Quick news updates:

We just transferred sovereignty to Iraq two days early. Bremer left the country shortly afterwards. Surprise! (Ulp)

In three decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees of various sorts have the right to judicial review by the courts. (Important!)

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a medical marijuana case.

And “Fahrenheit 9/11” has set various box office records, including top grossing documentary, and interestingly enough has been selling out theatres in Republican strongholds. The overall meaning of this is still a bit unclear, but people certainly seem interested in seeing it.

Published in: on June 28, 2004 at 10:04  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

Things worth reading

Three important things from the news:

  1. The Washington Post has posted the full text of the DoJ memo suggesting how torture of detainees abroad “may be justified,” along with some related memoranda and transcripts of recent press conferences and senate hearings of interest. All very interesting reads.
  2. Next Monday, at 0630 PDT, the SpaceShipOne will attempt to become the first private manned spacecraft. It looks like it will probably work. (Knock on wood!) This is very possibly the coolest single thing on the planet at this time.
  3. And on a related note, on July 1st, the Cassini-Huygens probe is scheduled for orbit insertion around Saturn. Its route will take it straight through the rings, going through the F-G gap, then up close by the planet (snapping pictures all the time) and into an elliptical orbit. This is going to be extremely neat.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Published in: on June 14, 2004 at 19:57  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

Bloody hell…

Some “administration lawyers,” to be none to specific, apparently opined in a March 2003 confidential memo that the President is bound neither by international treaties nor federal laws regarding torture, and that any such prohibition “must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority.” (News story)

Phrased another way, torture is permissible so long as it’s for interrogation purposes and done for ultimately military purposes.

Or to highlight the obvious inference, the president is above all laws, federal, state, or international treaties, so long as he argues that his actions are in some way, shape or form pursuant to his duty as CiC of the armed forces.

Apparently this wasn’t a sole memo – there was a chain of them, largely prepared for Rumsfeld, used to justify activities first at Guantánamo, then in Afghanistan, and finally in Iraq. Much of its basis was an earlier memo (22 Jan 2002) from the Justice Department on arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war crimes.

Where the hell does our administration find these people? And have they lost their minds completely? Are they completely unaware of what happens when a leader or a military places itself above the law, above the Constitution, and above civil society?

(And let me state, for the record: I believe that commanders need a great deal of flexibility to deal with situations in war, especially nonconventional war. But decisions such as the use of torture cannot be unilateral and immune to judicial and legal review, and the President cannot demand blanket exemption from American law for any reason whatsoever.)

Published in: on June 7, 2004 at 20:43  Comments (6)  
Tags: ,

Supreme Court decision (!)

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that accusers have the right to confront witnesses which may exculpate them, and that the Sixth Amendment commands “not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.” (This being from the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia)

What I find particularly interesting about this is that certain other cases, e.g. US vs Moussaoui, are coming up in which this is expected to be a very substantial issue. A strong ruling from the court in this case – and with an opinion written by Justice Scalia, of all people – could be a very significant influence on what comes next, and could even provoke a constitutional crisis if Ashcroft follows through on his threat to unilaterally remove Moussaoui from the justice system if the courts rule in Moussaoui’s favor.

The case today was Crawford v. Washington, No. 02-9410.

Published in: on March 8, 2004 at 13:37  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Gay marriage

An interesting editorial by Jonathan Rauch on the subject of gay marriage.

Published in: on March 7, 2004 at 14:28  Comments Off on Gay marriage  
Tags:

The civil law, Part II: Gay marriage

A previous post discussed the general notion of civil law and why I believe it to be the foundation of the American legal system and a general good thing. I’d like now to continue with a series of posts in the next few days trying to apply this principle directly to some contentious issues today.
Subject 1: Gay marriage

Published in: on February 15, 2004 at 16:40  Comments (7)  
Tags:

On the civil law, Part 1: General issues.

In the past few months, I’ve heard the issue of gay marriage being debated on a number of fronts, like “civil rights,” “the sanctity of the institution,” and so on. But on thinking about it, I’ve realized that there’s a separate issue involved: The existence of civil law. Since this seems to have implications substantially beyond this one issue, I thought I’d put some notes about it here.

This first part is of a general nature: It’s about the whole idea of civil law and why it’s important. Part 2 will talk about the applications of this idea to specific political issues.
(more…)

Published in: on February 15, 2004 at 15:52  Comments (7)  
Tags:

A potentially serious matter (Domestic politics)

On 4 Feb, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force got a judge to issue a subpoena to Drake University in Iowa for all records associated with an anti-war protest held there on 15 Nov. (story, stora) The subpoena, issued under seal by US District Judge Longstaff, includes specific requests for all records regarding the protest leaders.

According to attornies from the National Lawyer’s Guild and the ACLU, this is the first such subpoena in several decades. (As a side note: These subpoenas were especially common during the 1960s, and were a particular favorite even before then of J. Edgar Hoover. Their primary purpose then was to assemble dossiers against political subversives and enemies of various administrations.)

The seriousness of this matter is, I hope, clear. The issuing of subpoenas of any sort, even for purely “informational purposes,” against demonstrators is designed and intended to have a chilling effect on speech; it is a specific act of the Justice Department to subdue ordinary political dissent. The subpoena has been challenged in court and hopefully will not stand.

In another matter, there was this story about investigations within the DoD. I can’t even begin to explain how furious this makes me. If any of these allegations are substantiated, these are matters for general courts-martial and the penalties which only they can provide; it brings into question the performance of the entire chain of command in any place where it happened, and of who allowed a circumstance to arise in which such a thing could even be conceivable. I only hope that all levels involved in this understand just how serious a matter this is.

Published in: on February 7, 2004 at 13:50  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Umm…

From Barron’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition:

Crime of Passion: … For instance, a man’s attack on another person with an axe after that person insulted the attacker’s wife might be considered a crime committed in the heat of passion.

Published in: on February 3, 2004 at 00:30  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Your random language thought for the morning:

A slip of the finger could transform an odometer, which measures distance travelled, to an odimeter, which measures the intensity of hatred.

A Google search on “odimeter,” however, only returned a handful of people who misspelled odometer. There are apparently no plans to market such a device, perhaps from lack of consumer interest.

On a completely different, note, the Supreme Court today refused without comment to hear a key case on medical marijuana, letting stand a ruling of the 9th circuit court of appeals that doctors may discuss its use with their patients without fear of reprisal. This was unexpected, as both sides had expected the court to take the case; the decision is likely to be interpreted as agreement by the court that the right of physicians to dispense medical advice supercedes the right of the federal government to make health policy. (Which is how the DEA phrased their case) The fact that nine states have independently passed laws to this effect may have had some impact as well.

OK, back to work for me…

Published in: on October 14, 2003 at 10:14  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,