Good on the Final Solution for the Guantanamo 47

Besides being a cool musician, Matthew Good is also a cool blogger, one deeply concerned by a lot of the same things that deeply concern me. Here he is doing his best to follow the logical thread of the Obama administration’s arguments on Guantanamo detainees. In particular, he’s looking at the subset of detainees who are deemed “too dangerous to release,” but who cannot be charged, presumably because the only evidence the government has against them was obtained by torture: The 47.

Of course, detainees are not viewed as ‘prisoners of war’ by the US, rendering the application of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions moot. So given that US law doesn’t apply, and international law doesn’t apply, one has to ask the question – would simply eliminating them be breaking the law?

Given the vast ambiguities used to justify their detention, the answer to that question is rather straightforward – the law isn’t applicable. If they can be detained indefinitely without legal recourse, then they can be killed without legal recourse. They aren’t prisoners of war, according to the United States they have no legal rights, so the law doesn’t apply. That said, if they are as dangerous as the Justice Department claims them to be, eliminating them wouldn’t be in breach of anything being that nothing applies. In the end, the only thing standing in the way of that option is negative publicity.

When you get right down to it, the issue really is that simple. I think this might actually be a worthwhile avenue for the opponents of state-sponsored torture to take: Tell Obama to put up or shut up. If the rule of law means anything, then charge these guys or let them go. And if the rule of law doesn’t mean anything, then just kill them already, quickly and cleanly, rather than a little at a time by locking them away with no legal recourse for the rest of their lives.

95 Responses to “Good on the Final Solution for the Guantanamo 47”

  1. shcb Says:

    I’m going to toss this out there; I believe if you are engaged in military activity and not fighting in uniform for a county you are considered a spy or mercenary and can be summarily executed. So I think there is ample cause to execute these individuals under international law. So Gold saying they are in a vacuum isn’t quite right I don’t think, he’s close, but if that is true it is an important detail. Just tossing that out there. I’ll be in Atlanta on business next week so if I don’t get into this conversation it isn’t because I’m ignoring anyone, I’m just busy.

  2. Smith Says:

    shcb’s post shows why this is a foolish gambit. There are entirely too many people who espouse “kill them all” as a valid position without even a hint of irony. I’m pretty sure “kill them all” is the motto of “compassionate” conservatism.

    Regardless of the US’s position, the international law community has adopted the additions to the Geneva Conventions as law. That the US did not sign it is technically irrelevant. If international law was restricted to only enforcing the rules that a country is willing to voluntarily accept, there would be no authority by which to punish dictators, as they would be able to claim that they never accepted restrictions on genocide.

  3. shcb Says:

    You are exaggerating my statements again. I’m not saying to kill them all, just do we have the right to kill those that do not play by the rules. Even if we have the right Gold is correct that the negative press might make it not worth the effort. All am saying is, as Gold says, these guys fall somewhere in the middle, he says it is because they were tortured, fair enough, but it is also because of how they have positioned themselves, fighting without a country, out of uniform etc, they made that choice. They also have not broken any US laws, our laws don’t extend to foreign lands, they are simply soldiers without a country. Oddly enough the international law they have broken is the law you want to protect them with.

  4. Smith Says:

    “Oddly enough the international law they have broken is the law you want to protect them with.”

    No, it’s not. But I am not going to waste my time on that topic again. Nothing will overcome the propaganda you’ve been feeding yourself.

  5. shcb Says:

    ditto

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    Refreshing logic from M. Good, unfortunately that kind of ironic cynicism is lost on some people. oh well…

    Why don’t they just make it look like a mass suicide and then seal the evidence for 70 years?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8913727

  7. jbc Says:

    I’m still trying to figure out who this “Gold” is that shcb keeps talking about.

  8. shcb Says:

    Is is Good and not Gold? Sorry.

  9. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t understand why the Right, who is supposed to be against government expansion, feels it’s necessary to create a whole mew legal system to deal with terrorists?

    Didn’t your courts convict Charles Manson and numerous other brutal murderers and sickos? Why can’t they prosecute these guys?

    Isn’t the “rule of law” one the pillars that make the Western world so great? What better way to deal with these guys than by trying and convicting them in a system that they despise, in front of the whole world.

    Think of the ad revenue if these trials are televised! /sarcasm

  10. enkidu Says:

    So… if they don’t have uniforms with brass buttons, colorful insignia and a funny hat, why then suddenly they aren’t human beings and we can just take them out with the garbage?

    Some of the ‘folks’ at gitmo are there for legitimate causes: try them and either convict and execute if applicable or do what the laws dictate (including *gasp* release the innocent). This may involve setting some bad guys free because we broke the laws regarding confessions obtained by torture (thx bushco). Leaving them in limbo isn’t a great strategy. Admit the torture and expunge it (prosecute if necessary, build a legal framework that adheres to US and international law).

    so wwnj: what about the blackwater (Xe) mercs? Those guys don’t wear a uniform, they fight for their corporation and its profit. But since the 5/4 decision by the Supremes has now decided that corporations have the same rights as people…

  11. shcb Says:

    Enky, NL,

    I’m going to try and answer your questions, because I think they are good questions, try and keep an open mind and I won’t get snippy and I won’t engage in “stupid liberal bla bla bla” deal?

    NL,

    I don’t know where you got the idea we want a “mew” (sorry, couldn’t resist) legal system. That may be what it takes but that isn’t my first choice. I’m happy to call them prisoners of war and keep them until the end of this war (probably forever) or execute them for being out of uniform

    Enky, yes if you don’t have shiny buttons and funny hats no one knows if they can shoot you or not, so civilians become targets, that deserves the death penalty, they have given up their rights of the Geneva conventions.

    NL, rule of law: works both ways, see above.

    Enky, what would we try these guys for in US court, what US law did they break? (I used a question mark, I do read what you write:-))

    Blackwater: I would classify them the same as the terrorists for the reasons you cited.

    Not sure what the last sentence is about, the campaign finance decision? If that is what you are talking about, that decision is fine with me, I’ve always been for unlimited spending and full disclosure. Corporations are usually going to play both sides of the fence, large corporations at least. Republicans will be helped slightly by the big corporations, the big help for Republicans will be from small and medium sized corporations. But unions can pull out all the stops now as well, they can pump real money into campaigns and not just in kind donations. Ben and Jerry types can also join in a bigger way. I don’t know where the balance sheet will end up.

  12. NorthernLite Says:

    So if you want to classify them as PoW’s don’t you have to abide by the Geneva Conventions? Isn’t that why Cheney invented “enemy combatants”, to avoid any sense of moral accountibility?

    “rule of law works both ways”. You’re kidding right? I guess you’re using the argument that just because they have no respect for law or human life we shouldn’t? Pfffft.

    And we’re better than them because???

  13. shcb Says:

    They would be prisoners of war out of uniform so it’s a difference without distinction.

    think of it this way, just because they have no respect for law or human life they should pay the price, it was their decision.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    I can’t speak for “them” but I’d hazard to guess that they’d think it was YOU shcb that has no respect for law or human life. After all, the numbers are on their side as they’ve made a cold calculation to kill hundreds or thousands in their (horribly misguided) attempt to stop what they see as genocide of hundreds of thousands vs. callous American attacks that lay waste to entire cities and create untold suffering of tens or even hundreds of thousands in pursuit of a few hundred or thousand (e.g. Fallujah); and you, sir, appear to have no respect for Sharia law.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    And what exactly do you mean by “it was their decision”, are you talking about he inmates or the Islamic leaders or ?

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    Pretty good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

  17. shcb Says:

    you are correct and both

  18. NorthernLite Says:

    It’s gotten to the point where both sides are killing innocents in larger numbers than actual combatants. The US will never be free of terrorist threats by continuing to bomb villages. I don’t know why that’s so hard for Republicans and Obama to understand.

    They used to talk about winning the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world. Well, you lost that war a long time ago and every “smart” bomb dropped on a village ensures that you’ll never “win” this “war”.

  19. shcb Says:

    I know, you have to send in the grunts. What is your solution? You have to chase them and kill them, it sucks but I don’t know if there is better way. spare the smart bomb, more of our guys get killed, don’t do anything the bad guys take out the world trade center. no good answer

  20. NorthernLite Says:

    I always thought this war would be better fought using small tactical units like special ops and intelligence agents. I don’t a million tanks would really make a difference.

    I think this fight is best kept in the shadows BUT with some oversight and accountability. I understand that in war sometimes things get messy but Gitmo was a mess that should have never been created. It was counter productive at best.

  21. shcb Says:

    gitmo was a great idea, still is. you need the infrastructure of the big military to support the special ops, these guys aren’t James Bond

  22. NorthernLite Says:

    Sure it was a great idea if your goal was to give Al Qaeda a great recruitment tool and to damage your moral standing in the world.

    I think you could learn a lot from the Israeli intelligence service. When they want to take somebody out, they take em out. And they do it fast, quiet and cheap.

  23. enkidu Says:

    “gitmo was a great idea, still is”

    yes, lets set up an ‘extra-legal’ off shore lock up and let the frat boys and sadists have a go at protectin merkuh! That worked out so well! What amazes me is the brazen hypocrisy of the gNOp’s ‘we’re the rule of law guys’ and then their abject pants wetting terror of actually abiding by the laws they so loudly claim to protect n stuff.

    I know wwnjs think everything the kenyan usurper is doing is aimed at destroying merkuh, but applying the law and figuring out what to do with these criminals is the right (as in correct) thing to do.

    It will take more than a year to erase the stain of the last eight.
    We’re working on it. The gNOp is working against us and the real heart of America. Party over country.

  24. shcb Says:

    My goal is to neutralize the bad guys, I’m all for just killing them and leaving them where they lie. But they don’t belong in our legal system so if we aren’t going to kill them they need to stay off our soil and out of the hands of liberals that will let them loose and/or make heroes out of them. Pretty simple, past that I don’t care. Cuba, Canada, Texas, anywhere not in the United States. They could send ‘em down here to here to Georgia, target practice anyone?

  25. enkidu Says:

    wwnj – you are just downright insane from steeping your shriveled frontal lobes in wwnj hate radio for so long…

    “they need to stay off our soil and out of the hands of liberals that will let them loose and/or make heroes out of them”

    Statements like the above are why Obama should stop trying to make common cause with morans who have no intention of ever working together for the good of the country. At least you managed to use the word “loose” correctly.

    Stop wetting yer damn pants for godsake. The cowardice of wwnjs is just pathetic.

    ps – I know this may be a joke, but considering your lack of edumakashun… Texas is part of the United States of America. I know over in the Wingnutoverse you dipsh!ts won the civil war, but if you microcephalics want to try it again over here in reality, we’ll burn the South down yet again (but this time we’ll just leave instead of attempting any sort of Reconstruction).

  26. shcb Says:

    you really think obama and the democrats want to work with Republicans? The only reason either side will ever work with the other is if they think it help them beat the other side!

  27. shcb Says:

    It was a joke about Texas, and I’m not from the South, this is the first time I’ve ever been east the old muddy other than a flight transfer.

  28. shcb Says:

    BTW, I was lectured today it wasn’t a Civil War, it was a war between the states. We’re in Georgia, we aren’t in Kansas anymore Toto.

  29. NorthernLite Says:

    “they need to stay off our soil and out of the hands of liberals that will let them loose and/or make heroes out of them.” Then why did you bring them to your soil in the first place?

    Statements like that really make me think your a fuckin idiot, man. Yeah, liberal want to make heroes out of them. Wow, people like you are the exact reason your country is going down the toilet.

  30. enkidu Says:

    wwnj, now I know that the wingnutosphere keeps repeating the lie that dems shut wingnuts out of the healthcare bills, but it just isn’t true. Rs sit on all those committees, they offered amendments, some made it some not. But their input is in there (which is why it is such a f’dup bill). But a big lie repeated often and all that eh?

    It is always party before country with wwnjs. Which is why you guys absolutely suck at governing. Laws are for pussies, deficits don’t matter, screw the middle class and poor, invade wrong country, torture, rendition, faster pussycat! kill! kill!

  31. enkidu Says:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00012

    Ds = fiscal discipline
    Rs = NO! NO! NO! NO! (#%*^%T@($# unintelligible swearing noises)

    ‘pay as you go’ passes on a party line vote

  32. Smith Says:

    The US legal system seems to be doing a good job of convicting terrorists.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8488335.stm

  33. enkidu Says:

    The US media is doing an awful job of identifying domestic trrrrsts as wwnjs.

  34. enkidu Says:

    I’m listening to Obama at the GOP conference. Taking questions and (finally) starting to act like the guy we elected.

    Obama = let’s work together
    Rs = frog blast the vent core! socialism! also!

  35. shcb Says:

    I was going offer rebuttal but I don’t see anything substantial enough there to make it worth the time.

  36. enkidu Says:

    ah yes, nothing to see here folks move along move along

    If you don’t think pay-go is a smart budgetary move…
    you might be a right wing nut job

    If you think closing gitmo is a bad idea…
    you might be a right wing nut job

    If think the President didn’t do a great job of schooling the Rs at their retreat (heck skip the speech, the Q&A was the best political TV I’ve seen in ages – perhaps ever)…
    you are indeed an extremist right wing nut job

    Imagine what bush would have been like if the tables were turned. He stumbles through a short speech of muddled platitudes, skipping bits, jumbled bits and mispronuncimalated many many words… then the Q&A comes and he starts in with the non sequitur nonsense… he answers while chewing a dinner roll open mouthed, crumbs dribbling… the handlers whisk him off stage while the audience laughs… he attempts to open a window thinking it is a door…

    Now imagine President Palin doing the same thing (after President McCain’s tragic inauguration heart attack). Hilarity.

    Here is just the Q&A
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0

  37. leftbehind Says:

    And if you think all the truly problematic characters at “Gitmo” aren’t already dead or safely shoved into similar holes somewhere in Europe, you’re an idiot. The very fact that we even know of the “Gitmo 47″ fairly proves that they are a distraction to keep our eyes off the other hand, which has already done what the other hand always does.

    …and sorry, Durandel, but I honestly don’t think much “schooling” occurred at that GOP thing the other day. Everybody just collected their soundbytes and went home like usual.

  38. leftbehind Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oty9yv03vPE

  39. shcb Says:

    One of the high (or low?) points of my “schooling” in the art of high politics was when I found out that many of the impassioned speeches of congressmen that get so much air time actually happen late at night with only of few diehards and some unlucky janitors in attendance.

  40. enkidu Says:

    Well isn’t that revealing: the link wasn’t to a speech, that link goes to the Q&A session after the speech (the speech itself was excellent btw)

    No teleprompters, no earpiece whispering the answers al la shrubbie. This was one guy going into the lions’ den and wiping the floor with the wwnjs.

    But you already have your opinion, based on not actually watching the Q&A.
    classic!

  41. shcb Says:

    Actually, Bush was better at the un prompted sections than the teleprompter portions. Was that last comment to me or Lefty Enky?

  42. enkidu Says:

    you didn’t watch even a minute of that, did you
    (note, not a question)

    pathetic

  43. shcb Says:

    No I didn’t, my response was to Lefty, not you. My point was that at one time I thought those congressmen were always talking to a full house. That was when I didn’t know much about politics, before my “schooling”.

    I know Obama gives a good speech, that’s good, it is important for public figures to be able to communicate, but that isn’t the only parameter to consider for a good leader. I doubt he said anything I would be interested in. Listening to someone talk is fine, I’ve actually paid money to listen to people talk once or twice, but frankly I’ve always been more interested in what they do, I guess that’s just the farmer in me.

  44. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I think walking right into the dragons den as Obama did and standing up there fielding unrehearsed questions from GOP congressmen is a pretty darn good sign of leadership.

    Obama going to the GOP retreat and taking on their talking points, er, I mean questions, head on was the most ballsy thing I think I’ve seen a politician do a very, very long time.

    He was making them look like the idiots that they’ve been behaving like lately. No wonder Fox cut away from it so quickly!

  45. NorthernLite Says:

    Leftbehind,

    I was actually watching MSNBC that night and I think that link you posted has been edited. I remember Mathews saying “I probably shouldn’t be saying this but I’m going to anyways…”

    Still, a dumb moment for him for sure, but that clip makes it seem even worse by removing certain parts. Specifically where he acknowledges he’s being a retard.

  46. shcb Says:

    NL,

    I agree, I haven’t looke at any of it, I’ve been really really busy so this may be one I never get a chance to view, but if I get the chance I will. Were the Republicans respectfull?

  47. enkidu Says:

    NL – watch the youtube link in my post above: no canned teleprompter speech, this is one guy facing a room full of filibustering wwnjs and absolutely crushing their wingnut wackdoodlry into the foolishness that it is. The Daily Show had a couple clips on as well. I couldn’t bear to listen to Harold Ford on Colbert (what a slimeball, Ford changes his positions on the issues to suit his audience and his bankster connections make me ill. Go away Mr Pedicure)

    Tweety (Matthews) rarely calls anyone (L, R or whackdoodle) on any outrageous nonsense. It is bad for ratings to not let each side have its say. Regardless of the facts. I enjoyed the SNL satire of tweety way more than his show.

    wwnj – this is why people laugh in your face at cocktail parties (leading to your murderous fantasies) you just don’t bother to live in the fact based universe. You could watch that video of the Q&A, but you would rather live in a fantasy of right wing bullsh!t.

  48. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, yes I thought it was a very respectful and polite exchange. Obama admitted to his mistakes while also pointing out some of the hypocrisy from the other side.

    I’ll be writing letters to my Member if Parliament asking her to try and make this a routine thing up here as well: A civilized focus group involving our leaders where everybody respects each other and discusses the nation’s problems like adults.

    We have ‘Question Period’ in our House of Commons but all that really is just a pissing match with a bunch of supposed grown-ups yelling at each other. It’s good entertainment but really doesn’t add any value to our discourse or solve any of our problems.

    The format you guys had down there was very constructive and as many others have said, probably the best political moment on TV in a very long time. Kudos to the GOP for inviting him and kudos to Obama for accepting. Both sides made some very good points. Say what you want about the man but that took some gonads to go in there.

    I think it’s definitely worth watching.

  49. NorthernLite Says:

    enk, I get a “This Video is Private” message when clicking on the link?

    I’ve pretty much seen most of it though. If he’s ever gonna fulfill his pledge to change the tone in Washington this was a great first step!

  50. enkidu Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CSPAN
    this should get u there

    1:18:00
    worth watching

  51. shcb Says:

    I watched a few minutes of the Q&A session, I agree with you NL, it seemed like a good exchange. Maybe it was just the section I watched but I wasn’t as impressed with Obama’s answers as Enky, but that is to be expected. A congresswoman from West Virginia asked if he would modify some of his energy positions because of the economy and he basically gave her a song and dance about how he actually supported increased production and “clean coal”, he also said he supported nuclear, maybe he does, that would be good, but that is first I had heard of it. I read another exchange in the Washington post and from the transcript it seemed he stammered and stuttered until he found the right words to dodge the question, as any good politician will do.

    But you know what, it’s a move in the right direction. From the little I have seen it seemed like a civil sparing match, I certainly don’t think he hit anything out of the park like Enky is eluding. But at this point it’s just a bunch of words from everyone in that room, let’s see some action.

  52. enkidu Says:

    so now you have watched “a few minutes” of a 78 minute Q&A…
    whtvr

    hey how about the ‘words’ in Obama’s budget that increased federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power from $36 to $54 billion? Does he have to actually build the things with his own two hands since all you care about is ‘action’? Should he personally strangle every convicted trrrrst? Would that satisfy you? answer: no

    I just read that Obama wants another Q&A with the Rs (that last one was awesome, more of that!) And he has one lined up with the Ds in the next few days. Bring it.

    Great to have an intelligent, motivated public servant that actually has a command of the issues. Oh wait, wwnj is more impressed by dumbya cuttin brush.

  53. shcb Says:

    Loan guarantees in a budget are a good step, but it has to get through congress, how much political capital is he willing to risk to get a bunch of plants built? Will he use some capital to reduce regulations so the plants can actually be built? He didn’t seem to want to talk to these folks before his poll numbers plummeted and he lost his filibuster proof Senate. He may have turned a new leaf and is on the road to being one heck of a president, but color me skeptical.

  54. enkidu Says:

    it is live on-line right now 7 AM PST
    no edits, all the warts
    no teleprompters, no bs
    this guy is a leader and the more he leads, the better off America will be

    oh right he wasn’t born here, is a marxist socialist muslim nazi
    kookookachoo

    take a look at research 2000′s recent poll of self identified Republicans
    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1467/why-i-am-not-republican

    nearly 40% say Obama should be impeached (for what exactly?)

    31% think Obama is a racist who hates white people (!)

    53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President (I just threw up a bit)

    and 23% think their state should secede (to your dilapidated trailers GO!)
    one can only guess which states those might be… please, just go… don’t let the door hit you on your obese behinds… go. It will lower the deficit, make America smarter and banish racism to the wwnjs like, well, wwnj. go. go Galt, go f!ck yourself, but just go. Please take NASCAR and the WWF with you.
    k thx bai

  55. shcb Says:

    Danica makes her ARCA debut Saturday, see if she can play with the kids before she takes on the men. Then it’s the longest pre game show in sports, A week from Sunday, the BIG SHOW!!! Daytona Baby!

  56. Smith Says:

    Turn left

  57. Smith Says:

    Enky,

    Why do you hate the World Wildlife Fund?

  58. enkidu Says:

    f!kin Pandas!
    (recalls tragic scene from Tropic Thunder)

    ps – thx for making my point wwnj

  59. NorthernLite Says:

    I’m glad to see Obama has got his groove back. I hope now he can get some things done.

  60. shcb Says:

    Enky,

    No problem, glad I could help, I would say NASCAR fans are predominately conservative, but we don’t care if you are a liberal or a conservative, man or woman, black or white, if you like fast and know the difference between loose and tight, you’re one of us.

  61. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I ask this in all sincerity: What is the appeal in watching cars drive in a circle for 3 hours? What about the sport draws you to it?

    I really am being sincere. I like to watch baseball and I know a lot of people find that sport pretty boring as well, so I was just wondering what I don’t ‘get’ about NASCAR. And is Danica a woman driver that might be racing this year?

  62. shcb Says:

    A lot of the reason for watching racing is the same as baseball, the game itself is boring, it is the strategy that is interesting. Why is the coach pulling the pitcher in the third inning when he isn’t doing that bad, well, they are in the lead enough to put in that young kid and the manager wants to use the pitcher later that week in what looks like a tougher game.

    Why is that car pitting now, he has enough gas to go another ten laps. Yes he does but the handling on the car is so bad they are loosing ground, so they come in early make adjustments, put new tires on the car and then it is much faster than the cars with thirty laps on their cars, then they hope the race goes green long enough that when a caution comes out all the cars pit at the same time and they are back in the same sequence as the rest of the field, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. If the kid blows up and the baseball team loses, the manager looks like an idiot, if they win both games he is the smartest baseball man on the planet. With ten laps to go do you put on four tires, two tires, no tires. Why is he bunting with a man on first and second?

    Also as you know with baseball you have to have a team, if you don’t have a rooting interest in the game it is boring, you have to pick a driver and stick with him through thick and thin, I know these guys dogs names for crying out loud. And last but not least it is one of the few sports, golf being another, where all the teams are on the same field every week. Are the Dodgers better than the Rockies? They play enough that you could probably make a good case one way or the other, but what about an AL team? They may only play each other once every few years.

    And yes Danica is a girl, Danica Patrick, she is pretty, well spoken enough, has no problem stripping to a bikini for a promo shot and is the only woman to win an Indy race, she is a marketing machine. The best she has ever done at Indy is fifth and yet she is the most popular driver on the circuit. But open wheel cars and stock cars are very different machines so we’ll see how she does.

  63. shcb Says:

    opps, she won an Indy car race not the Indianapolis 500 that was confusing

  64. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks, I understand better now. That was a pretty good response.

    Now I’m off to Google to check out Danica :)

  65. NorthernLite Says:

    Damn, she’s pretty hawt. I could see why she’s a marketing machine.

    How do you men drivers feel about her racing alongside them?

  66. shcb Says:

    Now that is a funny story, in the old days these were big machines with no creature comforts but they have power steering now so strength isn’t an issue. She went to one test and spent 8 hours in the car, never got out to pee, got all the good ‘ole boys a little nervous . For the most part the drivers that don’t like her are using the company line that there have been several open wheel drivers that have tried to make the transition to stock cars and have really struggled and they were world champions in the open wheel cars and she isn’t even close to that record. One that made the transition pretty quickly was Tony Stewart, guess who the first person she talked to and what the conversation was about, yup, Tony and how do I transition. Most are just not saying much, the smart ones, but there are a few that use the right words but you know they don’t to have to add a women’s bathroom to the garage.

  67. shcb Says:

    Professionally, she is just another rookie, they are never to be trusted, if you get next to a guy that doesn’t know what he is doing they can crash and take you with them so for now they can ridicule her with impunity and just say they would say the same thing about a guy that was a rookie, but if she does well and stays out of trouble… I’m also guessing all their trophy wives aren’t going to like her either, but I don’t know that, she may be greeted with open arms. These NASCAR wives do a lot of traveling with the circus of motor coaches, private jets and car haulers and are a pretty tight knit group, they are always open to another wife joining the exclusive club but that woman has never been a driver.

  68. shcb Says:

    Nl,

    Danica did great, they might have to add a second bathroom, although as tough as she is they might just have to learn to share the one they have. She started mid pack, she was spun out at one point, took a wild ride in the grass at 190 mph , went back on the track, kept it out of the wall and in about 5 laps was back in 7th place. Now this was in a race that is the equivalent of AAA team in baseball so she wasn’t racing the big boys but the way she handled that slide was truly impressive.

  69. NorthernLite Says:

    Cool, when does the new season begin? Is Daytona the first race of the year? I always thought that was the “main” race of the year and was at the end lol, shows how much I know about the sport. But I do admit the presence of a hot girl racing out there with a bunch of mostly redneck men is intriguing to me :)

  70. shcb Says:

    Yeah, we’re rednecks, we hold our Super Bowl at the beginning of the season, go figure. The Daytona 500 is this Sunday. Danica is racing this weekend I guess, she wasn’t supposed to race until the following race at California. She is racing in the Nationwide race on Saturday 1pm eastern if you’re interested. The Nationwide series is the second echelon with cup cars the upper echelon, that race is the Sunday race.

    http://www.nascar.com/2010/news/headlines/bg/02/08/dpatrick.debut.nationwide.daytona/index.html

  71. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks for link.

    Just so you know I didn’t mean “rednecks” in a bad way. I call myself a redneck all the time because I live in the country, drive a pick-up truck, fish and drink every Friday night in my buddy’s shed with both the wood stove and the Johnny Cash cranked right up.

    So are the Nationwide Series and the Sprint Series kind of like the National and American Leagues in baseball? Or is the Sprint Series where every driver wants to be one day? (more money/fame, bigger crowds, etc?) I recognize a lot of names in the Sprint circuit but not in the Nationwide. What are the determining factors for which series you race in?

    I appreciate you taking the time to explain this shit to me. I realize I could probably use the Google but you a good way of keeping things simple.

    Plus, I think I heard on the news a while back that Canada is building a big track somewhere up here and hopes to be hosting a NASCAR race soon. You hear anything about that?

  72. NorthernLite Says:

    This is what I was talking about:

    http://www.cdnmotorspeedway.com/

    Not only are they building one… it’s only about an hour away from me! They’re building it near Niagara Falls, Ontario. I think it says they’ll be racing there in 2011.

  73. shcb Says:

    Last things first, I hadn’t heard they were building a track there, there have been a couple three Nationwide road races in Canada and the Canadians were the best fans the announcers had ever seen, they were really into it, in the rain no less.

    The Nationwide series is a lower series than Cup (Sprint, Nextel, Winston have all been sponsors of the “Cup Series”) but anyone can race in the Nationwide series, some Cup drivers race both, the entry is by car owner not driver so Danica can race this weekend because the owner had enough points last year to have a car in the race, not because of anything Danica has done, but points to see who is the champion at the end of the year are by driver. So this weekend Dale Earnhardt Jr will be racing in the Nationwide and Cup races, next weekend he probably will only race in the Cup race. That is part of the strategy of NASCAR, Kyle Bush last year was trying to be champion of all three series, Cup, Nationwide and trucks, so he was jetting all over the country some weekends to hit all three races, if you have a good upcoming driver you may not want to put your Cup driver in that car because the young driver won’t get those points that weekend. Some Cup drivers like to drive both races at just a few tracks, they think it gives them an advantage on Sunday to see how the track is on Saturday, there are many agendas.

    It’s a little confusing but the two series are not on the same par, the rules are different in the two series, for instance you can use an unlimited number of tires in the cup series, in the Nationwide series you can only use 6 sets of tires for the whole weekend, qualifying included, this to reduce the cost of racing, the cars aren’t as expensive in the Nationwide series, I think they have fewer races, last year they were limited on the number of crew they could bring etc.

  74. shcb Says:

    You know, I didn’t even notice you used the word redneck :-) hey we is who we is.

  75. shcb Says:

    here’s a good 3 minute recap of Danica’s race

    http://www.nascar.com/video/nationwide-series/2010/post_race/highlights/02/06/arca_day_danica_high.nascar/

  76. NorthernLite Says:

    Apparently that track they’re building up here was designed by Jeff Gordon, I take it that’s good, right? It also has many environmentally-friendly features :)

    I tell ya what, this weekend I’ll be clicking back and forth between the Winter Games and the Daytona 500 races and I’ll give NASCAR an honest look. Now that I know a little bit more about it I may find that it’s more interesting.

    So, what do you want to know about Curling? lol just kidding!

  77. shcb Says:

    if anyone can build a good track I would think it would be Gordon, the older I get the better sports (games?) like curling look except that it is cold. Maybe I can design a teflon coated summer curling surface hmmm. Let me know how you like the races. I usually just have the tv on in the background and listen to the race so you can keep in the flow and then run like hell to see the replay. There is a short race on Thursday evening to set the running order of the 500 if you just want to get your feet wet, actually 2 short races. Half the field races in one and the other half races in the other, the way they select the drivers for the Daytona 500 is as convoluted as the formula of an Americas Cup 12 meter yacht

  78. shcb Says:

    That track looks great, 1 mile mini tri oval with variable banking, yup, Gordon’s hands are all over that one. Good locaton, love the educational/testing aspect and the enviromental scheme

  79. shcb Says:

    here is an explination of the line up procedure for the Daytona 500
    http://www.nascar.com/news/features/daytona.500.qualifying.procedure/index.html

  80. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah, I think the location is a really good one too, pretty much right between Toronto and Buffalo. I imagine hearing all those cars live at the track is something that can’t be imitated even with the best hi-def and surround sound system. Have you ever been to a live race?

    And whoa, you’re right, that’s not the most easily understood formula for qualifying! I get the Speed channel in hi-def so I should be able to check it out on Thursday providing it’s still going on when I get home from work (5:30pm EST)

  81. shcb Says:

    They replay the race later in the evening, check you listings as they say, no I haven’t been to a race, a friend of my wife gets a block of tickets to Las Vegas every year and invites us but we’ve never made the trip, we have another friend that had tickets to the Kansas race every year, she had tickets right next to the fence, she is a wonderful gentle soul except when she describes “eatn’ rubber” at the track, then her eyes glow an evil red. I think it would be cool

  82. shcb Says:

    the thing that has always killed a track in Denver is there isn’t enough of a general racing base here, we have too many other activities, sking for instance. I like the idea of using the Canada track as a test track for manufacturers, that is revenue you need. you can’t pay for a track with one or two big events every year.

  83. NorthernLite Says:

    One of my coworkers went to a race in Michigan last year (really not far from here either, about 4 hours) and her husband apparently got to drive one of the cars around the track! I think she said there’s speed limiters in them and other safety measures, but still that’d would be quite the experience.

  84. shcb Says:

    yeah, I think they still do about 150mph

  85. NorthernLite Says:

    Gotta love the genius of Google. Don’t know if you noticed, but if you scroll down to the bottom of this page and look at the right hand column you’ll notice that the “Ads By Google” has detected our conversation and adjusted accordingly.

    Too funny!

  86. shcb Says:

    wow!

  87. NorthernLite Says:

    LOL, I love it goes:

    -NASCAR Races
    -NASCAR 2010
    -Gauntanamo
    -NASCAR Games

  88. shcb Says:

    if it included Winchester and Skoal it would be a hat trick

  89. NorthernLite Says:

    I watched some of the Duel race last night, good ending! Can’t get much closer than that. I’m still kinda confused about how they determine who gets to go to the big race.

    Question: How many cars to these teams have? Is it just one? So if they got all banged up yesterday do they have to try and fix it before Sunday? Or do they have a few cars on hand?

  90. shcb Says:

    I believe each owner is limited to 4 teams, might be 3, that is a new rule change as of 3 years ago or so. Some of the owners had 5 teams and NASCAR were worried the sport would eventually be owned by a small hand full of men and the sport would turn into 3 teams racing instead of 43 cars. I think they typically have 7 or 8 cars ready to go at any one time, at least the well funded teams do some of those cars are specialized, they usually have one setup for the super speedways, one for road courses, and one for short tracks, the rest sort of general purpose cars. They always show up with 2 cars in the haulers the cars are in the roof of the semi trailer with a small shop and kitchen and lounge area under the cars. If they wreck in practice or qualifying and have to go to the back up car, they have to start the race in last place no matter where they qualified. Same thing applies to if they change an engine or transmission, or if the driver is late to the driver’s meeting on the day of the race, to the back of the line. Jimmie Johnson had a minor wreck in practice this week, they had it on a truck back to Charlotte within minutes so it could be repaired and back in Daytona for the race just in case they needed it. After every race the hauler takes the cars back to Charlotte, load new cars and parts and head to the next race. The logistics of the sport are amazing. The second race of the year is always California and the third Los Vegas, think how many miles that is on those trucks.

    A speedway car is about a quarter million, a general purpose care is in the $200,000 range I believe. It costs around 20 to 25 million to run one of the top teams per year. And these owners don’t just own the Cup cars they also own cars all the way down to your local track, like the farm system in baseball, it’s huge business. And NASCAR is owned by one family, the France family. The buck stops here.

  91. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks, I’m starting to see the more strategic elements about the sport, which does make it more interesting.

    Then there’s short tracks and long tracks which I would think changes the dynamics quite a bit too eh.

  92. shcb Says:

    Oh yeah, at a track like Daytona and Talladega it really doesn’t matter where you start because of the draft, one car is slower than two lined up behind each other a few inches, three is faster than two etc… so if you get a train of 4 or 5 cars they can move from the rear of the pack to the front in a lap or three. Some of the short tracks like Bristol are very difficult to pass so qualifying time is critical you may only be able to advance your position 10 places in the whole race so if you start 30th…, the brakes on a Daytona car are about the same size as your personal car, on a short track they are probably 3 times the size. At a fast track aerodynamics are critical, you don’t want to bump into anyone in the least, at a short track where they only go maybe 120mph you can be competitive with the whole front of the car missing so if the guy in front of you won’t move over, you move him over. And then there are two road course races, telling these guys to turn right is comical so some teams bring in ringers from sports car circuits for those two races.

    You will hear the term restrictor plate, at Daytona and Talladega the tracks are so huge the cars would simply fly off the track if they had all the horsepower they will make so they put a plate between the carburetor (that’s right, 1960’s technology, no fuel injection) and the intake manifold, this reduces the horsepower from about 800 to not much over 400. this year they increased the size of the holes by less than 0.5mm and it has given them about 5 more horsepower, that is enough to completely change the completion of this year’s race.

  93. NorthernLite Says:

    I flipped back and forth between the Olympics and the race on Sunday, it was pretty good. Very long though, especially because of the stoppages. That was pretty impressive by Dale Jr. to almost take the race. I think in the last lap he shot up from 10th to second. When’s the first short track race?

  94. shcb Says:

    Bristol is march 21 and Martinsville is march 28, 2 shorttrack races back to back. after they get done beating each other up at Brisol there are always a couple grudges to work out at Martinsville, sort of hockey with 3000 pound sticks. The short tracks are fun but they can be confusing, within just a few laps they are lapping cars so it is hard to keep up with who is where, also if you have a flat tire you can easily go two or three laps down in the time it takes to change the tire. I think it’s Martinsville where the trophy is a grandfather clock, kind of cool.

  95. shcb Says:

    the next three races are on cookie cutter tracks and can be boring, then there is an off week after Atlanta, my suggestion is to skip the next few races and watch the short tracks, or just watch a little of one of the next three races to get into the tactics a little. NASCAR.com has a Nascat 101 section too that is really good, shows the cars, what tight and loose are, what the wedge and trackbar adjustments do etc.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.