<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drafting a new EO that supports Dubya&#8217;s Claims?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/26/drafting-a-new-eo-that-supports-dubbyas-claims/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/26/drafting-a-new-eo-that-supports-dubbyas-claims/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:03:42 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: William Teach</title>
		<link>http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/26/drafting-a-new-eo-that-supports-dubbyas-claims/#comment-216429</link>
		<dc:creator>William Teach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=23854#comment-216429</guid>
		<description>Whew!!!! Major wishful thinking up there. Have a better chance of Obama ordering the bombing of Iran&#039;s nuclear centers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whew!!!! Major wishful thinking up there. Have a better chance of Obama ordering the bombing of Iran&#8217;s nuclear centers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MataHarley</title>
		<link>http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/26/drafting-a-new-eo-that-supports-dubbyas-claims/#comment-216343</link>
		<dc:creator>MataHarley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=23854#comment-216343</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;After months of internal debate over how to close the facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Hey, if you can&#039;t &quot;reach an agreement&quot; with a Congress stacked with the O&#039;faithful, when can you?

heh heh

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,&quot; the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

And this differs from the previous admin how?  I guess, with the big Zero at the help, the civil liberty types are more patient with what they readily labeled &quot;abuse&quot; of human and judicial &quot;rights&quot; just a year ago.

UPDATE:  BTW, the O&#039;justice department made this policy late February, when &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/20/obama-admin-to-afghanistan-detainees-no-constitutional-rights/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt; I posted how they decided the Bagram detainees had no Constitutional rights&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and could be held as part of ongoing military action and not challenge their detention.  I guess an EO puts a better seal of approval?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>After months of internal debate over how to close the facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hey, if you can&#8217;t &#8220;reach an agreement&#8221; with a Congress stacked with the O&#8217;faithful, when can you?</p>
<p>heh heh</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,&#8221; the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released. </p></blockquote>
<p>And this differs from the previous admin how?  I guess, with the big Zero at the help, the civil liberty types are more patient with what they readily labeled &#8220;abuse&#8221; of human and judicial &#8220;rights&#8221; just a year ago.</p>
<p>UPDATE:  BTW, the O&#8217;justice department made this policy late February, when <a href="http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/20/obama-admin-to-afghanistan-detainees-no-constitutional-rights/" rel="nofollow"><b> I posted how they decided the Bagram detainees had no Constitutional rights</b></a> and could be held as part of ongoing military action and not challenge their detention.  I guess an EO puts a better seal of approval?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
