North Korea's Fourth of July

Apparently inspired by all the bottlerockets we Americans were preparing to send skyward, North Korea launched seven missiles yesterday.

After firing six missiles over four hours early Wednesday, North Korea continued its unprecedented series of tests by sending a seventh into the Sea of Japan some 12 hours later during rush hour in Japanese cities.

Most of the missiles were known short-range weapons. They weren't test flights; they were demonstrations of North Korea's missile capacity.

One of the missiles was the new Taepodong-2, which some analysts fear can hit the United States.

But the missile considered most dangerous to the United States -- the long-range Taepodong-2 potentially capable of hitting targets on the U.S. West Coast -- appeared to fail on its first test flight after only 35 seconds and before it entered the second of two-stages, dealing a blow to the North Korean missile program, Japanese and U.S. officials said.

Before we go much farther, let's put some of these worries into perspective. The estimated range of the Taepodong-2 is thought to be between 2,500 and 2,800 miles. That's not far enough to hit the United States. There is worry that future versions of the missile could have extra stages that would boost the range to as much as 5,600 miles. But what all that boils down to is that we have no real idea of the missile's range, and it poses no current threat.

Second, while the missile exploding is better news than a successful test flight, North Korea would still have gotten useful telemetry out of it. The data they glean from the failure will increase the odds of success the next time they test it.

On the other hand, the failure could show the deterioration of North Korea's missile program:

Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank with ties to the Pentagon, said the failure of the first stage of the Taepodong-2 missile -- after working in 1998 -- could underscore that North Korea "hadn't done much with this missile in ten years."

"The possible bright spot is maybe they're really losing their edge. Of course, errors do happen. And it's not impossible that this was just a technical glitch, and they could put another one on the launch pad in a month, let's say," Goure said.

Of course, a conspiracy theorist might consider the possibility that North Korea blew up the missile intentionally. I'm not sure why they would do that, but with North Korea it's best not to rule out such things.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council is meeting to discuss the development (with China resisting strong measures and even South Korea opposing economic sanctions), Japan has imposed limited sanctions and just about everybody is condemning the launches.

So what does it mean? I'm inclined to consider it an Ann Coulter-like cry for attention, a bid for direct talks with the United States. That seems a bit pointless on one level: I wouldn't expect such talks to produce anything useful, given North Korea's past willingness to ignore treaties and agreements. But perhaps they think such talks might lead to U.S. concessions, and maybe they just want the prestige of being treated seriously by the United States.

As long as North Korea remains under China's wing, there's little serious pressure we can bring to bear. On the plus side, North Korea continues to be more buffoon than bear, wanting to be taken seriously but not truly interested in igniting a shooting war or doing anything that will cause China to withdraw support.

In the end I'm less worried about North Korea's own missiles than I am about their eagerness to sell their missiles and technology to anyone who wants them (hey, maybe that's what this was: a sales demonstration). It's bad enough for one crazy dictator to have such weapons; it's worse when he shares them with the other crazy dictators.

The one meaningful sanction we might try imposing is a ban on North Korea missile sales. That would hit them in their hard-currency soft spot, and also allow us to legally intercept shipments like the one that got away back in 2002.

After that, we can get back to worrying about their claims to have nuclear weapons.

Taepodong, missiles, North Korea, politics, midtopia

Coulter caught plagiarizing?

The New York Post reports that the developer of a plagiarism-detection program has found multiple instances of copy-catting by Ann Coulter.

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.

He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column....

Is this important? Not at all, unless you take Coulter seriously. And perhaps there's an innocent explanation. But as with her vote-fraud problem, it's good to see the karma system working properly.

Update: The company that syndicates Coulter's column has asked for details of the plagiarism accusations. This could either confirm or debunk the charges.

Update II: Here's a video of Barrie's appearance on MSNBC, which includes examples of the text he says was plagiarized.

plagiarism, Coulter, politics, midtopia

Bad omen?

I know news photographers have to work really hard to get new and interesting pictures of shuttle launches. But perhaps this guy worked a little too hard.

The caption:

A vulture sits on a pole near the space shuttle Discovery at Kennedy Space Center's Launch Pad 39-B Monday morning July 3, 2006 in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Workers inspecting the shuttle's external tank discovered a crack in the insulating foam. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

That's right. On a day when everyone is wondering if we can get the shuttle into orbit and back down to earth safely, we get a photo juxtaposing a vulture with the shuttle.

The launch was scrubbed twice this weekend, and now they've discovered a crack in the foam on the big external tank. They're still hoping to launch on July 4.

Which reminds me of the other crass shuttle-related imagery I've encountered. Way back in 1985, I spent a summer in Germany. One day some friends and I went shopping for fireworks. Among the items we purchased was a large bottle rocket with a little space shuttle on the top. Light it, step back, and watch it climb into the sky and explode.

I thought it was kind of funny at the time, a poorly thought-out tribute. Then two years later Challenger did it for real.

I still find this stuff morbidly funny. I've always had a weakness for gallows humor, which came in handy in the military. But I recognize poor taste when I see it.

Good luck to NASA and the astronauts.

Update: The shuttle launched safely, with no apparent damage from falling foam.

Challenger, astronauts, Discovery, shuttle, NASA, politics, midtopia

The media-military relationship

I came across this article in the Naval War College Review today. It's from 2002, but it's still a good exploration of why the media and the military so often find themselves at odds.

The author, Douglas Porch, is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School.

A choice and perhaps surprising quote:

the strained relationship between the media and the U.S. military has nothing to do with censorship—for the simple reason that media-military relations have always been rocky, never more than in World War II. The difference between World War II and Vietnam was not the presence of censorship but the absence of victory. In other conflicts, victory has erased memories of a troubled relationship; after Vietnam, the media was caught up in the quest for a scapegoat. Furthermore, the nebulous goals of the War on Terrorism, the fact that it is likely to be a prolonged operation, and the inherent difficulties from a media perspective of covering a war fought from the air and in the shadows virtually guarantee a degeneration of the relationship between two institutions with an inherent distrust of each other.

Indeed. Contrary to popular myth, the press during World War II was every bit as contentious as it is now.

And what about Vietnam? The canonical story is that it was the first "TV war", in which the press had nearly unrestricted and real-time access to soldiers, units and battlefields -- and then used that access to turn the public against the war. We didn't lose Vietnam on the battlefield, goes the mantra -- we lost it at home, our will to win sapped by defeatist media coverage.

This explanation, however, has been discredited by numerous studies. In fact, press coverage was generally favorable until the Tet offensive of 1968. As later became clear, that dramatic campaign was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong; nonetheless, it blasted the credibility of claims by the White House and Westmoreland that the United States and South Vietnam were on the threshold of victory. The critical tone adopted by the press thereafter “confirm[ed] the widespread public view held well before Tet, that the people had been victims of a massive deception” and that the prospects for success were in fact doubtful.

In fact, then, the press did not so much create public opposition as reflect it. And the government had no one to blame for that but itself. By routinely lying to the press (and thus the public) and painting a rosy picture of the war, their credibility vanished when Tet and subsequent actions exposed their deception.

And what about the media glamorizing war protesters? That's mostly myth, too. Press coverage of violent antiwar protests tended to increase support for the war by showing protesters in an unflattering light.

So what drives the poor relationship between the media and the military? Culture and mission, mostly. Setting aside hard-to-prove issues like "media bias", you just have two groups with different yet important goals.

Journalists want to shine light into dark places, to expose abuses of power, and to force public debate over issues that might otherwise never receive democratic scrutiny.

The military, like any bureaucracy, prefers to conduct it's business in private. Moreover, it's business is war -- the professional management and application of violence. This is inherently an awful thing that rarely looks good on camera. Moreover, the military necessarily breeds a culture of "team players" who adhere to strict discipline and often display a near-obsession with loyalty and security. Throw in operational security concerns, and one can understand why they're leery of, suspicious of or just plain disgusted by reporters.

So you end up with the classic standoff:

Military people typically believe that reporters, untutored in the fundamentals of the military profession, are psychologically unprepared to deal with the realities of combat. They fear that reporters, in quests for sensationalism rather than truth, may publish stories or images that breach security, cost lives, or undermine public support. For their part, reporters insist upon their professional obligation and constitutional duty to report the news. They consider the military’s culture closed, its insistence on operational secrecy exaggerated, and its “command climate” a barrier to outside scrutiny.

Both are right, to a degree; each reflect different facets of what it means to live in and defend a free society. Soldiers defend society from outside threats; journalists defend it from internal threats and the government itself. As with many such things, this comes down to an exercise in line-drawing; and the biggest problems arise when one side or the other tries to swing the pendulum too far in one direction.

But in the end, warfare in a democracy requires approval of the people. And that means the military needs the press.

Warfare is a political act. Political leaders, in democracies at least, must inform the public about foreign policy goals; the military must convince the public that it can achieve those goals at an acceptable cost; and both must do so largely through the press. Press reports of success and progress strengthen and extend public support. The media also familiarize the public with the military and with the complexity of its tasks. In short, the media offers the military a means to tell its story.

Familiarizing the public with the military is a crucial strategic need in this day of volunteer soldiers, when the share of the population that knows somebody in uniform has shrunk to tiny proportions.

The press needs the military, too: military connections are often the only way to gain access to the battlefield and to military deliberations -- the kind of access that lets a democracy know what is being done in its name. A press that cannot intelligently and fully cover the military in peacetime also cannot competently cover it in wartime -- and such a press is useless as a foundation of democracy.

The media-military relationship will always be a contentious one. But ultimately, that's a good thing. As long as a reasonable balance can be struck, their competing interests form a smaller version of the checks-and-balances that make our governmental structure so durable. The press provides public oversight -- and understanding -- of the military; the military uses the press to get its side of the story out. And that helps ensure that our military is used in support of democracy instead of to its detriment.

war reporting, media, military, politics, midtopia

Condi Iraq discussion caught on tape

For a fascinating look at diplomacy in action, check out this report from the Washington Post.

The official State Department version is that "there was absolutely no friction whatsoever" between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting of foreign ministers in Moscow on Thursday.

But a recording of the ministers' private lunch, made when an audio link into the room was accidentally left on, showed that "Condi" and "Sergei" -- as they called each other -- had several long and testy exchanges over Iraq.

For example, here's what Rice said in response to Russian concerns about security at diplomatic missions:

"Urgent methods are being taken to provide security for diplomats," Rice said. The sentence "implies they are not being taken, and you know on a fairly daily basis we lose soldiers, and I think it would be offensive to suggest that these efforts are not being made."

Lavrov countered that the sentence was not intended to criticize but was "just a statement of fact, I believe."

"I don't believe security is fine in Iraq, and I don't believe in particular that security at foreign missions is okay," he said. He suggested shortening the sentence to emphasize "the need for improved security for diplomatic missions."

"Sergei, there is a need for improvement of security in Iraq, period," Rice said in a hard voice. "The problem isn't diplomatic missions. The problem is journalists and civilian contractors and, yes, diplomats as well."

Just in passing, this -- along with the recent cable from the U.S. ambassador describing the security situation in Baghdad -- should explode the "everything is fine in Iraq" mantra chanted by war supporters.

But mostly, it shows how bluntly diplomats speak behind closed doors. And it gives me increased respect for Rice.

The punchline:

Reporters traveling with Rice transcribed the tape of the private luncheon but did not tell Rice aides about it until after a senior State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity as usual, assured them that "there was absolutely no friction whatsoever" between the two senior diplomats.

Once the flabbergasted official learned of the tape, he continued the briefing. He paused repeatedly, asking before describing a discussion whether reporters had heard it.

Diplomacy is like sausage: you don't want to know how it's made. But I enjoy an unfiltered glimpse now and then. It gives me greater confidence in my government officials when I see them acting honorably in unguarded moments.

Lavrov, Russia, Rice, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Hamdan ruling, continued

The Washington Post has a good analysis of the Hamdan ruling, reflecting several points I brought up yesterday. The military commissions aspect got all the headlines, but the ruling is really a repudiation of the notion that Bush has near limitless "inherent authority" in times of war.

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission.

Which ought to worry everyone, including conservatives. Asking permission is at the core of our balance of powers.

"There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration's philosophy, said in an interview. "It's sincere, it's heartfelt, but after today, it's wrong."

Yep.

And what is the source of that legal reasoning? Here's one answer, from the New Yorker via Donklephant. The name is David Addington, Scooter Libby's replacement as Cheney's chief of staff. And he co-authored (with Alberto Gonzales) not only the infamous torture memo, but a legal strategy dubbed the "New Paradigm."

This strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share -- namely that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, "all Addington." Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an unopposable force.”

This view of unbridled executive power is what was disemboweled by the Hamdan ruling. But will the administration adjust its behavior? Somehow, I doubt it. Look for them to continue seeking forgiveness rather than permission, and force each and every action to be challenged by lawsuits before they conform to the narrow ruling in each case.

Supreme Court, terrorism, Hamdan, politics, midtopia

Space shuttle set for launch tomorrow

The shuttle Discovery is scheduled to blast into space tomorrow, weather permitting.

The weather delay nonetheless served as a reminder of the bleak forecasts for launch day. NASA predicted a 60 percent chance that weather conditions will ground the shuttle Saturday. The prospects aren't any better Sunday or Monday, as clouds from area thunderstorms are expected to continue threatening rain and lightning.

Regular shuttle flights are needed if we're to complete the International Space Station and keep the Hubble telescope operating until the James Webb telescope is launched in 2013.

In other recent space news, two moons of Pluto discovered by the Hubble telescope have been named: Nix and Hydra join Charon as Plutonian satellites.

That still doesn't settle whether Pluto is actually a planet -- and if it is, whether that means we have more than nine planets after all, because there are several nonplanetary objects in the solar system that are as large or possibly larger than Pluto.

Fun stuff.

I hope tomorrow's launch goes well and that the astronauts go and return safely.

Pluto, space station, space shuttle, Hubble, NASA, politics, midtopia

Soldiers accused of killing Iraqi family

Actually, it's a bit uglier than that. They allegedly raped a woman, then killed her and three members of her family.

The investigation is still in the early stages, so no one should jump to conclusions about guilt or innocence. But one soldier has reportedly confessed, apparently prompted to do so by the recent kidnapping and killing of two soldiers from the same regiment.

Assuming they are guilty as charged, this does not impugn the military as a whole. But it does show, yet again, why war should be a last resort. Because there's no way to keep war from getting ugly in lots of ways both large and small.

Also, how many such incidents add up to evidence of declining discipline among American troops? The perception will develop long before the actuality, of course, but it's still a concern. Even the best troops can endure the pressure and frustration of occupation duty for only so long. Most won't go the route demonstrated here -- a descent into pure criminality. But they might get less careful about discriminating between insurgents and civilians. Either would be a setback for our counterinsurgency efforts, not to mention the lasting psychological damage among our soldiers.

I'm willing to accept such things as an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of a necessary war. But since I don't think invading Iraq was necessary in any way, this is just another piece of "collateral damage" that didn't have to be.

Mahmoudiya, Army, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Kuwaiti women go to the polls today

Back in April, Kuwaiti women voted for the first time in a by-election.

At the time, full parliamentary elections weren't scheduled to be held until 2007. So the April vote, while significant, was a baby step.

But five weeks ago, Kuwait's emir dissolved parliament and called early elections. So today Kuwaiti women vote in their first full-fledged election, featuring 28 female candidates.

Even more interesting: because members of the all-male military are banned from voting, 57 percent of registered voters are women.

None of the female candidates are expected to win, but their mere existence is a victory for democracy in a conservative and tribal culture.

It's not all wine and roses, as one female candidate has discovered:

Detractors spread text messages ridiculing her Lebanese accent and Persian ancestry. Gossips whispered that the Bush administration was bankrolling her efforts. Vandals tore down her campaign posters. Islamist hardliners lambasted her for refusing to wear a veil.

"If I put the veil on today, I know I could get 600 or 700 more votes," she said. "But I won't. I respect my religion, and I won't use it as a political tool."

As the barbs grew more ruthless in the final days before the vote, Dashti's family became so concerned that they implored her not to accept food or drinks from strangers for fear that she would be poisoned. Dashti agreed, but only after speaking out against the "psychological terrorism" she considers as great an ill as the violence that has marred elections in other parts of the Middle East.

Changing attitudes can take decades. But it started with one woman filing a lawsuit. And now women are voting, and able to vote for female candidates. Of such things are great changes made.

Dashti, Kuwait, politics, midtopia

Mideast heats up (again)

There was a brief (if probably meaningless) moment of hope in Palestine a couple of days ago, when Hamas and Fatah agreed to recognize the so-called "prisoner's manifesto", which implicity recognizes Israel.

But Hamas later denied that it agreed to recognize Israel. If so, then this is worrisome:

The deal appeared likely to lead to the cancellation of a July 26 referendum Abbas had scheduled, over Hamas's objections, on the prisoners' document. Such a showdown would have heightened tensions between Fatah and Hamas, whose fighters have clashed repeatedly in recent weeks.

So what we might have here is a meaningless deal that allows Abbas to cancel a divisive referendum -- and squander a chance to move Palestinian-Israeli relations forward.

Things didn't get any better after Hamas-linked groups kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Israel responded by invading Gaza and arresting dozens of Hamas lawmakers -- and also venturing into Syrian airspace.

At times like this it's tough to avoid a "pox on both their houses" response. Hamas is split both politically and militarily, Abbas is largely powerless and Israel's outsized response to militant provocation further poisons the well. Israel may well have concluded that there's no point to negotiating or playing nice with a group that refuses to recognize their right to exist -- and they'd have a point. Israel also has a history of going all-out to retrieve captured soldiers, believing that it cuts down on the number of such captures. And again, they have a point.

But the fact is that the only way out of the current mess -- a mess that harms both sides -- is to show restraint and a committment to dialogue. Hamas' refusal to deal with reality carries consequences -- but Israel should strive to make those consequences proportionate. Otherwise Israel makes itself captive to the most extreme Palestinian elements -- elements that would like to see the peace process dead and buried.

Israel needs to battle the extremists and talk with the moderates, as does Hamas. But both need to take care that the methods used to achieve the former don't undermine the latter. Because the latter is the only thing that will lead to a long-term solution.

Shalit, Gaza, Abbas, Hamas, Palestine, Israel, politics, midtopia

No military tribunals for Gitmo trials

I am stunned and happy and feeling very appreciative of our system of government.

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

It should be a no-brainer that creating a separate legal system for arbitrarily defined prisoners -- one with far fewer legal protections than either our civilian or military justice systems -- was a bad idea. It might be Constitutional (though still ill-advised) if Congress created such a system, but to do so solely through executive power represented an usurpation of Congress' role. I'm glad to see our judicial branch come down clearly on this.

In the short term, nothing will change at Guantanamo. But the ruling means the prisoners there must be tried either as civilians in federal court, or as military combatants under the UCMJ. Presumably they are entitled to a speedy trial as well, and won't simply remain detained indefinitely because the administration refuses to submit to a trial.

The ruling also deals a blow to the President's heavy reliance on his "inherent authority" to disregard laws he finds inconvenient. Part of his legal justification for the military tribunals rested on such "inherent" authority. This ruling kicks the legs out from under that argument, and points up that the only valid opinion on Bush's "inherent" authority comes from the judicial branch.

If Bush wishes to claim such authority, he ought to seek a Supreme Court ruling validating that claim -- not simply assert the authority and then exercise it until such time as a lawsuit challenging that authority wends its way through the courts. If an emergency requires him to act before he has an opportunity to seek such a ruling, he should still seek the ruling as soon as possible -- and use the power sparingly in the meantime.

The three justices that voted in favor of the administration's position were -- unsurprisingly -- Scalia, Thomas and Alito. John Roberts recused himself because he had heard the case as a lower-court judge; but he likely would have voted with the other three.

What's interesting about that is that it takes the idea of judicial deference to a whole new level. Their dissent rests largely on a law passed in 2005 that stripped the courts of any jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees. It's rather amazing to see three Supreme Court justices meekly accept Congress' power to arbitrarily diminish their authority over a geographic region. Congress has the power to regulate the courts, of course, but where does that power end? What would stop Congress from legislating the judicial branch out of existence, either by defunding it or simply narrowing its authority to the point that it is powerless?

But that's a battle for another day. For now the Supreme Court has reaffirmed some basic principles of American law, and for that we should be happy.

Hamdan, civil liberties, Supreme Court, terrorism, Gitmo, Guantanamo, politics, midtopia

Signing statements get scrutiny

Bush's previously reported addiction to signing statements will now get Congressional scrutiny, courtesy of Arlen Specter.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter yesterday scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday on President Bush's use of signing statements to claim the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.

Specter said he is asking the Bush administration to send an official from the Justice Department to testify before the committee about the president's legal contentions, as well as several constitutional law scholars. It was not yet clear who from the administration would come, he said.

"I think that the president is trying to expand his executive authority at the expense of Congress's constitutional prerogatives, and it's very problemsome," Specter said in a phone interview. "I want to get into the details with the administration on what they think their legal authority is."

Good for him. It's one thing for Bush to issue a signing statement saying he believes the law is wrong or unconstitutional; it's another for him to actually disregard the law. One is opinion; the other is constitutionally dangerous.

So what I want to hear is how Bush has treated those laws. Were the statements merely his opinion, or did they guide how (and whether) he followed the law in question?

Bush supporters note that he's not the first president to use signing statements, and the Justice Department argues that Bush's practices are in line with that of his predecessors.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle E. Boardman testified during the committee's hearing on signing statements [committee materials] that presidents dating to James Monroe have used the statements to express constitutional concerns about legislation. President Bush's use of the technique is "indistinguishable" from that of previous presidents, according to Boardman's prepared remarks [text], and the number of statements Bush has issued "is in keeping with the number issued by every President during the past quarter century." She continued:

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle E. Boardman testified during the committee's hearing on signing statements [committee materials] that presidents dating to James Monroe have used the statements to express constitutional concerns about legislation. President Bush's use of the technique is "indistinguishable" from that of previous presidents, according to Boardman's prepared remarks [text], and the number of statements Bush has issued "is in keeping with the number issued by every President during the past quarter century." She continued:

If she's right, then no problem. But I want to see examples of how various laws were handled. I want to know whether they're bluster or something more troublesome.

signing statements, Specter, Bush, politics, midtopia

Flag-burning amendment fails

... By one measly vote.

Obligatory meathead quote from amendment supporters:

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Yes, let's honor the men and women who died for our freedom by damaging one of those freedoms. Perhaps someone should send Frist a dictionary with the entry for "irony" highlighted.

You also have to admire the spin of the pro-amendment folks, who note that flag-burning has increased 33 percent this year.

The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents this year.

The number has increased to four, from three.

Yes, we certainly need an amendment to deal with that.

I am glad this issue is dead for another year. And I hope the November elections cause Senate support for this stupidity to recede.

Frist, free speech, flag burning, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Camptopia

I'm heading off on a camping trip with the family, so I won't be posting for several days. Meanwhile, check out the excellent posts at sites like Donklephant, the Moderate Voice and the Reaction.

politics, midtopia

Reserving a seat for Ney

In the Hall of Shame, that is.

Check out this squirming and word-parsing:

In the fall of 2004, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) told Senate investigators that ... "he was not at all familiar with the Tigua" and could not recall meeting with members of the tribe, the report said.

Six days after the interview, Tigua representatives testified at a committee hearing that Abramoff had set up a lengthy meeting with Ney in his office in August 2002 as well as a conference call, and that the congressman had assured them he was working to insert language that would reopen their casino into an unrelated election reform bill. Team Abramoff and the tribe that year became Ney's biggest donors, contributing $47,500 to his campaign committees....

Ney's statements to the committee have been contradicted by others as well, including his former longtime chief of staff, Neil G. Volz, in admissions he made this year as part of his guilty plea to corruptly seeking to influence Ney on the Tigua issue.

Busted! Ney's response:

Brian Walsh, a spokesman for Ney, said yesterday that the congressman's meeting with the committee "was a voluntary meeting -- it was not conducted under oath."

Translation: "Sure, I lied -- but it wasn't illegal."

Walsh also pleads a misspelling: Ney's calendar showed a meeting with the "Taqua", not the "Tigua."

Funny stuff. But it doesn't explain why Ney further claimed he never met with an El Paso-based tribe. Even if he got the name wrong, surely the location would have stuck.

Finally, Walsh complains that the report relied on testimony from "convicted felons." Well, yeah. But one of those felons is Ney's own chief of staff. It's pretty hard to impeach that kind of testimony with character attacks.

As a side note, the report details $4 million in payments from Abramoff to Ralph Reed, carefully funneled through Grover Norquist so that Reed wouldn't be taking money directly from gambling interests. Slimy as that is, neither Reed nor Norquist are Congressmen. Although this should certainly be a factor in Reed's bid for Georgia's lieutenant governor seat.

lobbyists, gambling, corruption, Norquist, Reed, Abramoff, Ney, politics, midtopia

From telephone calls to bank records

The big revelation in today's papers are that the government has been monitoring a huge international database of financial transactions, looking for evidence of terrorist funding so they can trace it and shut it down.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Nobody should be suprised by this. We know the administration was monitoring phone calls, and we know they were trying to trace terrorist funding.

The one thing I find surprising is that a company based in Belgium agreed to share the data, despite rules to the contrary. But they have U.S. operations, which makes them subject to U.S. law. And in the aftermath of 9/11 they were interested in helping if they could.

So is this program another warrantless wiretap program? Yet another power grab by the administration in the name of fighting terror?

Yes and no. As constructed, I have fewer problems with this effort than I do with the eavesdropping program.

First, it's not warrantless:

Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

Yes, it's a broad grab. But at least they're getting subpoenas (though it appears that's only because Swift demanded them). They're just National Security Letters, true, which require very little in the way of factual support. But it's better than just ignoring the whole warrant/subpoena process.

Second, it's mostly international records, and there are safeguards to keep the records of American citizens private.

Among the safeguards, government officials said, is an outside auditing firm that verifies that the data searches are based on intelligence leads about suspected terrorists. "We are not on a fishing expedition," Mr. Levey said. "We're not just turning on a vacuum cleaner and sucking in all the information that we can."

The auditing firm is a nice touch. But regardless, I have no problem with scanning foreign transactions. It's similar to what the NSA was created to do: monitor foreign communications. They don't need a warrant to do so, because foreigners have no protections under the Constitution.

So I don't have a big problem with the broad outline of the program. My concerns are smaller.

1. This program, created as a temporary, emergency measure right after 9/11, is becoming entrenched as a permanent tool. If this is going to be a long-term effort, then the program needs to ensure that it takes careful care of individual rights. As one official noted: while tight controls are in place, "the potential for abuse is enormous." It's the same problem we run into with other "emergency" powers claimed under the "war" metaphor; they are inherently incompatible with a decades-long fight such as we're facing with regard to terrorism. We need to find ways to access this data without invoking "emergency" powers that trample on rights.

2. If they're using an audit firm to ensure that every search is based on intelligence leads, that raises a big question: why do they need to use broad administrative subpoenas? If they know enough to request a record, they should be able to get a narrower warrant that would be far more protective of individual rights. The administration has shown little interest in such balancing measures. But as in the phone database case, it's not clear why -- other than a general desire to operate with as few restrictions as possible.

So while this program bears watching, and probably could use some reforms to make it compatible with long-term use, I don't find it as offensive as the more purely domestic operations that Bush has authorized.

banking, terrorism, Swift, NSA, CIA, politics, midtopia

As expected, House votes to slash estate tax

The vote was 269-156.

Now it goes to the Senate, where the vote is expected to be much closer.

Republicans trot out the same discredited rhetoric:

"I've never thought that every trip to the undertaker should be a accompanied by a trip by the I.R.S. to your family," said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. "Do I have to sell the corner grocery store or the service station, just to pay the inheritance tax?"

Of course, Republicans have been unable to show examples of that actually happening. I'm blown away by Blunt's ability to repeat a talking point with a straight face, even after it's been debunked.

The Democrats have it right on this one:

Democrats, with equal vehemence, countered that fewer than 1 percent of estates are subject to any tax and that a further rollback would benefit only the very richest families while widening the federal deficit.

"This is the Paris Hilton tax relief act — not Conrad Hilton, Paris Hilton," said Representative Stephen Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts. "This Congress has bent over backward to take care of the wealthy, the strong. Who do we neglect? The people who do the menial work."

It's all about priorities. And it makes no sense for this to be a top priority. Fix other things first.

Bleh. Let's hope the Senate is made of sterner stuff.

taxes, estate tax, politics, midtopia

Good for her

In an example of why we have warrant requirements, there's this story:

Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena.

Reutty says she was only doing her job and maintaining the privacy of library patrons. But the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department," which needed her help to identify a man who allegedly threatened a child.

If you read the piece, you'll note that the only thing the librarian did was uphold the law by requiring the police to have proper authorization before they accessed private records. Once the police did that, she helped them out and they found the guy they were looking for.

Now she's being condemned and faces possible disciplinary action for doing her job:

Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was "more interested in protecting" her library than helping the police.

"It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.

What's more serious: a slight delay in identifying a subject, or a complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment, thus creating an environment where the police have the right to demand access to any records they want, without having to give a reason?

And anyway, what if Reuty had simply acquiesced?

The whole episode is "shocking," Reutty said Wednesday. "I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."

Precisely. By insisting that police follow the law, she ensured that a crucial piece of evidence will not be challenged by defense lawyers and thrown out of court. And she ensured that neither the borough nor the police will be sued.

I don't actively fear my government; I think government in general tries to do a good job. But things like the Fourth Amendment are one reason I feel that way.

For instance, Britain doesn't have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights. Which leads to things like this:

The police have launched a crackdown on English soccer hooligans to prevent them from reaching Germany for the World Cup, officials said Wednesday.

Intelligence officers were stationed at ports across the country, said Commander Bob Broadhurst, who leads the Metropolitan Police operation against soccer violence.

Broadhurst said about 3,500 troublemakers had been ordered to hand in their passports before the tournament begins.

Think about that. The government prevents perfectly legal private travel by temporarily revoking the passports of 3,500 people they think might cause trouble at the World Cup. It's an arbitrary exercise of government power. A good idea, perhaps. But nothing stops the government from exercising that power for bad reasons.

The United States can revoke a citizen's passport, too, but only on very narrow grounds: they are a criminal defendant who poses a flight risk, or a condition of parole requires them to stay in the country -- that sort of thing.

Britain's not a bad place to live. But in many ways British citizens rely on tradition and the good graces of their government to protect them from abuse. They have laws protecting privacy, but they are not rights; they can be revoked as easily as they were granted.

Rights are important. Yes, they protect the bad as well as the good. But since the founding of this country we've considered that a good trade-off. We should not let security fears goad us into surrendering those rights.

Update: Reutty resigned in October 2006 after six months of battling the library board, and took a job as head of the Oakland, N.J., Public Library.

England, Britain, New Jersey, Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, privacy, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Puppy killed; call Judge Judy!

At the risk of becoming the Ann Coulter of dead puppies, I had a couple of unorthodox reactions to this sad story.

A miniature pinscher puppy in North Branch, just a couple of months old, was beaten to death by three boys, ages 6 to 8, for no apparent reason -- not that there's ever a good reason for doing that.

This is terrible. I am saddened. It was a difficult moment in our house when my daughter accidentally killed a toad. And having recently lost our cat, I know how much the loss of a pet can hurt.

But I couldn't help noticing two things:

1. The family is named Darwin.

2. The family plans to take legal action. Maybe small claims court. Or maybe not:

They also plan to take legal action in small claims court or on the TV show "The People's Court." The Darwins contacted the show and have been told there is interest in their case. If nothing else, the boys should get community service, Darwin said.

You know, when my dog is killed, the first thought that goes through my head is not "hey, let's call People's Court!"

I'm going to hell, I know.

animal cruelty, Minnesota, Bella, politics, midtopia

Less than meets the eye

Congressional corruption is a hot topic, but these seem to be more smoke than fire:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.

A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.

I'm all for scrutinizing lawmaker finances, and earmarks are a growing problem. But the connections here seem tenuous at best. For instance:

Arthur C. Zwemke, a Robert Arthur partner whose company plans to build a 1,635-home residential and commercial development on the site, scoffed at assertions that the Prairie Parkway had boosted the value of Hastert's land. The price for the land had been locked up in 2004 by land speculator Ron March, who then ceded the project to Robert Arthur Land, he said. The price, he added, could not have risen with the news of the Prairie Parkway funding. Besides, the parkway is still years from construction, he noted, and land prices are soaring as Chicago's sprawl moves ever westward.

The California airbase case is a little stronger, because even if Rep. Ken Calvert's gains were "in line with rising property values," one reason the property values were rising was because of his earmark. It's Congressional insider trading. So look more closely at that one.

The third case, involving Rep. Gary Miller, seems as weak as Hastert's:

Miller, the other California Republican, helped secure $1.28 million in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development in Diamond Bar, Calif., that he co-owns with a top campaign contributor.

Kevin McKee, a Miller spokesman, said the road improvement was a mile away from the development and had been designated by Diamond Bar officials as their top priority.

Scrutinize Congress? Fine. But care must be taken to avoid turning a concern about corruption into a witchhunt. Congressmen live (well, maintain a residence) in their district, and bring federal money home to their district. That almost inevitably leads to federal money being spent near places that the Congressman may have a financial interest in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Watchdogs must meet a higher standard of proof than simply pointing out those geographical facts.

Gary Miller, Calvert, Hastert, corruption, Congress, politics, midtopia