Category: politics/law

judging roberts

Newsweek: Judging Roberts

This article is encouraging, given, you know, everything else. I was recently lamenting the political nature of modern Supreme Court nominations, wishing we could return to the days when nominations were
based on legal prowess, rather than stance on issues. I don’t doubt that Roberts’ stances, where they are discernable, are not necessarily in line with my own, and I’d rather he err with the Constitution rather than with the legislature, but… It’s also possible that he sees the difference between a district court and the Supreme Court, and will be less likely to side with legislatures when his is the final word.

Anyway, it’s impossible to know what kind of justice he will turn out to be, but I’m thinking it could be a lot worse.

first amendment martyr

I hate to assume that the current First Amendment firestorm is all politics, but the Rove revelation has me wondering. I believe that confidential sources are important in a free press, etc, etc, but the more I think about it (and, unfortunately, the more we know), the more I begin to agree with this editorial:

Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate scope of journalistic privilege. But we should keep the legal question distinct from the ethical question: Is a journalist ever ethically permitted to break a promise and divulge a source? However we answer the legal question, the answer to the ethical must be a resounding yes.

Should Miller have refused to offer anonymity to all those “high-level” sources who sold us a bill of goods on Iraq? Yes.

If it becomes apparent to a journalist that a source lied to him on a matter crucial to the public good, should he be ethically permitted to expose the lie and the liar, despite any previous promises of confidentiality? Yes.

If a source with a clear political motivation passes along classified information that has no value for public debate but would endanger the career, and possibly the life, of a covert agent, is a journalist ethically permitted to “out” the no-good sneak? You bet. And if the knowledge that they can’t always hide behind anonymity has a “chilling effect” on political hacks eager to manipulate the media in furtherance of their vested interests, that’s OK with me.

As an aside, one article I read this morning stated that author was no fan of journalistic shield laws, because what happens if they’re repealed? Have we then conceded that the Constitution doesn’t protect journalists?

redefining terrorism

The National Counterterrorism Center has redefined “terrorism” to include 3,200 incidents in 2004, up from 651 under the old definition.

I’m wary of any “redefinition”, but especially of one that changes numbers so drastically, and so clearly in a way that supports the administration’s priorities. On the other hand, CNN says:

the earlier estimate did not include the following:

• The February 27, 2004, sinking of a superferry in the Philippines that killed about 130 people when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels went off. The terrorist attack was one of the deadliest in the history of the Philippines.

• The August 24 downings by Chechen suicide bombers of two Russian airliners. The attacks occurred nearly simultaneously, killing a total of 89 people.

It certainly seems like any realistic definition of terrorism should include those incidents.

But what about the other 2,500? I couldn’t find a simple list of changes (I’d guess it’s more complicated than that anyway, although I don’t know), but here are the two I did find:

  1. Domestic incidents are now counted. IE, Iraqi insurgents attacking Iraqi police (but not Iraqi soldiers). Only international attacks were counted before.
  2. The new definition includes all damage and injuries. The old definition included only those attacks that caused more than $10,000 in damage or non-superficial injuries.

They’re also announcing the launch of a new website, the Terrorism Knowledge Base. It gives the following definition:

Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

Life would be easier if everything were black and white.

the most powerful woman

I know I’m late on this, but I can’t not comment. So in case you haven’t heard, Sandra Day O’Connor has announced her resignation.

This is perhaps the most terrifying thing I’ve heard in a long time. The composition of the present Court may not have been perfect, but O’Connor worked to temper both sides, and, for the most part, I’ve been okay with recent rulings. I know it’s a long shot, but I hope W gives some thought to preserving the balance of the Court and waits for Rehnquist to retire before appointing an ultra-conservative.

unintended consequences

I thought I’d missed my opportunity to post this because Newsweek starts charging for content after only a week, but luckily the author himself has archived columns available for free on his own site. I’m talking about Fareed Zakaria’s article in the June 27, 2005 (I know, I know, I’m running a bit behind here) Newsweek suggesting that US sanctions keep unwanted governments in power, even help consolidate their power, while free and open trade and discourse often result in a changing of the guard.

For almost five decades the United States has put in place a series of costly policies designed to force Cuba to dismantle its communist system. These policies have failed totally. Contrast this with Vietnam, also communist, where Washington has adopted a different approach, normalizing relations with its former enemy. While Vietnam remains a Leninist regime in many ways, it has opened up its society, and the government has loosened its grip on power, certainly far more than that of Fidel Castro. For the average person in Libya or Vietnam, American policy has improved his or her life and life chances. For the average person in Iran or Cuba, U.S. policy has produced decades of isolation and economic hardship.

How To Change Ugly Regimes

who will play you?

This poorly titled New York Times Opinion piece by David Brooks lends an interesting slant to the Woodward & Bernstein legend.

Watergate has become a modern Horatio Alger story, a real-life fairy tale, an inspiring ode for mediacentric college types – about the two young men who found exciting and challenging jobs, who slew the dragon, who became rich and famous by doing good and who were played by Redford and Hoffman in the movie version.