Timeline of A Lie

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

On May 27, 2003:

The Washington Post reported last month that a U.S. fact-finding mission confidentially advised Washington on May 27, 2003, that two truck trailers found in Iraq were not mobile units for manufacturing bioweapons, as had been suspected.

So on May 27, 2003, the U.S. team informed Bush & Co that the two truck trailers were NOT for manufacturing bioweapons.

But two days later, on May 29, 2003, President Bush said:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two."

And two days after that on May 31, 2003, the lie was repeated by Rumsfeld:

"We have teams of people that are out looking. They’ve investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories."

Condi also helped spread the lie a few days later, on June 3, 2003:

"But let’s remember what we’ve already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that — dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described."

And Powell repeated the lie on June 8, 2003:

"I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, ‘Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?’ Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment."

And Cheney on January 22, 2004:

"We know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we’re quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We’ve found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."

Poke holes in that.

Wanker Of The Day

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

I like poking fun at conservative columnists, but this guy writing about immigration takes the cake. 

In an article about how to deal with all the terrible undesireables, a Christian columnist at World Net Daily actually invoked Nazi Germany …favorably:

[Bush] lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Ah, the good old days of mass deportation.

You know you have a bad argument when you have to use the Third Reich as your template.

Suicidal Troops Sent Into Combat

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Not theirs.  Ours. 

Kudos to the Hartford Courant for uncovering this:

The Army’s top mental health expert, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, acknowledged that some deployment practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome back into combat, have been driven in part by a troop shortage.

"The challenge for us …is that the Army has a mission to fight. And, as you know, recruiting has been a challenge," she said. "And so we have to weigh the needs of the Army, the needs of the mission, with the soldiers’ personal needs."

Ritchie insisted the military works hard to prevent suicides, but is a challenge because every soldier has access to a weapon.

No shame.

Cabbie Computer “Guy” Mistakenly Interviewed As Computer Expert “Guy”

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

This story is funnier when you see the video:

A computer expert has described his astonishment at seeing the BBC’s 24-hour news channel interview a taxi driver – in the mistaken belief it was him.

Guy Kewney – a white, bearded technology expert – was astonished to see himself appear on screen as a black man with an apparent French accent. He was even more shocked to see himself unable to answer basic questions about the legal battle between the Beatles’ Apple Corps and Apple Computer over the use of an apple symbol.

The poor cabbie was merely waiting for his fare at the BBC when he found himself being ushered into the studio to answer questions about Internet downloading, and the lawsuit.

It wasn’t until the live interview started when the cabbie realized it was a case of mistaken identity.  You’ll notice that he grimaces and opens his mouth to explain.  But before he can get the words out, the first question is fired at him: "Were you surprised by the verdict?"

Rather than embarrass the BBC, he muddled through:

"I’m very surprised to see the verdict come on me because I was not expecting that," he said in a heavy French accent, blinking in the studio lights. "When I came, they told me something else."

He then went on to give his views about the future of Internet downloading.

Watch the video here. 

UPDATE:  Okay, the details are becoming clearer:

(1)  He wasn’t a cabbie waiting for his fare.  He was a Business Studies graduate from the Congo.  He was at the BBC because he was applying for a high level IT job.  He thought that the interview was some sort of initiation prank or something, so he played along.

(2)  His first name was "Guy", like the Guy Kewney who was supposed to be interviewed.  That explains how the mix-up might have happened in the first place.

The Week Ahead

Ken AshfordPlamegate, Wiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

So much to write about, so little time.

I don’t have much to say about Bush’s approval rating breaking the 30% mark (last week’s Harris poll puts him at 29%).  And the fallout over the NSA datamining of telecom records continues.

But I’m looking forward to this week.  There are two rumors which are getting the buzz:

(1)  Rove indicted in L’Affaire Plame.  (Talkleft has more).

(2)  Former NSA staffer and whistleblower Russell Tice will reveal to the Senate even more shenanigans going on with the NSA.  He is quoted as saying that what the public knows now (regarding wiretapping and records collections) is only "the tip of the iceberg".  There was, according to Tice, llegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was with the NSA, and this was all conducted with the knowledge of General Hayden, Bush’s pick to head the CIA.

As they say, stay tuned.

Laura Doesn’t Believe Bad Polls

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

From Reuters:

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don’t really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

"As I travel around the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, ‘Stay the course’."

Yes, Laura, it’s true.  When you go to speak at a pro-Bush rally, you will in fact see many people who support Bush there.  But that’s a rather skeewed sampling, don’t you think?

The other stupid thing she said was this:

In a separate interview on ABC’s "This Week," Laura Bush said her husband’s popularity was suffering because the country had been through a difficult year.

If I recall correectly, 2001 was a rather difficult year too, Laura.  Yet Bush’s ratings after 9/11 never plummeted below 70% afterward.  So you see, it’s not external events that cause Bush’s approval to suffer, it’s his response to them.

If Al Gore Was President

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

SnlgoreI don’t watch Saturday Night Live anymore, but I regret not seeing Al Gore open the show this past weekend.  He spoke as President Al Gore, looking back on his six years in office.

Crooks and Liars has video. A snippet:

As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don’t get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We’re not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis… again.

But right now we’re already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can’t even go over to Europe anymore… without getting hugged.

***

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.

Nathan Tabor: There’s Got To Be No Morning-After

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, Sex/Morality/Family Values, Women's IssuesLeave a Comment

Having lost the primaries for NC State Senate, Nathan Tabor has a lot of time on his hands to think about all the issues that are important to him.  Today, it’s womens’ health women acting like hos:

Imagine going to your doctor and being offered a pill—not because you were sick, or in any danger of becoming sick. No—your friendly physician is simply giving you drugs because you’re a woman.

If that sounds like a Hitchcock horror story to you—be prepared. Gynecologists around the country are embarking on a weird medical experiment that could have serious repercussions for women’s health.

Now, of course, Nathan wants you to think that certain drugs are being given to women simply because they are women.  He also wants you to get the impression that women are being given drugs involuntarily.  Hence, the "Hitchcock horror story".  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has decided it won’t wait for the Food and Drug Administration to approve over-the-counter sales of the so-called morning after pill—a pill which is supposed to help women who are harboring regret over a sexual encounter the night before.

Hmmmm.  Seems Nathan Tabor really think FDA approval is important.

Revival Soy, a protein supplement product, is the Tabor family business.  Nathan’s brother is the CEO and founder of that company, his mom is the chief financial officer, and so on. 

At product’s website, you will learn how the product can lower cholesterol, improve your nails and skin, and help with menopausal problems and weight loss. 

You will also  note  the following disclaimer in small letters at the bottom of the page: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration."

Hypocrisy, thy name is Nathan Tabor.

Of course, it doesn’t matter that the FDA is hesitant to give the pills out like candy because it doesn’t want to promote promiscuity among young people. Also, some leading medical experts say that the morning after pill doesn’t just prevent pregnancy—it can also kill a child who has already been conceived in her mother’s womb.

Some leading medical experts like….?  Oh, no facts.  Just bald statements.

No, ACOG won’t let the facts stand in the way of its misguided idea of scientific progress. In fact, the gynecologists’ group employs this fuzzy reasoning for promoting morning after pill prescriptions: women tend to have sex on weekends. Maybe women also tend to have beer on Saturday nights. Does that mean their family doctors should load them up with six packs every time they come in for flu shots?

I’m sure Nathan understands this analogy.  He’s probably the only one.

The fact is, the pro-abortion contingent of ACOG is running scared.

Nathan, that’s not a fact.  That’s a conclusion, and a rather hyperbolic one at that.

Pharmacists throughout the country have said they don’t want to dispense the morning after pill, also known as emergency "contraception," because they have religious and moral objections to it. The abortionists know that if they can get women hooked on the morning after pill that they’ll have more support for their agenda—which includes abortion any time for any reason, anywhere. 

Hooked?  Is the morning-after pill physically addictive?

It’s interesting to note that some experts have come to the conclusion that there really isn’t a great demand for the morning after pill.

Well, then what exactly are you worried about?  If your (unnamned) experts are correct, the morning-after pill will got the way of the Pet Rock.

In other words, pharmacies are not going to go out of business for refusing to stock it.

I’m sure that’s true.  They also won’t go out of business for refusing to stock Pepto Bismal and Q-Tips.

So the only way for big drug companies to sell the morning after pill and other such concoctions is to market them directly to doctors.   

Which is standard practice for ANY drug or health product.  Even Revival Soy seeks doctor testimonials.

Every time a woman comes into a gynecologist’s office, ACOG wants the doctor to offer her advance prescriptions of the morning after pill. But it is apparently not enough to simply make the offer; indeed, some women are reporting that their gynecologists are insisting that they take the prescription—even if they say repeatedly that they don’t want it.

What women?  How many?  Where does this happen?

The doctors urge them, "it’s good for a year!" This kind of scenario makes a mockery out of the phrase "pro-choice." In a situation like this, how can anyone not conclude that "pro-choice" is really "pro-abortion?"

Even assuming that doctors can force women to take a subscription, how can they possibly force women to fill that subscription?  All a woman has to do is leave the doctor’s office and throw away the piece of paper.  Really, Nathan, you’re suffering from dimentia here.

Apparently, ACOG sees no reason for gynecologists to inform their patients that the morning after pill can cause abortions—even if some women have strong moral objections to abortion. For ACOG, the pill is a simple solution to the estimated 2.7 million unplanned pregnancies that occur each year.

But the fact of the matter is, a number of us were the result of unplanned pregnancies. You don’t have to be planned—or even wanted by your natural parents—in order to make a difference in this world. Every human life is precious from the moment of conception—and no dictate from ACOG can change that.   

Just like that famous bastard and adoptee, Adolf Hitler!

Doctors routinely tell pregnant women not to take any medication during their pregnancies for fear that it will harm their unborn children. If a pregnant woman can’t take an aspirin, how can doctors assume that it’s safe for her to take the morning after pill?

Oh, dear.  Medication can hurt the fetus, which is why doctors warn pregnant women not to take certain medications.  Of course, with the morning after pill, hurting (actually, preventing) the fetus is the goal.  So it’s not the same thing.

Now comes the best part:

What if the pill "fails" and the woman remains pregnant? Or what if the woman takes the pill when she’s already six weeks along? And what’s to prevent the pill from getting into the hands of the woman’s impressionable 13-year-old daughter, who sees the pill as a good excuse to "hook up" with a boy she barely knows? Will ACOG pay for the girl’s counseling when she discovers that the boy who took away her virginity is a stalker or 40 years old?

Ah, the Hitchockian nightmare.  Let’s all play.

What if a 12 year old loses weight by using Revival Soy, and therefore becomes more attractive, subjecting her to child molestation by her natural father who then rapes her and beats her into submission?  Will Nathan’s family pay for all those damages done to her?

Hey, that was fun.

Any doctor who thinks nothing of dispensing a pill that can kill has no place in the healing arts. Whether an abortion is surgical or chemical, it is still a tragedy for both mother and child.

And no dicate can change Nathan’s dictate.  I holler period.

Intentionally Uninformed

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, Sex/Morality/Family Values, Women's Issues3 Comments

JudiebrownRenew America pundit and pro-lifer Judie Brown, on the subject of Planned Parenthood, in a column entitled "Intentionally Uninhibited":

Frantically scurrying to protect its multi-million dollar birth control enterprise, Planned Parenthood has begun taking aim at pro-life forces with rapid fire rhetoric designed to frighten the uninformed.

Frightening the uninformed is Judie’s job, dammit, a point she will doubtless make very shortly.

In recent days I have read many articles about the battle against birth control that is being waged by American Life League and others.

An honest person at this point might want to inform her readers that you are the President of the American Life League.  But not you, Judie.

It seems as though the culture of death is ready to admit that their fascination with sex includes a demand for total, unlimited access to all manner of "protection" — from condoms to infanticide.

"Infanticide"?  We assume you are refering to abortions.   And abortion isn’t a form of protection, hun.  In fact, one purpose of protection is to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and hence, fewer abortions.

Anything that will resolve — by any means necessary — the difficult dilemma created by an "unwanted" pregnancy is for all practical purposes an entitlement that must not and cannot be opposed.

You can oppose whatever you like.  That’s not the problem.  The problem is you want to institute governmental policies which "resolve" the "dilemna" the way you want it to be resolved, instead of allowing individual women to think for themselves.

If that sounds far-fetched, consider this. In a recent Planned Parenthood webzine commentary, the writer notes: "The great irony in the war on contraception is that the same forces who oppose abortion also oppose expanding access to the tools that prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion. Instead of pushing for policies that promote responsibility, these advocates push for policies that punish women who choose to have sex without the intent of getting pregnant."

The same article also quotes you admitting just that.  Here are your words, Judie: "’We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion."  So Planned Parenthood was right.

Let’s be perfectly clear, shall we?

Yes, let’s.

Those of us who oppose contraception do so out of a sincere respect for the dignity of the human person.

Respect for the human person, but not respect for a human person’s choice.

The so-called "war on contraception" is really a rally in favor of life, affirming every person’s gift of human sexuality, every mother’s blessing when she discovers that she is with child, every person’s duty to act responsibly.

And that’s fine. 

But believe it or not, many people have recreational sex, which is separate and apart from procreational sex. 

In fact, having recreational sex adds to the quality of life, human sexuality, and requires responsible actions.  And it in no way deters from blessings of motherhood — it merely (and temporarily) avoids it.

Truth be told, we are the ones who are providing access to the tools that supply joy rather than sorrow.

Look, maybe non-procreating sex with you involves sorrow, but that’s your cross to bear.

Our tool kit includes self control, mutual respect, health and happiness.

Which makes sense only if one believes — as Judie apparently does — that non-procreating sex is about hedonism, mutual disrespect, sickness and unhappiness.

And truth be told, if Judie believes this, then all the power to her.  I have no bone to pick.  But again, the problem is that she (and those like her) are imposing their values on everybody else. 

Self control elevates one’s perspective on his very being.

Um, okay.  I guess.  Whatever that means.

The idea of saving sex for marriage is truly liberating for both men and women. It opens the door to loving someone else more than a person loves himself.

It’s not possible to love someone else more than yourself if you have a sexual history?  Really?

Or in simple English, it means caring so deeply for someone that one simply would never think of having sex until that day when the two of them are made one in matrimony.

Of course, that logic could be extended to kissing, too.  Why not, Judie?  What’s the difference?

Mutual respect never admits to defeat.

Please send us an email if you know what that means.

But such a positive outlook is the antithesis of what Planned Parenthood wants for its customer base. The organization’s clientele become full-time consumers because once hooked on birth control, the buyers require regular testing for various diseases as well as an occasional case of "contraceptive failure" (translation: baby); or as Planned Parenthood would put it, a resolution for the unintended accident.

Contraception gets you hooked on sex, and Planned Parenthood is the junkie.  Got that?

Nobody at Planned Parenthood would ever admit that motherhood must always trump a continued sexual satisfaction that is devoid of obligation to anyone else.

Of course they wouldn’t admit that.  Not because you’re right, but because Planned Parenthood isn’t so rigid and dogmatic as to say that this "always trumps" that for every living being.

In investigating the devastating fruits of Planned Parenthood’s marketing plan we find the dirty details.

Not that Planned Parenthood has a marketing plan that Judie has investigated.  She’s just making this part up.

For example, today’s young adults, including teens, are at higher risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease than ever before. Just 50 years ago doctors knew of a mere handful of such diseases; today there are at least 50 strains. Why is this so?

Well, according to the CDC, young adults are at higher risk of acquiring STDs "for a number of reasons, including limited access to preventitive and regular health care…".  You know, places like Planned Parenthood.  So getting rid of Planned Parenthood would only make matters worse.

And as for what doctor "know" compared to 50 years ago, Judie, did it ever enter your mind that there have been significant medical advances in the time span? 

You should also know that some STDs are at all-time lows.  Syphilis, once the most prevalent sexually transmited disease, is on the verge of being declared dead.

But don’t let facts get in your way, Judie.

Clearly the laissez-faire approach the culture has to all things sexual means bacteria are having a field day. And that’s just for starters.

Clearly.  Especially if you use false statistics and "facts".

With young people consistently being told that self control is old hat and that contraception is the ticket to sexual freedom, the consequences couldn’t be worse.

Actually, abstinence is required to be taught.  And it’s interesting that Judie fails to recite examples where young people are being told that contraception is the ticket to sexual freedom (although it is supposedly happening "consistently").

A healthy body is never the goal when someone experiments sexually;…

You see, when you engage in premarital sex, you’re just experimenting.  When you engage in married sex on your honeymoon, you’re an expert.

…being affected with some incurable condition does not sound like real sexual freedom to me.

Me either.  Wouldn’t this be a great world if we could have BOTH?  Sexual freedom and some sort of — I don’t know — prophylactic device which prevents the spread of incurable conditions? 

Next week, Judie is going to argue that being run over by a car doesn’t sound like a good reason to go out walking.

A healthy mind would never consider such activity to be acceptable in the first place nor would such a mind, if housed in the body of an adult, mislead youngsters into believing that promiscuity has no consequences.

Which would be a fair point IF adults were actually teaching youngster that promiscuity has no consequences.

As Planned Parenthood persists in accusing pro-lifers of waging a war on contraception, its all out sexual saturation blitzkrieg is focused on destroying common sense, morality, health and spiritual wellbeing.

Reasonable people can debate what is morally and spiritually healthy, and what constitutes common sense behavior, but it is clear that Judie’s concern here is NOT health. 

There is no form of sexual activity Planned Parenthood doesn’t like, unless of course a child is conceived. At that point, even the youngest ones are fair game.

Well, again, Judie is just making shit up.  Does she offer any data points to support this?  No, we didn’t think so.

In Planned Parenthood style new-speak, "responsibility" means that one need never be accountable for any manner of risky sexual behavior.

In other words, when Planned Parenthood talks about "responsible" sex, they really mean "risky" sex.  I see.

It kind of makes it easier to hate them when you put it that way, Judie.

That is why Planned Parenthood and its cohorts describe the child conceived as a result of such activity in negative terms such as unintended or unplanned or unwanted.

Well, it may be "negative", but isn’t it the truth?

Let’s say that a man and a woman engage in sex.  (And so Judie won’t need the fainting couch, we’ll even make them married for purposes of this hypothetical).  But let’s say they don’t intend or plan to have a child.  Maybe they don’t even want one yet, at least not at this point in their marriage.

Assuming Mrs. Hypothetical gets pregnant, wouldn’t it be accurate to describe the pregnancy as unintended or unplanned or unwanted? 

I’m sorry if the use of the "un" prefix strikes you as being "negative".  Then again, as the title to your column suggests, you seem to have a problem with uninhibited sex.  So who’s being negative here?

While Planned Parenthood would argue that its programs are designed to make every child a wanted child, its consistent rhetoric is focused on making sure that no child escapes death from chemical, medical or surgical abortion.

Judie, honey.  Get a grip.  A condom means there is no conception.  Therefore, there is no "child" or "fetus" in the first place.  Nothing dies, because nothing is conceived in the first place.

Besides, aren’t there people working for Planned Parenthood that are mothers themselves?  I think it’s clear who is the propogator of hyperbolic rhetoric here.

If this were not the case, Planned Parenthood would refrain from claiming that "women who choose to have sex without the intent of getting pregnant" are being punished by abortion opponents. We prefer to think that those of us who oppose Planned Parenthood’s philosophy recognize that motherhood is a state of life that is to be revered rather than denied or denigrated by the intentional death of a child.

Okay.  Then let’s try a thought experiment, Judie.

Suppose there was a woman who was unable to bear children due to some accident or something she experienced as a child herself.  According to your last sentence, you would have no problem with this woman having premarital sex, since the "intentional death of a child" cannot conceivably (no pun intended) happen.  Right?  Right?

But you clearly would have a problem with that.  So Planned Parenthood is correct.  This isn’t about abortion to you; it’s about your opposition — morally — to premarital sex.  Why can’t you just admit that, and then we’ll go forward from there?

Let’s face it. Planned Parenthood’s war on maternity must come to a screeching halt.

Because no woman who works for Planned Parenthood is a mother (or wants to be a mother) themselves, right?

So must its war on our young people, who are told their lives must be sexually saturated.

Told by…?

There is no room in a civilized society for either the wanton killing of preborn children or the brazen promotion of free sex at the high cost of disease, depression and death.

You heard it here first folks — contraception causes disease, depression and death.

Next week: down is up.

Only when the people of our nation put self respect ahead of instant gratification will we see an end to the despicable fruits produced by the culture of death.

News flash, Judie: Much as it probably pains you, most people have sex prior to marriage.  And always have.  And while there is certainly no dirth of disease, depression and death in today’s society, it’s simply ludicrous to blame it all on safe sex, try as you might.

Our challenge is to persist in exposing evil; to insist on accountability for the dreadful damage that has been wrought; to consistently maintain the moral high ground without apology and without conceding an inch.

Good for you,  Maintain your principles, even if it exposes you as a holier-than-thou lying prude who wants to control what other people do in their bedroom.

The intentionally uninhibited lifestyle that Planned Parenthood encourages has destroyed far too many Mother’s says already.

Ladies and gents, presenting the War on Mother’s Day™ .  Brought to you by the same people who gave you the War on Christmas™ and the War on Easter™ . 

RELATED:  If Judie’s column doesn’t convince you that the religious right is conducting a "War on (Premarital) Fucking" and that they don’t give a rat’s ass about womens’ health, maybe this will. 

It’s a story about a new vaccine up for FDA approval this month.  The vaccine will virtually eliminate the possibility of women getting cervical cancer, a disease which will kill 3,600 women this year alone. 

The thing is, in order for the vaccine to be effective, it has to be given to girls between the ages of 10-12. 

Who is opposing FDA approval of the vaccine?  Focus On the Family and other members of the religous right, under the belief that the use of the vaccine will promote sexual activity in pre-teen girls.  Chilling.

Preliminary Legal Analysis On The New NSA Database Revelation

Ken AshfordWiretapping & Surveillance1 Comment

For the right: Orin Kerr

For the left: Glenn Greenwald

Both are polite and coherent, even for non-lawyers.  Neither takes a firm stance, but together, they make a nice starting primer on the issue.  I’m not sure Greenwald one-ups Kerr on the legal analysis, but he ends with an indisputable truth about the lay of the legal landscape:

Ultimately, however, the always-overarching issue is that it doesn’t really much matter how these fascinating and academic statutory debates are resolved because the administration has claimed repeatedly that it has the right to violate statutes like this if its doing so is in pursuit of the national defense. As Professor Kerr put it, with great understatement:

Of course, all of the statutory questions are subject to the possible argument that Article II trumps those statutes. As I have mentioned before, I don’t see the support for the strong Article II argument in existing caselaw, but there is a good chance that the Administration’s legal argument in support of the new law will rely on it.

The Leader ordered this collection of sweeping data on the communications activities of Americans because The Threat of Terrorism required it. Therefore, even if multiple statutes make doing that a criminal offense, The President has the power to do it anyway. That, of course, is the Administration’s view of the world. And that is the epic constitutional crisis we have in our country.

At this preliminary stage, I’m not entirely convinced that the NSA broke any laws here.  It’s not like they tapped phones, or subpoenaed phone records without probable cause.  The telecommunication companies (except Qwest) gave your phone records to the NSA.  It seems to me that the voluntary provision of those records is against the law.

RELATED:  Lots of backlash against the telecoms who don’t care about your privacy.  Atrios recommends that you switch to Qwest.

James Dobson Called Me A Homo

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family Values1 Comment

I don’t know why I take these people seriously anymore, but because so many others do, I do.

Focus On The Family founder James Dobson recently spewed some more pseudo-science out of his ass.

In trying to explain the roots of homosexuality, he advances a theory known as "detachment and differentiation."  I’ll let him explain, in his own words:

This is fairly new information that’s being discussed in the child development clinics and in the universities throughout the country and around the world, and it is called "detachment and differentiation." In other words, a boy detaches from his mother and then begins to accept the role model that he sees in the father. The father really needs to entice the boy away from the feminine characteristics in the mother and begin to teach him to identify with the masculine model.

Now folks, listen to me, it is now believed that homosexuality is very typically rooted in the failure to accomplish that differentiation and when you see individuals who are very very feminine and you go back and you look at the early childhood development characteristics you will see a failure to make that change.

So basically, if you grew up in a fatherless household, you become queer.

Now, it’s a nice theory, and there are probably some real-life examples where it holds up.  But does that explain homosexuality?  Does it account for every single gay person, or even most?   What about straight men who, like the gays in Dobson’s theory, don’t form that bond with the father?  And what about Naomi (assuimg, for present purposes, that Naomi is a lesbian)?

More to the point: Is Dobson willing to put his scientific theory to the same rigorous standard that he applies to, say, evolution?  After all, to these clowns, if you can’t completely explain evolution (i.e., no missing links), then the whole thing is bosh.  So, if I can find one gay person who actually completed the detachment and differentiation process, doesn’t that throw Dobson’s theory out the window?

NSA Wiretapping Updates

Ken AshfordWiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

(1) So the Justice Department has been doing its job by looking into the (il)legalities of the NSA wiretapping.  In fact, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility has specifically been looking into it.

So far, so good.  Until….

Security issue kills domestic spying inquiry

NSA won’t grant Justice Department lawyers required security clearance

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

Geez.

(2)  Meanwhile, USA Today gives a stunning report on how the NSA has been attempting to get cellular phone companies to cooperate with them. 

The first revelation — and this is a biggie– is that the NSA is maintaining a comprehensive data base of every call made by every American – both internationally and domestically – whether they have anything to do with terrorism or not, obviously all of this without warrants or oversight of any kind.

Remember how Bush and Bush-bots were constitently saying that the NSA programs always involved phone calls where one person on the line who was not in the United States?  Throw that out the window.  This data-mining involves domestic calls — your calls.

The rules for collecting data about phone calls are different from the rules about listening in on the content of phone calls, so it’s a little difficult to assess (without research) the legality of this.  That doesn’t stop a whole host of Bush apologists (and non-lawyers) from automatically arguing (in knee-jerk fashion) that it is legal.

Which gets us to the the second revelation, buried low in the article, about how Qwest Communications is not cooperating with NSA.  Qwest is simply refusing to turn over its customer database and other information about its customers. In fact, of all the major telecommunications companies, Qwest is the "lone holdout".

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest’s patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest’s foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

Odd, isn’t it?  The Bush Administration keeps insisting that the NSA wiretapping program is legal, yet whenever they are asked to bring it in front of a bunch of judges, they avoid it.  In fact, the NSA is reluctant to run it by the Justice Department.

Clearly, the Qwest lawyers looked into this, and were either uncomfortable or unsure with the legalities of this, which is why they recommended a court ruling.  Interesting.  One wonders how the Bush supporters on the right side of the blogosphere, non-lawyers like Michelle Malkin, can be so sure so quickly that the progam is okay.

Professor Kerr has some preliminary thoughts on the legality of this.

UPDATE:  Bush says he’s not breaking the law.  Yeah, right.  "Move along folks.  Nothing to see here."

Midway High School Messes Up

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Local Interest, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

"The Day of Silence" was a youth-led national event in which LGBT high school students and their supporters chose not to speak for one day in school.  Instead, they handed out cards to those who asked, explaining why they were not speaking.  The day was April 26.  The purpose was to focus attention on the actual silencing of homosexuals as a result of harassment, bias and abuse.

Christian conservatives followed up the "Day of Silence" with their own counter-protest, called the "Day of Truth", set to occur the following day.  Instead of using silence, Christian students participating in the "Day of Truth" wore T-shirts expressing their view of homosexuality, and handed out leaflets.

In Midway High School in Dunn, NC, an honors student named Benjamin Arthurs was allowed to wear the T-shirt, but was denied permission to distribute cards presenting a Christian viewpoint on homosexuality during non-instructional time. He was suspended for ignoring the warning.

According to the lawsuit filed against the school district by Arthurs’ parents and the Alliance Defense Fund, Sampson County Board of Education Superintendent Stewart Hobbs said that "religion is not allowed in school."

Assuming the allegations are true, it looks like Midway High School seriously erred here, and Superintendent Hobbs should acquaint himself with some First Amendment law. 

Religion is allowed in schools.  Even prayer.  Even proselytizing.  The only limitations are that it cannot be endorsed by the school, and it cannot be disruptive to the orderly functioning of the school.  In fact, the constitution requires that public schools must accommodate (which is not the same thing as "endorse") religious expression to the same extent that it accommodates other forms of expression.  Based on what has been reported, it looks like Arthurs was clearly within his right to pass out leaflets explaining the religious perspective on homosexuality.

Sadly, it’s this type of ignorance that gives the Christian Right ammunition to whine about how they are being persecuted.  Fortunately, it happens far far less than the American Taliban would like people to believe.  And this is one time where (if the allegations are true) it did happen, and Midway should make amends immediately.

Chris Daughtry To Go? (UPDATE: Yup)

Ken AshfordPopular Culture3 Comments

Thanks to Heather for pointing this out — it looks like Chris Daughtry will be voted out this week.

Zeba Search, a free search engine,has the ability to track and tally phone calls and text messages to certain phones numbers, including the phone numbers used to vote for American Idol finalists.

It’s not 100% accurate although (according to Heather), they usually are.  If this is true, Chris leaves the show in a squeaker:

Ai_stats2

I’ll have more to say if this is true….

POST-SHOW UPDATE:  Well, the result was just plain silly.  Chris had every right to be shocked. 

Let’s be real about this.  It’s a popularity contest at this point, not a talent contest.  And Chris was not appealing to a large segment of Clay-Aiken-loving, singing-in-front-of-the-mirror-with-a-hairbrush, pre-teen girls and their oh-I’m-looking-for-a-surrogate-son soccer moms.  His stage presence was a little too dark for them. They also probably didn’t like the hard-driving music that he clearly enjoys.  Hey, I don’t either, but talent is talent, and Chris’s talent (especially compared to Katharine this week) was undeniable.  Really disappointing.

Oversight Circumvented

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

There’s a really good guy in the Bush Administration, who took his job seriously.  His name is Stuart Bowen, and his title is Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.  His job?  He and his staff of 55 auditors make sure there’s no hanky-panky with the money being allocated to reconstruct Iraq.

When Bowen was appointed by Bush in January 2004, many suspected that he was just another Bush crony. 

But Bowen proved the critics wrong.

Bowen has exposed all kinds of corruption and fraud within the Iraqi reconstruction efforts, even taking on the Bush hobby-horse known as Halliburton.  The Wall Street Journal wrote that Bowen "has become one of the most prominent and credible critics of how the administration has handled the occupation of Iraq."

Why am I telling you this?

Because last week, the Senate approved an additional $1.5 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. 

But as the Wall Street Journal reports, something is a little different now:

The new funds won’t be overseen by the government watchdog charged with curbing the mismanagement that has overshadowed the reconstruction.

The administration’s main vehicle for rebuilding Iraq has, in the past, been designated "Relief and Reconstruction" funds, which by law are overseen by a special inspector general, Stuart Bowen. The new money going toward similar reconstruction goals will be classified as coming from "Foreign Operations" accounts. The State Department is responsible for spending both pools of money.

So basically, the State Department — and not Bowen — will have oversight of the new spending allocation for Iraqi reconstruction.

Except for one problem.  The State Deparment doesn’t have the manpower to conduct effective oversight:

Because the new money technically comes from a different source, Mr. Bowen, who has 55 auditors on the ground in Iraq, will be barred from overseeing how the new money is spent. Instead, the funds will be overseen by the State Department’s inspector general office, which has a much smaller staff in Iraq and warned in testimony to Congress in the fall that it lacked the resources to continue oversight activities in Iraq.

Well, how conveeeenient.

When learning about this, several Senators sought to attach an amendment to the Iraq reconstruction bill which would allow oversight of the new funds to be kept by Bowan and his staff.  But it never reached a floor vote.

One might ask why the latest Iraqi reconstruction funds came from a different account this go-round.  What was the genesis of this?  The WSJ answers the question:

Republican Appropriations Committee aides say legislators shifted the Iraq money to the foreign operations accounts at the request of the White House..

Ah.  The plot thickens…

…not to curb oversight. They say administration officials sought the change to streamline accounting so the Iraq reconstruction would be incorporated into the State Department’s operations and budget rather than kept in stand-alone accounts.

So it wasn’t to curb oversight, but to "streamline accounting" (whatever that means).

I don’t believe it, and neither does Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

"This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut down the only effective oversight of this massive reconstruction program which has been plagued by mismanagement and fraud," said Sen. Patrick Leahy.