A New War Powers Act?

If both Warren Christopher and James Baker are on  board, you can be sure that it will end in disaster.

Al Franken thinks the people of Minnesota are stupid

Minnesota Public Radio:

St. Paul, Minn. — DFL Senate candidate Al Franken is out with a new television ad calling for an end to politicians becoming lobbyists.

In his latest ad, Franken says Congress should not debate how long Representatives and Senators have to wait to become lobbyists after leaving office. Instead, Franken says they should pass an all-out ban on lobbying for former members of Congress.

And to bolster his case, Franken ties his lobby ban proposal to perhaps the biggest political issue of the moment.

"Right now hundreds of former Senators and Congressman are lobbying for big oil and special interests. No wonder gas is at four dollars a gallon. I'm Al Franken in Washington. I'll fight for a new law to prevent members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists," said Al Franken.

In a fund raising message to supporters, the Franken campaign says its new ad will begin running today.

Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's latest ad features Coleman's wife saying that her husband is not influenced by special interests.

Egad. The only thing worse than lobbyist written laws would be the Congressionally written laws. Is there an argument here? Why should former public servants lose the right to pursue lucrative lobbying careers? Would such a ban, which obviously has no (and I mean absolutely zip zero none) chance of ever becoming law, be constitutional under the First Amendment? My gut reaction would be no, but I haven't completely thoght it through.

In any event, it's a stupid idea on its face. Not all that surprising given our choices for Senator in Minnesota this election year.

 

Maddie's Bad Day

 I thought I'd taking a break from watching the Turkey/Croatia match (you didn't think I'd be studying for the bar, did you?) to tell a short story about last Wednesday afternoon. As some of you know, my girlfriend and I have a 7-month old shepherd-mix puppy named Maddie, a humane society adoptee who is, quite simply, the greatest dog alive. Greatest, however, is not synonymous with smartest.

We've been giving Maddie sections of bones filled with marrow to eat and chew on. She absolutely loves them. Goes nuts for them. We've given her two or three of them in the past without incident, so we didn't think much about it when we gave her one late Wednesday morning. Maddie carefully manaically ate out all of the marrow and began to chew on the bone. In chewing, however, she somehow managed to fit the ring of bone around her mandible, over and behind her canine teeth, in such a way that we could not remove it without hurting her. Maddie remained calm, but was clearly nervous. We decided that this situation would require professional assistance to reach any kind of happy resolution, so off we went to the vet. Here's Maddie en route:

As you can see, she was in quite a state. Fortunately, we were able to be seen almost immediately after arriving. The vet who saw Maddie, Dr. Bob, said that, while rare, Maddie's situation wasn't unheard of; every two to three years he sees a dog in a similar predicament. He determined that the best course of action was to sedate Maddie and to then remove the bone with various bone cutting devices.This is, in fact, what happened.

After passing out, Dr. Bob used a large scissor-like tool to weaken the bone, cutting the part that was actually inside her mouth. Then, as you will see in the following video, he used a hacksaw to cut a deep groove into the side of the bone, and the scissor tool once again to finally remove the bone from her face.

Afterwards, Dr. Bob administered an anti-sedative and in a few minutes Maddie was up and about. She gave us dirty looks and stumbled around for the rest of the night, but by the next morning she was back to her old happy self.  Needless to say, Maddie doesn't get marrow bones as chew toys anymore.

Sham Legal Proceedings

Carol Williams of the LA Times reports on the latest GTMO kangaroo court development:

A judge hearing a war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay who publicly expressed frustration with military prosecutors' refusal to give evidence to the defense has been dismissed, tribunal officials confirmed Friday.

Army Col. Peter Brownback III was presiding over the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr. Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, in his role as chief judge at Guantanamo, ordered the dismissal without explanation and announced Brownback's replacement in an e-mail this week to lawyers in Khadr's case.

Footnote 10 of the New Torture Memo

Enjoy this nugget:

Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court's treatment of the destruction of property for the purposes of military necessity, our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 200 I).

Robert Delahunty? Where have I heard that name before? Was it when I said his legal reasoning was either incompetent or disingenous? Or maybe it was when I said I would be humiliated for my law school to be associated with him in any way, shape or form?

I wonder what Ivan, Yates, Eric, and Emily would do if the controversy arose today? Would they once again sign the Delahunty counter-petition, "oppos[ing] the attempt to block Mr. Delahunty's placement as a temporary professor"? Or would they agree with me that a man who gives advice like Delahunty's will be judged very harshly (if not by the law, then by history and by his contemporaries) and should be shunned by a school such as ours?

Let that footnote soak in for a while and get back to me. I'll be reading the rest of the memo.

Outlook/Google Calendar Sync

This is useful and long overdue.

1% of American Adults are Locked Up

Land of the free indeed:

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.

Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.

The report, from the Pew Center on the States, also found that only one in 355 white women between the ages of 35 and 39 are behind bars but that one in 100 black women are.

Mandatory minimums are wrong and unfair. The "war on drugs" is wrong and counterproductive. One in nine is an absolutely shocking number of incarcerated young black men. Wake the fuck up, people.

Gulf Music

Joel Brouwer reviews Robert Pinsky's latest collection in tomorrow's Sunday Book Review:

[I]n “Gulf Music” Pinsky offers us his most valuable contribution yet: not just an argument for but a demonstration of contemporary poetry’s necessity and vitality in our democracy.

“Deciding to remember, and what to remember,” Pinsky has written, “is how we decide who we are.” Poetry’s role in that process is simultaneously to preserve our common American memory and honor our diversity, to make music in the gulf between unum and pluribus. This is an intractable instance of the one-many problem if ever there was one, but Pinsky seeks from the first to address it in his new collection’s opening “Poem of Disconnected Parts.”

At Robben Island the political prisoners studied.
They coined the motto Each one Teach one.

In Argentina the torturers demanded the prisoners
Address them always as “Profesor.”

Many of my friends are moved by guilt, but I
Am a creature of shame, I am ashamed to say.

Culture the lock, culture the key. Imagination
That calls the boiled sheep heads in the market “Smileys.”

With its clear language and sturdy blank verse, the poem offers images of state violence past and present, intimate moments of self-analysis, allusions to Homer’s “Odyssey,” ambiguous references to the poet’s own family history that no reader unfamiliar with his earlier books would understand, philosophical conjectures, even the thoughts of a traditional Zulu healer: “The Sangomo says in our Zulu culture we do not / Worship our ancestors: we consult them.”

Romney '08, R.I.P.

Mitt Romney, it seems safe to say, will not be the GOP's nominee for POTUS this fall as I boldly and daringly predicted many months ago.

Though Mitt isn't going to get the nomination, he came pretty damn close. I first picked Romney to be the nominee in April 2006, when he was a relatively obscure state governor, after watching a rerun of this interview he did with Brian Lamb. Even though he was undeclared at that point, it was clear to me that the conditions were right for Romney to run, and that the field was thin enough for him to actually pull it off. I maintain that both of my premises were correct. Romney just didn't execute (and I may have underestimated the fear and distrust that many Americans have for members of the LDS church). In the final analysis, my political prognosticating was impressive but imperfect.

Romney's loss is Hillary's victory. McCain is really not the guy that the Republicans (should) want as their standard bearer. He might be the most palatable of what's around (due to an irrational dislike of Mormons), but let's face the facts--"McCain has built his presidential aspirations and image on an angry regimen of poking sticks in the eyes of conservatives on basic principles by working to advance liberal goals." Just how much do conservatives dislike is John McCain? Let's put it this way: Ann Coulter is saying that she'll campaign for Hillary if McCain wins the nomination.

I've never wanted Mitt Romney to be president; I just thought that he was the best shot the Republicans had at maintaining the White House. 

This is a complete tangent, but do you remember 2006? Back when George Allen was the presumptive GOP nominee? I wonder where he is right now? Remember the YouTube clip that took him down?  

Ah, good times.

Anyway, the republican party is in complete disarray right now. It's schizophrenic for the GOP to nominate a man who almost defected from the party to be president, but there it is. November will bring new, larger, democratic majorities in both houses of congress, and a democratic president-elect. I'm not saying that Mitt Romney could have stopped this, but maybe he could have stemmed the tide a bit.

Tom Cruise says strange and obviously false things.

If you haven't seen the batshit-crazy "Tom Cruise, Scientologist" video yet, you should. I haven't figured out how to imbed it, but you can find it here. If you'd rather not sit through nine minutes of disconnected platitudes, unfamiliar acronyms, and incredulous assertions, you can find highlights here courtesy of the Telegraph.

What the fuck is wrong with this guy?

My prophetic vision begins to take focus as Romney takes Michigan

I hate to quote Hugh Hewitt, but when he's right he's right:

Cue the fat lady for Huck and McCain.  The former can't get above 15% with a huge effort, and McCain can't win in an open primary state, one crucial to the fall, even when the Dems take a bye?

This is exactly right. Anyone who doesn't see this loss as a huge embarrassment for John McCain in particular (who won the GOP Michigan primary in 2000) hasn't been following the GOP race for very long.

Also, it gives me great joy and satisfaction to point out that Rudolph Giuliani managed to earn a meager 3% of the vote. What I want to know is when Fox will stop inviting him to their debates?

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that Michigan was a massive embarrassment for John McCain (and, more importantly, for Dillon Forsyth) and a desperately needed victory for Mitt Romney.

Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney

Rudy is imploding. Ann Coulter is viciously attacking Mike Huckabee. With Tancredo's endorsement shoring up the violently xenophobic wing of the republican party, Mitt Romney has never looked stronger. Look out for John McCain, however, who is now in a statistical dead heat in New Hampshire after receiving endorsements from the Des Moines Register and the odious Joe Lieberman. Stay tuned for more drop outs...

This is what leadership looks like

Chris Dodd for President!

Sam Stein reports:

Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance.

The measure was part of a greater bill to reorganize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Earlier on Monday, the Senate, agreed to address a bill that would have overhauled FISA, authorized the monitoring of people outside the United States, given secret courts the power to approve aspects of surveillance, and granted telecom companies retroactive immunity for past cooperation.

But the threat of Dodd's filibuster, aimed primarily at the latter measure, persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period.

<snip>

A smile on his reddened face, Dodd was at once gracious and joyful by the turn of events. He had been arguing his case for approximately eight hours.

"I want to thank the leader [Sen. Reid]," he said. "This is an awkward time. We want to get the bill done. My longstanding concerns were over retroactive immunity. Look forward to coming back in January. And hopefully between then and January a suggestion can be made to compromise without granting full immunity...I appreciate the fact that we will not have to pursue this further."

Dodd flew back from Iowa last night to personally rally against the amendment to the Protect America Act. After the Senate agreed, by a vote of 79 to 10, to move to debate, Dodd took to the floor. Over the course of the day, the Connecticut Democrat criticized the idea of granting immunity. Expanding on similar remarks made by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, he noted that that the original FISA bill already included an immunity clause and that the courts, not Congress, should decide whether telecom companies deserve legal protections.

While he never technically conducted a filibuster, according to aides, Dodd left the floor only once, to address a press gathering. He did, on occasion cede time to his Democratic colleagues. But even then, they say, he remained engaged in the debate.

"Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand," said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. "They said if it weren't for him they wouldn't be having this much-needed debate."

The National Review endorses Romney

From the Editors:

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

<snip>

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

<snip>

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

This is the argument that will propel Romney to the GOP nomination.

Just so we're all clear, in no way do I endorse or support Mitt Romney in his quest to be President. Mitt Romney doesn't give two shits about the issues that I think are important (and, if he does, we are in total disagreement about what to be done about them). The only point here is that Romney is going to be the GOP nominee, as I've maintained for over 18 months. I get what makes Republicans tick.

Thacher Proffitt & Wood announces lay-off plans

The market for asset backed securities ain't what it used to be: 

Wall Street firm Thacher Proffitt & Wood this week informed about 50 associates that their futures at the firm were uncertain because of the collapse of the market for mortgage-backed securities, writes the New York Law Journal.

The firm's warning - first reported on Tuesday (27 November) on legal gossip blog Above the Law - affected 24 non-first-year associates, who were told they were almost certain to be laid off in January unless the credit market substantially improved.

Additionally, the firm offered 29 first-years the option of taking four months' severance and leaving the firm. Thacher Proffitt chairman Paul Tvetenstrand had previously said the firm would not have associate lay-offs, but he said on Tuesday that the outlook for the asset-backed securities (ABS) market had grown worse in recent weeks.

Of course Romney will be the nominee

The funny thing is that what was once just a prescient vision of mine is now conventional wisdom supported by empirical data. Who cares what drunk-ass pathological-contrarian Christopher Hitchens thinks?

As regards the merits of your argument, La Rana's reply stresses the point that I've made to you time and time again:

If you are gonna ask Mitt about Joseph Smith and rapture in Missouri I think you have to ask everyone else about virgin births and resurrection. Which is to say that since they are all goddamn crazy and believe in magic, who cares what type?

Oh No!

Sean Taylor's been shot! Twice! Once in the groin femoral artery? His career is offically over. Fuckkkkkkkkkkkk.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the Sean and his family.

Update on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 11:28AM by Nicholas Rogers

Some of Taylor's greatest hits:

Symbolism

A friend sent me a link to this weird "story" that appears on an ABC blog called Political Radar. It's a ridiculous seven paragraphs that I won't do you the disservice of reprinting here. The meat of it is that several American flags fell down near Hillary Clinton (Ed. -- That's it, really? That's the whole story? Why would a reputable well-known news organization like ABC publish such tripe?). This occurrence was enough to cause certain anti-Hillary commenters to foam at the mouth. This comment is representative of the idiocy inspired by the "work" of Eloise Harper and Rick Klein:

If one believed in symbolism, or metaphors, one might think the Gods on Mount Olympus were sending a message with the falling flags about what will happen to America should this woman be elected our president. Where is a good Delphi Oracle when you need one?

In an effort to make more money, the press is desperate to turn an uninteresting democratic primary into an interesting one. There has been a concerted effort of late to manufacture a "Hillary is vulnerable" narrative. Too bad it isn't true. She isn't vulnerable. She has been dominating this thing from day one (and I say this as someone who isn't an enthusiastic supporter--if I had my way, Chris Dodd would be the next president). This artificial symbolism isn't going to change that.

But as long as we're talking about symbolism, let's talk about how to explain this to future generations: 

Now that is symbolism. That clip pretty much sums up the entire Bush presidency.

Privacy and Retroactive Immunity

This should give La Rana a small stroke:

Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

Read that definition of privacy, bolded above, again. Roll it around in your mind and really get a feel for the awfulness of it. That's from a speech given by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Donald Kerr in San Antonio, Texas on October 23, 2007, and it foreshadows the testimony he will give this week. The AP's Pamela Hess provides some useful context for Dr. Kerr's remarks:

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping suits are pending.

Daniel Solove provides some insightful analysis:

The Constitution and the laws that regulate government surveillance aim to set up a system that allows for surveillance so long as there is judicial and legislative oversight, as well as accountability. A baseline assumption that underpins these protections is that we have a government of checks and balances, where each branch exercise meaningful limitations on the others. But when this assumption is wrong, the system fails. When the limitations, the accountability, and the oversight are stripped away, there's nothing but naked government surveillance by an Executive Branch bathed in unrivaled power. Executive officials can talk about "safeguards" and Congress can pass laws, but without a mechanism to ensure that the laws are followed and ensure against Executive overreaching, all of this is just empty rhetoric.

Basically, we have a set of rules for government surveillance but in times of crisis, it all doesn't seem to matter. The Executive Branch reigns supreme. That is our de facto law. Congress just doesn't want to say it, just as Mukasey doesn't want to say that waterboarding is torture.

The lawsuits against the telecommunications companies are probably the last hope for more information about the NSA surveillance program. They are the last hope for any indication that violating the law has consequences -- at least for some of the players. But Congress is about to shut the door. This sorry episode saps much of my hope for any meaningful limitation on government surveillance.

Chris Dodd has a list of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and their respective positions on retroactively telecomm immunity. 

We will likely see some major hypocrisy this week (Ed: From politicians? Is the sky still blue?). In particular, you should pay attention to those Republicans on the committee who oppose "rewarding illegality" (like Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley), to those who believe that "amnesty legislation . . . actually encourage[s] further disrespect for our laws" (like John Cornyn), to those who believe that granting amnesty without enforcing existing law "is a clear violation of our rule of law" (like Tom "I can't believe he's a senator!" Coburn), and to those who believe that "granting amnesty rewards the lawbreaker, pure and simple" (like Orrin Hatch). These men will expose themselves as frauds, as they will all cast votes in favor of immunizing conduct that "was clearly illegal -- even under charitablecreative dubiously-plausible fantastical interpretations of the law. "

However, I think that the Committee will ultimately do the right thing by recommending legislation that does not contain the immunity language. I believe this, despite the fact that Dianne "Barely a Democrat" Feinstein has already broken ranks, because Arlen Specter, the world's biggest hypocrite, has been saying things recently that give make me think he takes his job seriously (God only knows why I'm getting my faith in Arlen Specter. Desperate times, I suppose).

Anyway, we'll find out Thursday. And if I'm wrong, I'll just expatriate.

 (Illustration from The Heretik...no relation)

Chinese Sub Embarasses U.S. Navy...Again

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't an annual tradition.