"The United States is the greatest nation by default." And, he continued, it could be the greatest country ever if we would be open and honest about who we are as a nation (paraphrased).
- posted by C @ 9:59:00 PM 
Amidst all the political posturing about Iraq and the proper course of action/timeline for the U.S. withdrawal, somebody (Zogby) asked the troops. Kevin Drum has a summary of the results. Zogby release here.
I guess firing 'em all for insubordination would be a constructive withdrawal, right?
- posted by C @ 12:38:00 PM
The WSJ has this article about legal blogging or "blawging." The article not only quotes several prominent blawgers but, as should be expected, has generated much discussion on the very blawgs which serve as the article's subject.
See Althouse, Prawfs I and II.
- posted by C @ 8:52:00 PM
Via Howard, SSRN has Prof. Suja Thomas' article entitled "Why Summary Judgement is Unconstitutional."
- posted by C @ 8:46:00 PM
Balkinization has this post on the Navy memo revealed in this week's The New Yorker. See previous post for links to the article and memo.
- posted by C @ 8:43:00 PM
The past few days have brought fantastically interesting posts by Kevin at Washington Monthly's website.
After previously denying such reports, the U.S. confirmed force-feeding detainees at GITMO as well as other questionable practices.
UPDATE: The folks at PrawfsBlawg discuss.
And if you missed it, the United Nations called on the U.S. to address the human rights issues which abound at GITMO.
In a related story, this week's The New Yorker will have this provocative article about the Navy's then-general counsel Alberto Mora's memo which warned that the Administration's justifications for torture were unreliable and, ultimately, illegal. In addition, the reporter received a copy of the actual memo. Unsurprisingly, Mora's attempts to convince the Navy's Inspector General were unsuccessful and, as a result, here and here we are today.
- posted by C @ 8:36:00 PM
There has been a flash flood of discussion (if broadly defined) concerning the pending sale of operations of U.S. ports to an Arab company. Several observations are in order, some original and some in link-form.
Are you sitting down? Good. I think the president made a good point (in part)...still breathing?...Good.
At least as it has been attributed to him, the president rhetorically asked why this company is being treated differently than other non-Arab foreign companies (including other companies controlled by foreign governments). [Granted...the president did not know he was asking a question rhetorically, or even what that means, and this was probably an accidental lapse in his control over his inner dialogue.]
While I think there are some valid answers to that question (most of which could be found in the president's own policies to this point (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, airport screening, etc.)), I also believe that the president makes a good point. To assume that simply because a company is affiliated and/or controlled by a state that is affiliated with the same religion as terrorists who threaten our nation and its people, that said company will intentionally allow harm to befall our nation and its people is xenophobic and inconsistent. Based on that logic, no Christian person or company affiliated with a Christian person should be allowed in public buildings or granted government contracts because they might cooperate with the Ku Klux Klan (analogy borrowed from this episode of the best show in television history).
That said, there are valid issues with this sale. But, I believe the wholesale bandwagon-jumping is political opportunism and it insults the intelligence of the American people. Are some Americans going to create wild conspiracies involving the U.S. government selling its own people into slavery to the Arab world? Sure. But, they already have those theories. Many Americans, however, may be able to comprehend the difference between the terrorist network itself and a corporation affiliated with a state which, by the way, is consistently named as an ally in the war on terror. To conflate the terrorists with an Arab corporation is racist, period. The irony, however, is noteworthy.
The Bush Administration is now suffering this eruption of controversy (from both sides of the aisle, mind you) because it has been so successful in convincing the world that an Arab-looking person is suspicious (See airport screening, suspicionless arrests of Arab and Muslim men after 9/11) and that a person who practices Islam may deserve to be labeled an "enemy combatant" and relocated to a non-place on the island of Cuba or, worse, not be labeled at all and simply disappear to an undisclosed location (See GITMO, black-site interrogation, torture). As a great example, consider that the port transaction's opponents first point out that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- the state that "owns" the company in question -- as a base of operations. This is sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it? This rationale was the same used daily by the Administration to further its war on terror and, ultimately, the "military operations" in Iraq.
My point is karma. If you spend all your time and energy creating and manipulating the people's fear to serve your (political) purposes, beware of the consequences. The Administration has created this problem for itself by dumbing down or ignoring altogether a substantive discussion of terrorism (and its causes), the political and economic state of the Middle East, the proper role of diplomacy and economic incentives in the war on terror, and the actual threats to national security. Instead of educating the American people, the Administration has bravely and brilliantly created a nation of citizens who are told it is patriotic to be suspicious of people who practice Islam or look Arab. If the Administration had spent more time convincing the American people that not all Arabs are terrorists and that one way to defeat terrorism is to welcome economic exchange with Arab states, it may not be as easy for politicians -- many from the "new" Republican party which the Administration's own strategist helped orchestrate -- to stand up and bang the Great Drum of Fear. But, instead, the Administration spent time building the Drum, one innuendo-laden speech at a time.
Until recent weeks, the president has been leading a political parade, pounding the drum in the back of the pack. One by one, his band has begun to turn around and march the other way. And now, the president must choose whether to step aside and get out of the way of the parade he created or to be trampled by it.
My dogma ran over my karma.
Chickens came home to roost.
What goes around comes around.
Et cetera...
- posted by C @ 8:35:00 PM
It's not necessarily relevant to the overall theme(s) of this blog, but I must link to a post about Tiger Woods' performance at yesterday's opening round of match-play and motivation thereof.
- posted by C @ 8:15:00 AM
I have quite a few things I want to post, but I lack the energy. I'm just going to relax for a little while. I plan to post later. Bets, gentlemen?
- posted by C @ 5:13:00 PM
SCOTUSblog has brief summaries of and links to the four opinions issued today by the Supreme Court.
Notable:
One of my favorite legal writers is Dahlia Lithwick. She's one of my favorites because she writes with wittiness rather than condescension. Case in point, she became one of my favorite reads with this, her "Letter to a Young Law Student."
Yesterday, Ms. Lithwick covered J. Alito's first day on the highest bench in the land, a day which included an interesting debate over the Clean Water Act. [Hat tip: HB]
WaPo's Charles Lane covered the oral arguments here.
- posted by C @ 12:13:00 PM
Howard notes an interesting case concerning the definition of "Hispanic."
- posted by C @ 12:13:00 PM
Andrew Sullivan's column demands a read for its title, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run," if not for the fact that it's content makes sense.
- posted by C @ 7:27:00 PM
The new guys at Wonkette spotted this gem in KidPost, the Washington Post's mini-section aimed at younger readers.
As the boyz point out, V.P. Cheney struggled all week to explain why he kept the fact of his shooting of a close friend from the American public for almost 24 hours, KidPost editors were able to make it simple enough for their readers...in 100 words or less.
- posted by C @ 6:00:00 PM
In an UPDATE to my earlier post about Sen. Roberts' caving on an investigation of the so-called wiretapping "issue," he has changed his tune. (Via Kevin Drum)
- posted by C @ 8:49:00 AM
If you don't have an Apple, you're a cave(wo)man. Apple computers are fantastic (ignore today's news about the first security "issue" for Apple computers...unless you want to recognize the fact that they've been in production for 30 years, and this is the first such issue...compare that with your seemingly weekly panic-email from Microsoft...UPDATE: a second "issue")
- posted by C @ 6:59:00 PM
I have recently added Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish to my blog-reading (see post to-come). While he is a conservative (self-described), I thoroughly enjoy his blog for its (1) concise posts, (2) open-mindedness in content and linking, and (3) his principled disapproval of the Bush-style conservativism (C.I.N.A.F.P.P.O: Conservative In Name And For Political Purposes Only) and its inherent inconsistencies. He, of course, disapproves because their efforts have hijacked his ideology and/or political philosophy for their short-term political gain. But, I also sense a citizen's indignation in his tone. It's not just about betrayal of conservatism; AS seems to be offended from the standpoint as a citizen as well. Cheers!
I started to link to a few posts to illustrate my growing enjoyment of AS's contributions, but I realized that I had too many too suggest. Read 'em all.
- posted by C @ 6:28:00 PM
Sometime last year, I heard an attorney who has led the litigation of dozens of key civil rights cases make an interesting point that has stayed with me.
While discussing the civil penalties available after a finding of liability under the federal Fair Housing Act, he made an argument that the statutory language which creates an incremental system of fines for "previously adjudged" violations of the Act could be applied to demand increased penalties for multiple penalties in a single case. the statute in question, 42 U.S.C. 3612(g), specify civil penalties no exceeding $11,000 for a "first offense," $27,500 "if the respondent has been adjudged to have committed one other discriminatory housing practice during the 5-year period" preceding the filing of the complaint, and $55,000 "if the respondent has been adjudged to have committed 2 or more discriminatory housing practices during the 7-year period" preceding the filing of the complaint.
The argument: a strict interpretation of the statutory language could find that liability on the first "count" of a multiple violation charge necessitated an increased penalty for liability on the second and subsequent "counts."
For example, if an individual or corporation facing a single complaint which cited multiple violations of the Act (e.g. 3604(a), refusal to rent, and 3604(c), discriminatory statements) was found to be liable under the Act for both violations, a judge or hearing commissioner applying a strict interpretation could assess the second tier of the penalty structure (i.e. an amount not exceeding $27,500). That is, the Respondent would be found to been "previously adjudged" to have violated the Act -- the first "count" -- for purposes of assessing a penalty for the second of the two violations, even though both referred to the same incident or act.
Our instructor said of strict interpretationists on the Right, "If they're going to read statutory language strictly as a means to their end, why can't we do the same?"
I bring this up because of a FindLaw column regarding the constitutionality of the "NSA wiretapping" from a strict interpretationist viewpoint.
I believe that I believe that a strict interpretation can be -- and indeed should be -- the basis for analysis of a legal question. When a strict interpretation, however, is so strict that it stifles a rational application of the intent of the law to the present set of facts -- which demands consideration of the context (i.e. modernity) -- the result is not sound legal analysis. I guess my opinion is that "progressivism" in legal analysis can benefit from a strict interpretation of statutes.
An example for another day's discussion would be a strict reading of the Second Amendment and its legislative history. It is "judicial activism" to read the Second Amendment to allow weapons caching by private citizens for purposes of impressing the neighbors as opposed to permitting the formation of the Virginia militia in the colonial years prior to the formation of an organized army at the national level.
- posted by C @ 5:32:00 PM
David Broder's column from yesterday's WaPo caught my eye. In it, he wrote about the late Congressman Stanley Tupper from Maine. A Republican that practiced independence from his own party, Tupper included the following passage in a 1964 campaign brochure:
Stan believes a congressman should think issues through clearly on their individual merits without being concerned about labels; have imagination and the ability to suggest positive ideas; be sympathetic to the desires and aspirations of his constituents when not in conflict with the security and well-being of the nation; have personal courage to vote as he thinks wisest in face of political pressure and criticism; keep his constituents informed of his views -- it is just as important that people have opportunity to disagree as to agree with their representative; and, finally, that he should place a higher priority on conscience than on reelection.
Recently, it seems that the editorial pages of various newspapers have picked up the ball of "journalistic inquiry" that has been dropped by their counterparts on the reporting side of the office.
This editorial in today's NYT, for example, addresses Sen. Roberts' efforts to avoid his Senate Intelligence Committee fulfilling its responsibilities. I especially agree with the closing argument:
[h]e and the White House were working out "a fix" for the law. That is the worst news. FISA was written to prevent the president from violating Americans' constitutional rights. It was amended after 9/11 to make it even easier for the administration to do legally what it is now doing.
FISA does not in any way prevent Mr. Bush from spying on Qaeda members or other terrorists. The last thing the nation needs is to amend the law to institutionalize the imperial powers Mr. Bush seized after 9/11.
See CafePress for all your clothing needs...if your clothing needs include something with "dick cheney" and "shot" written on it. [Via PoliticalWire]
- posted by C @ 5:29:00 PM
Andrew Sullivan pulls his quote of the day II from the late Coretta Scott King:
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people, and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence, that spreads all too easily to victimize the next minority group.
Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Coretta Scott King, in 1999 at the 25th Anniversary luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund.
We may be addicted to oil, but we're not going to do anything about it...even when the President says we will.
- posted by C @ 7:42:00 AM
