lbo-talk-digest V1 #6316

[Ad Smith]

unsubscribe 
--- lbo-talk-digest
<owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com> wrote:
> 
> lbo-talk-digest         Friday, June 14 2002        
> Volume 01 : Number 6316
> 
> 
> 
> In this issue:
> ==============
> 
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Democratic leadership sells out
>    Michael Tigar
>    Re: Michael Tigar
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Rove's PP show
>    Re: Padilla
>    interview with Michael Tigar
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Michael Tigar
>    ICC vs Settlers
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Who did FSU in? (was:  Re:Padilla)
>    Black Nationalism 
>    Campaign Finance Bill will benefit Repubs
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Padilla
>    Lindh not advised of legal rights.
>    Re: Judi Bari and FBI redux
>    FT: US jeopardizes Milosevic trial
>    Re: Padilla
>    Re: Padilla
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:10:44 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Padilla
> 
> Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > 
> > All I was saying
> > >that in the aftermath of 9/11 we need to
> re-evaluate or views on civil
> > >liberties and search for a reasonable compromise
> between liberty and
> > >security.
> > >
> > >wojtek
> > 
> > You have yet to give a single resaon to believe
> that this is true. jks
> 
> It would seem to me that on the surface every single
> action of the u.s.
> state since 9/11 has _decreased_ the security of the
> people of the u.s.,
> whatever such actions may or may not have done in
> regard to the
> political security of the ruling class. Every single
> person in the U.S.
> is now in greater danger than he/she was on Sept. 12
> -- and the fault
> for this greater danger lies with the stupidity
> and/or malevolence of
> the u.s. responses to 9/11. At least the burden of
> proof clearly lies on
> those, like Wojtek, who would argue otherwise.
> 
> Carrol
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:29:18 -0400
> From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Padilla
> 
> At 08:33 AM 6/14/2002 -0700, eric wrote:
> 
> 
> >Should the government be allowed to use secret
> warrants to find out what 
> >books and videos you have read and seen?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me reverse that question.  Should a person with
> a criminal record, 
> known to have contacts with terrorist organizations,
> be released from 
> custody on a technicality?
> 
>   In my book, taking a serious real life risk to
> uphold a principle is 
> fundamentalism, pure and simple.
> 
> wojtek
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:18:33 -0400
> From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
> Subject: Re: Democratic leadership sells out
> 
> And buried the "marriage penalty" extension.  Saving
> $1 trillion for the
> public sector is not bad for two days work by the
> Dem leadership.
> 
> Since I don't think McCain-Feingold matters much,
> I'll take the trillion
> dollars.  But you can harp on this silly marginal
> campaign scuffling for
> position.
> 
> Nathan Newman
> 
> nathan at newman.org     http://www.nathannewman.org
> http://www.nathannewman.org/log/  (News & Views
> WebLog)
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter K." <peterk at enteract.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:58 AM
> Subject: Democratic leadership sells out
> 
> 
> [Yes, they did block repeal of the estate tax after
> prodding from
> citizens groups, but...]
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/14/politics/14DONA.html
> 
> Sponsors Assert Soft Money Ban May Be Diluted
> By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
> 
> WASHINGTON, June 13 - The ban on unrestricted
> political donations to the
> national political parties
> enacted by Congress earlier this year could soon be
> significantly weakened
> by regulators at the
> Federal Election Commission, the four authors of the
> legislation say.
> ...
> 
> But supporters of the law say they are much more
> upset with Democratic Party
> officials, who they say
> are urging the commission to gut the law - despite
> the party's embrace of it
> in Congress.
> 
> In a letter sent today to the chairman of the
> Democratic National Committee,
> Terry McAuliffe, the
> president of Common Cause, Scott Harshbarger, said,
> "You and other party
> leaders cannot take public
> credit for enacting important reforms supported by
> the American people on
> the one hand, while
> sending your lawyers into court and into the F.E.C.
> to undermine the law, on
> the other."
> ...
> 
> A longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, Fred
> Wertheimer, the
> president of Democracy 21,
> added that it was an "extraordinary spectacle to see
> Democratic Party
> lawyers hard at work to drive
> huge loopholes into the new landmark campaign
> finance law that the
> Democratic leaders they represent
> played a central role in enacting just months ago."
> ...
> 
> Mr. McCain acknowledged that such a Congressional
> review would face a "very
> tough" fight. But he
> added that this dispute had also added momentum to
> potentially restructuring
> the election
> commission.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:19:11 -0700
> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at attbi.com>
> Subject: Michael Tigar
> 
>
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020524_cassel.html
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:26:07 -0700
> From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
> 
=== message truncated ===

______________________________________________________________________ 
Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca