Speedkill

So Holder is going to appoint a prosecutor to investigate CIA detention abuses. Only those who acted outside the guidelines set by the Yoo and Bybee memos, though.

That largely makes sense. We can’t expect CIA interrogators to be able to spot fraudulent legal arguments, but we can expect them to follow the guidelines given to them. So, okay, I’m on board here.

But low level abuses aren’t the real problem, as everyone knows. The outrage is over the Bush administration’s conduct. It’s about lawyers who made arguments in bad faith to justify unchecked executive power. It’s about administration officials using those arguments to shield themselves from accusations of war crimes.

It’s probably too much to ask the executive branch to check itself. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. But we have a legislative branch that is made up of people either too stupid to do their job or too corrupt. I suspect there’s a lot of both. The judicial branch is better, but it can only do so much when American citizens rarely have standing to challenge these abuses.

So in conclusion, we’re fucked. But at least we’re going to get major, progressive health care reform. Oh, wait…

Jeff Bush, Civil liberties, Obama

So, remember in the last post where I said I’d be more depressed if Obama left a legal loophole for rendering suspects to be tortured in foreign countries? Well, he didn’t do that, but he’s covering for Bush’s use of that program.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. My level of cynicism goes up a bit.

Jeff Civil liberties, Obama

Obama’s been in office almost a week. We seem to be on the march towards some sort of Marxist utopia where government is more transparent, we don’t run secret prisons, and we don’t torture people. Craziness.

Of course, we still have destructive policies regarding Afghanistan and Israel and a terrible economy. Which Obama won’t and can’t fix (respectively).

Could be worse.

Jeff Civil liberties, Foreign Policy, Obama

Indian school names monkey god chairman

LUCKNOW, India (AP) — He’s a revered Hindu monkey god. And now, he’s the chairman of an Indian business school.

Hanuman, the popular god known for his strength and valor, has been named official chairman of the recently opened Sardar Bhagat Singh College of Technology and Management in northern India, a school official said Saturday.

The position comes with an incense-filled office, a desk and a laptop computer. Four chairs will be placed facing the empty seat reserved for the chairman and all visitors must enter the office barefoot, said Vivek Kangdi, the school’s vice chairman.

“It is our belief that any job that has the blessings of Lord Hanuman is bound to be a success,” said Kangdi.

Christians could learn a few things here. Hindus are out there putting statues in charge of colleges. Can you imagine if Liberty University was run by a monkey statue? Standards would rise dramatically.

You know, I can think of another school that would benefit. Also, I presume that a monkey god statue wouldn’t turn D.C. into a police state.

The uses are endless.

Jeff Civil liberties, Religion, Silliness

Mark’s been commenting a lot on New Hampshire’s primary and resulting oddities with Diebold voting machines. I’ve been too busy to pay that much attention, but it’s pretty clear there’s a difference in voting patterns correlated with the county using or not using Diebold machines, despite widely varying numbers on that score. The recount is proceeding, but observers haven’t been too impressed with the chain of custody.

I’m not really buying fraud there, though. There’s not much of a reason to swing the election from Obama to Clinton. As far as their policy positions go, they’re almost the same. Obama’s rhetoric is lighter, more inspirational, but anyone who’d rig an election is too cynical to be scared of rhetoric about change. Still, demonstrating fraud is not the issue. Demonstrating that the vote was fair and clean is.

Despite the occasional light at the end of the tunnel, I think e-voting activism is doomed to failure. Election fraud is a useful tool for politicians. Allegations of election fraud are also useful. Such allegations are confined to the Internet for the most part, but will probably grow as more electronic voting machines are used. Rigging elections has been around forever and electronic voting machines make it easier. Certainly some politicians won’t do a whole lot to fix the security issues, as they might have use for them later. Allegations of fraud, on the other hand, motivate people. As long as they don’t get beyond the realm of conspiracy theory, the public at large isn’t that interested. The alleged fraud victim’s base, however, will get irritated by them. Hardcore supporters will work harder, since as Hugh Hewitt title a book of his (apparently without irony), “if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.” Politicians, being good at playing to different segments of the population even when their interests conflict, can publicly avoid such allegations and quietly encourage them among their core supporters.

That’s not say any of that has happened. Voter fraud allegations surrounding electronic voting machines are still not widespread enough. It doesn’t look good, though. We just have to hope we can push a few of our elected officials to overcome such cynical manipulations and do something about it.

Jeff 2008 elections, Civil liberties

Craig sort of has a point on number two, there. The subject is Franklin’s liberty and safety quote. Economic freedom for economic safety is just such a trade-off and liberals don’t have a problem with that. I’ve seen the point made before and it has the benefit of being strictly true.

Of course, Franklin’s quote, taken literally, is obviously wrong. The Founders didn’t set up a system of complete freedom. There are limits set out in the Constitution. For example, police can enter my private property if they have a warrant. Doing so violates my freedom to control my property. That rule is there to allow the authorities to stop dangerous people in timely manner, keeping us safer. It’s a trade-off and I’m pretty sure it’s a good one.

So is Franklin’s quote useless to us? I don’t think so. The point seems to be that trading liberty for security is a dangerous game. It’s a classic tactic of authoritarians everywhere; just give up this little bit of personal freedom, let me into your life just a little more, and you’ll be safe. It doesn’t typically end well. On the other hand, the balance we’ve struck isn’t necessarily the best one. Maybe it’s better that we give up a little more personal freedom for a little more security in these times. I don’t think so, but that’s just me.

What to make of the general tendency of liberals to want to give up more economic freedom for safety nets than conservatives, then? My less than fully thought out sense of it is that giving up economic freedom is less dangerous. When we’re talking about civil liberties, losing a certain right may mean serious punishment. Economically, you’re losing some money. Maybe it all averages out to be the same. I can’t say with certainty.

This isn’t to defend people who use that quote as Craig notes. If you use the assertion of an authority figure in place of an argument, you deserve even the most meaningless gotcha. I just thought there was an interesting difference of opinion underlying its use.

Jeff Civil liberties

Today in 1933 prohibition ended. Granted, I drink very rarely, but it’s the principle of the thing.

Here’s to our current round of prohibition ending in the near future.

Jeff Civil liberties

We’re now supposed to change our definition of privacy. Nice. No longer does it mean, you know, things being kept private, but that the government gets whatever it wants and promises not to do bad things with it.

I suppose if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. Until they decide you are doing something wrong, that is.

Jeff Bush, Civil liberties, General

Q: What happens when a person sees several people, who unbeknownst to him are undercover policemen, dealing drugs on his lawn and comes out of his house with a weapon to scare them away?

If you answered “the police officers identify themselves as the police, show identification, calm the man down, and leave his property” you are some sort of crazy idealist.

The real answer is the policemen shoot the guy four times. Once in the back.

Another perfectly justifiable casualty of the drug war. Fantastic.

Jeff Civil liberties

For some reason, the current front page over at Hit & Run (I have resisted their libertarianism for at least a year and a half, which is a good sign) is loaded with interesting/depressing news. A British labor union endorsing Hugo Chavez, George Will’s shrill screed on a free speech case he happens to be on the right side of, Cathy Young’s article on Norman Finkelstein, Dave Barry’s run for president, and the “Bong hits 4 Jesus” case being decided the wrong way.

Also, did you know California is trying to outlaw mixed breed dogs? My head is going to explode.

Jeff Civil liberties, Silliness, World news