From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #658 Dead-Flames Digest #658, Volume #48 Mon, 24 Oct 05 11:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (leftie) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (JC Martin) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: Bonus disc question (band beyond description) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? (Ben) Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions 1970 (pbuzby2002@yahoo.com) Re: Bob Wier Ibanez guitar hmmm ("bongo") Re: Review - Susan Tedeschi @ Irving Plaza (Brad Greer) Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? (DG) Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? (DG) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: Halloween Music ("Jerry's Kids") Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions (JC Martin) Re: Review - Susan Tedeschi @ Irving Plaza ("Schmoe") Re: NFL, week 7 ("Neil X.") Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: Halloween Music ("imsjry") Re: who buys this? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: I'm So Glad ("frndthdevl") Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? (Ben) Re: Bob Wier Ibanez guitar hmmm (band beyond description) Re: I'm So Glad ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? (DG) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: Ocktoberfest jam!!!!! (leftie) Re: I'm So Glad ("frndthdevl") Re: Ocktoberfest jam!!!!! ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) ("RickNBarbInSD") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: leftie Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:28:11 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Out of the two parties though, the Republican Party is the majority > party in America. That means more Americans are registered Republican > than Democrat. "An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2 [2004], although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a 'No Party' designation." source: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:28:19 GMT Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > JC: Hillary does sometimes get shrill--like when she is addressing a > partisan crowd and feels she has to make a dramatic point--her voice > rises into this very uncomfortable register--dogs start howling for > blocks. But I think she could work on that part of things. And that > killer-glare when she feels she is being questioned by a lackey of the > vast right-wing consipracy. She could work on that, too. > She has three years to complete the makeover. And I'll make this point clear---I think Hillary would make a fine president...as good any any we've had in recent memory anyway. She's experienced in knowing how to avoid scandals I would assume at this point. But make no mistake, she'll be more of a hawk than many liberals will expect her to be. Look out North Korea. Peas, JC ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:33:57 GMT kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Carlisle wrote: >> >>>JC Martin wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Carlisle wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Richard Morris wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Carlisle" wrote in message >>>>>>news:1130074508.988782.166000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>snip >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hey R, >>>>>>> Mkay. >>>>>>>If any laws were broken even if there is no way that national security >>>>>>>and/or anyone's personal safety was at stake, then due punishment >>>>>>>should be applied. The perps should take their lumps. The rule of law >>>>>>>is the rule of law. How's that for reasonin' y'all?! >>>>>>>peace & awe, >>>>>>>Carlisle >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Okay, now that is just half the pie though. >>>>>> >>>>>>The other half is, how do you feel about an administration that would use >>>>>>these kind of tactics, which appear to be unlawful (we will know after the >>>>>>jury makes a decision), in order to discredit someone who was critical of >>>>>>their propoganda machine? >>>>>> >>>>>>Remember, this was about yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, >>>>>>and the reasons we invaded Iraq. Remember that? >>>>>> >>>>>>Reason that, please. >>>>>> >>>>>>Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for >>>>>the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got >>>>>arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or >>>>>conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power >>>>>corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the >>>>>weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I >>>>>was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not >>>>>in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean >>>>>rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush >>>>>propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. >>>> >>>> >>>>No, Dean was playing politics at the time, and frankly he's just another >>>>in a long line of political opportunists. Both Kerry and Edwards voted >>>>to give the President of the U.S. the ability to take out Saddam IF he >>>>did not comply with UN inspections and under the conditions put forth by >>>>a hyperbolic and lying executive branch. Let's not resort to Limbaugh >>>>spin again. All parties abuse power. But very few administrations >>>>create a national security red alert out of thin air and use the >>>>resulting fear created to launch an occupation of foreign territory. >>>>And to blame Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to take out >>>>Saddam under the conditions I gave above (I would have voted the same >>>>way myself given the circumstances)? Come on now. Wrong target. >>>>There's no political moral equivalency here. There are vast degrees of >>>>separation between the neo-cons and the rest of the politicians out there. >>>> >>>>-JC >>> >>> >>>Here's a new one WIIWRLAYP,aka: What Is It With Rush Limbaugh And You >>>People? >> >> >>Rush is usually the source of most of the spin you hear from the right. >> That's a fact. He's a very powerful Republican point man and a master >>spinner supreme. The dittohead tag Limbaugh made up isn't just for fun. >> >> >> >> >>>As long as Bush was popular, the Democrats that you are >>>defending wanted to look strong and belligerent on national defense. >>>They wanted to have it both ways. They had to know good and well that >>>Saddam Hussein would not comply properly with UN mandates. They helped >>>set us up for war. The *intel* was the same that was given by the CIA >>>of the Clinton years, btw. The Bush Administration played them like >>>fiddles. Now they want to come off as all anti-war. >> >> >>Liberals by and large are a consortium of pacifists and and >>non-pacifists, most who aren't so quick to invade other countries. >>Liberals are also by and large more wholistic and see mono-solutions as >>ineffective long-term. Kerry and Edwards voted their conscience on this >>issue (well, maybe not Kerry), as I would have. If Saddam did indeed >>force inspectors out a second time, if indeed he was involved in >>acquiring nuclear weapons and if indeed he was in cahoots with Bin >>Laden---all those conditions combined would warrant a decision by the >>president to invade Iraq (though certainly many liberal pacifists >>wouldn't agree). Those were the conditions Kerry and Edwards were >>presented. > > > You forgot 9/11 and the fact that Saddam subsidized the same type of > terrorism against Israel, and he was sympathetic to anti-American > sentiment > (duh!). We support other Arab countries that fund the Palestinians and Hamas, so this argument holds no weight at all. No connection between 9/11 and Iraq is deal here. Bush made an argument that Saddam was producing nuclear weapons and was also involved with Bin Laden. Under those conditions, I too would have given Bush the authority to invade Iraq IF the UN inspectors were forced out a second time. As it stands, the Bush administration FORCED the UN inspectors out. So how Kerry and Edwards become the fall guys for this escapes me. -JC ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:34:56 +0900 On 2005-10-24 10:28:48 +0900, "Dave Kelly" said: > I'm firmly in the camp of NOT trading officially > released product from Grateful Dead Productions. > Now if you will EXCUSE me, the Bat phone is ringing. > > Cheef Sweet-Pants I'm in Dave's corner on this one. And I'm sure the Choich would be too; where has he been lately? On a White Sox bender? -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:36:11 GMT Carlisle wrote: > ;) > Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, > National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. > Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! He deserves credit for helping spin forth Republican talking points. You're truly naive if you don't understand that he's been a major player in the Republican revolution. -JC ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:37:37 -0700 On 24 Oct 2005 08:46:13 -0700, "RandyStoner" wrote: >I'm getting anxious. Me too - and I'm moving soon. I ordered it back in August. I'm pretty sure it's this month, but we're nearing the end. It could be next month. ------------------------------ From: pbuzby2002@yahoo.com Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions 1970 Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:42:58 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Understand that Bill believes rock > musicians have the same level of chops as jazz musicians. When a guy > believes a Jimmy Page or Jerry Garcia has more chops than Bill Frisell > or that Billy K. has more chops than Tony Williams, there's no use > explaining. To be fair to Bill, I don't think that saying that Holland's 1970 playing with Miles is a bit like Lesh's 1974 playing is equal to saying that Lesh has more chops than Holland. Also, the fact that Miles made Holland play funk/rock levelled the playing field a bit. Pat Buzby Chicago, IL ------------------------------ From: "bongo" Subject: Re: Bob Wier Ibanez guitar hmmm Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:49:31 -0700 I remember him playing the Ibanez Artist a lot, which was a solid body. Don't recall ever seeing this one. ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: Review - Susan Tedeschi @ Irving Plaza Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:50:20 -0400 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:22:36 -0400, "Schmoe" wrote: >the 1st 1/2 of the set and then left to play a late night set at The Cutting >Room a few blocks away (which we caught after Susan's show). Around the What did you think of the Cutting Room as a venue? I'm going to see the Rads there in a couple of weeks and know nothing about the venue. ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:53:11 -0700 dearmeyer® wrote: > >He is half right and so are you, none of them want to play with Bobby now, >including Phil. LOL!!! Phil will do anything for money. I heard he was down in the Castro with a matress on his back yelling "curb service". ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:55:15 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > >If GDM or whomever takes your money for a pre-order and then gives you >the product one or two months later isn't that an interest-free loan >from you to them? 5,000 x $30 or so dollars isn't a huge amount--but >it's a nice piece of change. I don't get this whole pre-order thing. Then why do it? ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:59:37 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > ;) > > Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, > > National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. > > Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! > > > > He deserves credit for helping spin forth Republican talking points. > You're truly naive if you don't understand that he's been a major player > in the Republican revolution. > > -JC RL DID help get people really pissed at Congress and the Clintons prior to the Republican House cleaning...But that was so ten years ago, JC. The "revolution" was a flop. Rage Against The Machine- CC ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? Date: 24 Oct 2005 09:59:38 -0700 According to the last mail I received (July 28, 2005) regarding my preorder, here's the poop: "Please note that we have made some changes for this pre-order. Due to the exclusive nature of this pre-order, there is no fixed release date for this item. Your card will be charged at time of purchase, and your order will ship on or around November 15, 2005. Customers who order express shipping will receive their package two business days from when their order is shipped. Customers who order regular shipping will receive their order 7-10 business days from when their order is shipped." HTH... Theresa ------------------------------ From: "Jerry's Kids" Subject: Re: Halloween Music Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:03:23 -0700 This is the last week for Halloween music and live versions of the Sons of Champlin's "Hip L'il Dreams" on Sub Rosa. Get it while you can. November 1st, it all gets pulled and new stuff goes up. Any suggestions for next month?. http://www.subrosa.arbre.us/SubRosaMusic.html - Halloween music http://www.subrosa.arbre.us/SubRosaMusicArchive.html - Sons of Champlin http://www.subrosa.arbre.us/SubRosaNude.html - Nude barbecue ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:05:16 GMT pbuzby2002@yahoo.com wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Understand that Bill believes rock >>musicians have the same level of chops as jazz musicians. When a guy >>believes a Jimmy Page or Jerry Garcia has more chops than Bill Frisell >>or that Billy K. has more chops than Tony Williams, there's no use >>explaining. > > > To be fair to Bill, I don't think that saying that Holland's 1970 > playing with Miles is a bit like Lesh's 1974 playing is equal to saying > that Lesh has more chops than Holland. Also, the fact that Miles made > Holland play funk/rock levelled the playing field a bit. That would be fair, but I wasn't referring to just one analysis or comment. Besides, Phil is not exactly a 'funky' bass player, nor a jazz bassist for that matter. -JC ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Schmoe" From: "Schmoe" Subject: Re: Review - Susan Tedeschi @ Irving Plaza Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:15:30 -0400 Brad Greer wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:22:36 -0400, "Schmoe" > wrote: > >> the 1st 1/2 of the set and then left to play a late night set at The >> Cutting Room a few blocks away (which we caught after Susan's show). >> Around the > > What did you think of the Cutting Room as a venue? I'm going to see > the Rads there in a couple of weeks and know nothing about the venue. It's a bar up front where you walk in and a small backroom (through a closed door/cover charge) where the stage is. It's very private club feeling. I ordered a bottle water and rec'd something that looked something between art and fru-fru. It had water in it but I'm glad it was my friend's round preventing me from knowing the exact absurd cost. There are a few columns on the floor so make sure you get there early to get a seat in front of the stage. We were partially blocked. Bring lott$a dollar$ 'cau$e the drink$ ain't cheap. Have fun. ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:15:36 -0700 > Rogues Island's finest wrote: > > New England finally goes a week without losing anyone to injury. Uh, reports out of Foxboro are that Tyrone Poole re-injured his foot in practice last week and will miss another month....... Peace, Neil X. ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:17:39 -0700 DG: I don't myself. Obviously a lot of people do. The Fillmore CD sold out. This does seem to be clever marketing. A "hot" item is released on a pre-order basis. A freebie may be given away. Meanwhile, GDM gets use of your money. ------------------------------ From: "imsjry" Subject: Re: Halloween Music Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:19:27 -0700 pookietooth wrote: > Don't Drink the Water - Dave Matthews. Yeah, that's scary all right but not for Halloween.. ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: who buys this? Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:21:26 -0700 BBD: I was thinking maybe the silk shirt for "casual Fridays" to brighten up my cubicle-government-drone work existence--but it's too much. Maybe at $30. ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:29:02 -0700 And I'm so glad we made it ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: What's the Release Date on the Fillmore 10 CD Box Set? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:31:35 -0700 On 24 Oct 2005 09:59:38 -0700, "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" wrote: >According to the last mail I received (July 28, 2005) regarding my >preorder, here's the poop: > >"Please note that we have made some changes for this pre-order. Due to >the exclusive nature of this pre-order, there is no fixed release date >for this item. Your card will be charged at time of purchase, and your >order will ship on or around November 15, 2005. Customers who order >express shipping will receive their package two business days from when >their order is shipped. Customers who order regular shipping will >receive their order 7-10 business days from when their order is >shipped." > >HTH... > It does a little. I thought my card had already been charged though, and I thought I remember there being a specific date, and I'm sure I ordered it in August. I'll just have to email them and hope I can get it sorted out since it's probably going to ship after I move. >Theresa ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: Bob Wier Ibanez guitar hmmm Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:32:49 +0900 On 2005-10-25 01:49:31 +0900, "bongo" said: > > I remember him playing the Ibanez Artist a lot, which was a > solid body. Don't recall ever seeing this one. Bob played it in the late 70s. -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:35:37 -0700 frndthdevl wrote: > And I'm so glad we made it Gimme Some Lovin>Cream. Yeah, makes sense. Mark ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:36:21 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > >DG: I don't myself. Obviously a lot of people do. The Fillmore CD sold >out. This does seem to be clever marketing. A "hot" item is released on >a pre-order basis. A freebie may be given away. Meanwhile, GDM gets use >of your money. What's the big deal if the person agrees to do it? ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:36:23 GMT Carlisle wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Carlisle wrote: >> >>> ;) >>>Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, >>>National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. >>>Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! >> >> >> >>He deserves credit for helping spin forth Republican talking points. >>You're truly naive if you don't understand that he's been a major player >>in the Republican revolution. >> >>-JC > > > RL DID help get people really pissed at Congress and the Clintons prior > to the Republican House cleaning...But that was so ten years ago, JC. > The "revolution" was a flop. LOL. Like I said, you're a bit naive on this one. -JC ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:39:09 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > JC Martin wrote: > > > >>Carlisle wrote: > >> > >>> ;) > >>>Rush is an entertainer...he gets is stuff from others, namely the WSJ, > >>>National Review, Cato, Heritage Foundation, AEI and the White House. > >>>Write that down. The man is given too much credit, really. Ditto THAT! > >> > >> > >> > >>He deserves credit for helping spin forth Republican talking points. > >>You're truly naive if you don't understand that he's been a major player > >>in the Republican revolution. > >> > >>-JC > > > > > > RL DID help get people really pissed at Congress and the Clintons prior > > to the Republican House cleaning...But that was so ten years ago, JC. > > The "revolution" was a flop. > > > > LOL. Like I said, you're a bit naive on this one. > > -JC JC, Are you wearing anything other than a jockstrap right about now?? -CC ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: Ocktoberfest jam!!!!! Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:39:32 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > Did Neil end up naked and passed out in the living room again? You mean that isn't just a San Francisco Treat? ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:40:20 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > frndthdevl wrote: > > And I'm so glad we made it > > Gimme Some Lovin>Cream. > > Yeah, makes sense. > > Mark Golden silence, glad to share the well hunter Jim k freed it from a Cream thread you democrap wannabe ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: Ocktoberfest jam!!!!! Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:41:39 -0700 leftie wrote: > Rogues Island's finest wrote: > > > Did Neil end up naked and passed out in the living room again? > > You mean that isn't just a San Francisco Treat? Neil is part of the "Drunks Without Borders" organization. Mark ------------------------------ From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:45:57 -0700 grtflmark: If we are talking about Gitmo as it is currently managed, things are better. Previous abuses have been addressed. For all I know the Army has already done all the questioning it intends to do with the great bulk of the settled inmate population. There is (now) a functioning review process of internal military panels (previously held up pending court review), and the Supreme Court *rejected Administration arguments* and put in another safeguard: access to civil courts for habeas corpus (not directly related to POW status but a protection to detainees). But these are just habeaus corpus appeals. I would be very surprised if the detainees, even now, enjoy the full benefits of citizens brought before domestic courts--and I don't know specifically how their access to counsel stacks up next to American soldiers in military proceedings. Europe I don't know about. Some times they are very lenient on potential terrorists and sometimes they go extra-judicial and just whomp on people. ======= Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling Prisoners can now go to court The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts. BBC News Online looks at the issues involved. What did the Supreme Court say? The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay." The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." What is habeas corpus? Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment. Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour? The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority." The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different. Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war. ------------------------------ From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) Date: 24 Oct 2005 10:48:36 -0700 band beyond description wrote: > what do you like to watch when you're "in the zone?" > > -- > Peace, > Steve Un Chien Andalou Living in Oblivion 2001 Woodstock Eraserhead 12 Monkeys Alice in Wonderland The Wizard of Oz The Grateful Dead Movie Altered States Lord of the Rings Trilogy Monty Python & the Holy Grail Yellow Submarine Tommy Rick ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .