptively, to (a) and (b) -- only barely preemption, since both assertions are out there:

I sent an email last month to GF about a record called Blows Against the Empire.** If anyone in the government read that email without a warrant, I think (a) a crime has been committed and (b) whoever did it is liable to GF, me, or both for money damages. I don't care what Jane Harman did or didn't say in some WH briefing, or what Sen. Rockefeller did or didn't do on the floor of the Senate. (I don't think any "war" or theory about either me or GF would justify reading the email without a warrant. Not even, suppose, if I had sent an email to a Saudi person related to a suspected member of AQ not long before sending the email to GF).

If I find out that the email was read, I just might sue. If I do so, it won't be Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 'the liberals,' 'the Democrats,' the ACLU, or AQ suing. And whether the suit would advance or interfere with the agenda of any of the foregoing doesn't mean they are in any way responsible for such a suit. Or have any impact on the legal merits of the claim.

*At the risk of blowing through the firewall, am I the only one who finds DaveC's writings on HOCB much more civil and rational than his contributions here? Is this because he's such a rebel that he's going against paradigm at both places? This is not a complaint, by the way, just an observation.

**What I didn't say to GF in the email, but should have, is that he should make the effort to track down the acoustic demo version of 'Hijack' that is included in the iTunes version of Blows.

"**What I didn't say to GF in the email, but should have, is that he should make the effort to track down the acoustic demo version of 'Hijack' that is included in the iTunes version of Blows."

I'd have to check my files to recall what I replied to Charley about the Jefferson Airplane album that was primarily Paul Kantner's project, but it was probably along the lines of that aside from being extremely well-known to rock music fans and Airplane fans of the time, the album was known to everyone in active sf fandom at the time, due to its being tied as the first album ever nominated for the Best Dramatic Presentation in 1971 (along with the album Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers by the Firesign Theater) (other nominations in the category that year were Colossus: The Forbin Project, Hauser's Memory, and No Blade of Grass). Partially due to the "generation gap" which existed as much in sf fandom as anywhere else, "No Award" triumphed. Like most years before 1977, it wasn't a very good year for non-text science fiction.

GF, your friends at Communist Martyrs must be mighty proud of you. Using the word 'Airplane' to describe a record without Jorma!

Thanks, now I've got "We Built This City" in my head.

I ask you to either defend your remarks, including those I've now asked to to respond about several times, over a number of days, or withdraw them, and to meanwhile please consider not repeating variants of them

Look, I knew when I noted

implement and fully utilize data mining and other advanced analytical tools, consistent with applicable law;

that I would get hammered on the consistent with applicable law part of it, but I left that stuff in.

and I knew that in the Hewitt discussion about FISA judges, there were two sides presented.

So I am reading the stuff here, (not as much time to read all the comments these days) and when I make some comment that makes me sound like a jerk, well the discussion is framed in such a way that it is very easy to sound like a jerk, being against civil liberties, etc. So, yes I got frustrated and made a blanket generalisation, and I apologize for that. And especially to Gary, who extensively commented about Echelon and data mining in general. In my "real life" I encounter many people who disagree with me, like everybody that lives under my roof. I have found it easier to hold my tongue and not discuss anything controversial with them, and when I'm at the Unitarian church, I keep my mouth shut so as not to have any offense redirected at other family members. So I slipped up here, and I'll try not to repeat that mistake.

"Using the word 'Airplane' to describe a record without Jorma!"

That's whose name is on the album. I assume a "Jefferson Airplane" credit would/did sell far better at the time (and likely any other time) than "Paul Kantner And Friends."

You can always listen to it while eating some hot tuna.

It was a nice concept album (although the story/concept was largely swiped from Heinlein's "Universe," circa 1941), but not the crown of creation.

You can always listen to it while eating some hot tuna.

Did anyone else's mind go to a very dirty place just then?

Anarch:

Is that a reference to their original working name for the band?

Speaking of Chavez:

Downing Street today refused to be drawn into a fresh war of words with Venezuela's president after he called on Britain to hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

Hugo Chavez said the islands belonged to Argentina and demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair give them back.

[...]

Mr Chavez responded to Mr Blair's comments by branding him "a pawn of imperialism" and "the main ally of Hitler" - a reference to US President George Bush.

[...]

Speaking in the western Venezuelan city of Maracaibo, he added: "Those islands are Argentina's. Return them, Mr Blair. Those islands are Argentina's."

"Is that a reference to their original working name for the band?"

Kids! (No.)

DaveC, I wondered about your status in a Unitarian church. My memory of the Unitarian fellowship of my childhood was that its members could tolerate just about anyone except a Republican. As a matter of fact up until middle school age I thought the designations "Unitarian", "Quaker", "Jew", and "Democrat" were just different words for the same people.

"That's whose name is on the album"

Blows Against the Empire

I beg to differ. The first "Starship" album. AMG gives one explanation, but I would be surprised if there also weren't contractual/rights problems, i.e, Marty being a jerk. Good album, some weak songs, but at least one masterpiece, "A Child is Coming" which has an astonishing bass guitar run by Jack Cassidy. Umm, bought it on release day. Sigh.
...
"Bob, did you read about what we did to the Turks, and the results?"

I used the words "disciplined brutality" in an attempt to describe something I thought I would never see American soldiers do as a general practice. Dresden is one kind of mistake, My Lai another kind, this feels a third variety. Americans might have engaged in similar behavior in the Philippines and Vietnam.

But whatever else is wrong here, obviously a lot, I feel our soldiers are being damaged by these kinds of missions.

It's possible I'm misrembering, Bob.

However, the source you cite got the following wildly wrong, so it's clearly unreliable: "Blows eventually went gold, and it was even nominated for a science fiction award usually reserved for novels."

Um, no.

But you may be entirely right about the album; I lost all my LPs in the fire in '91. And thinking about it, your saying it was "Starship" (which might be what Charley was also suggesting, but that didn't occur to me when I read his comment) stirs an extremely vague memory. To be honest, though, I really don't care enough to bother googling.

"I feel our soldiers are being damaged by these kinds of missions."

I can't imagine it being good for anyone's mental health, if that's what you mean.

"To be honest, though, I really don't care enough to bother googling."

Okay, I lied. Who am I kidding? Anyway, you're right, I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.

I can't believe you could have thought I meant anything else. I'll leave you with the lyrics of Diana (part 2) from the Sunfighter record:

How do you feel as you cut Down your children now And leave them dying On the grass in the sun

What do you see
When you look at one another now?
Tell me old man
Tell me where will you run?

Sing a song
For the children going down
Remember - the ones you know
Remember how we danced
And remember what we sang
In America
So many years ago

I was highly amused when, in the process of confirming that Hot Tuna really did spring from whence I thought, I found this article on hot tuna.

[Well, salmon sharks, really, but hey, it's their article...]

The comments to this entry are closed.