It's not Torture if You're not at Guantanamo

(((Those destroyed CIA videotapes of waterboarding; how they're not covered by the judge's order not to destroy evidence because the victims--yeah, I said it--weren't at Guantanamo Bay)))

According to CNN:

The Bush administration argued Friday that the CIA's destruction of videotapes that showed the interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects did not violate a court order because the suspects were not at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [ . . . ]

Joseph Hunt, an administration attorney, said the men in the videos were held at secret locations and did not fall under the category of those who were "now at" Guantanamo in Cuba.

"It is inconceivable that the destruction of the tapes could have violated the order," Hunt told the judge.

Okay, it's the judge's bad. They like to blame everything on those activist judges, don't they?

And yet . . . it is also a clear demonstration of bad faith on the part of the administration to even make this argument, never mind to have destroyed the evidence in the first place. Could it be any clearer that they will do precisely everything they think they can get away with?

Well, He Is an Arrogant, Lying, SOB

I don't know if the count about "threatening aggression against Iran" and so "undermining the national security of the United States" has much substance or much point, but otherwise i mainly wish I believe this could actually go somewhere.

tags technorati : impeach cheney

Standards Do, After All, Facilitate Communication

A spec for My Enemy's Enemy is my Friend (MEEF), via nettime.

Abstract MEEF, My Enemy's Enemy is my Friend uses the World Wide Web Consortium's Resource Description Framework (RDF) to allow for automatic generation of ontology for networks based upon shared antipathies.

Status of this Document. This is the first draft proposal specification for MEEF. It provides a description of a basic vocabulary which can be used in generating MEEF applications. MEEF files can be added to documents and web resources as Unicode. Versions of MEEF will incorporate the FOAF vocabulary in order that friends of your enemies can also be readily identifiable.

Sample properties:

Property:tv
This property identifes the enemy's favourite tv programme.

Property:social
This property specifies social networking mechanisms used by the enemy. Where FOAF is not used, other tools must currently be used to identify their 'friends'.

Property:love
Enemies love some things. It is important to be able to identify them.

Property:rumour:URI
This property locates a URI where a rumour concerning the entity can be found. Rumours may be generated without including any of the identifying characteristics of the entity and assigned to multiple enemies. The re-use principle is important.

And let's do a declaration:

A sample MEEF declaration incorporating FOAF:

<meef:Entity>Bush</meef:Entity>
<Property:Antipathy:open/>
<foaf:person>
<foaf:name>George Bush</foaf:name>
<foaf:homepagerdf:resource=
http://www.whitehouse.gov/>
</foaf:person>
<meef:property:love>cocaine</meef:property:love>

tags technorati : TEOMEIMF, MEEF, Enemies, Politics, Blowback, Terrorism, War on Terror,Bush, Cocaine

 

Hearts Eaten Out 4 Ronald Reagan!

W has finally had the impact on the Supreme Court that American conservatives hoped you would.

The U.S. Supreme Court, with two new appointees by President Bush, is showing itself to be far more conservative and more deeply divided than in the recent past – despite Chief Justice Roberts' talk of consensus. Four out of five cases decided June 25 were 5-4 rulings. [emphasis added]

TalkLeft reads Stevens' amazing dissent for us. A snippet:

. . . To the extent the Court independently finds that “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” objectively amounts to the advocacy of illegal drug use—in other words, that it can most reasonably be interpreted as such—that conclusion practically refutes itself. This is a nonsense message, not advocacy. The Court’s feeble effort to divine its hidden meaning is strong evidence of that. Ante,at 7 (positing that the banner might mean, alternatively, “ ‘[Take] bong hits,’ ” “ ‘bong hits [are a good thing],’ ” or “ ‘[we take] bong hits’ ”). Frederick’s credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television—is also relevant because a speaker who does not intend to persuade his audience can hardly be said to be advocating anything.7 But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a “cryptic” message (the Court’s characterization, not mine, see ibid., at 6) with a slanting drug reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible. That the Court believes such a silly message can be proscribed as advocacy underscores the novelty of its position, and suggests that the principle it articulates has no stopping point.

And by the way: Snugglebunnies! Snugglebunnies! Snuggle . . .

tags technorati : Reagan Bush Supreme Court Justice Stevens Snugglebunnies

George W Bush is Bad for Capitalism

I know it sounds crazy, but check out this Economist blog post by Jason Furman, along the lines of yesterday's piece from the WSJ. Sez Furman:

Summers, Bordoff and I argue that an important part of the solution to rising inequality is a progressive fiscal system. [ . . . ]

Unfortunately, the progressive tax system offset only about 7 percent of the $664 billion income shift since 1979. Absent the tax cuts enacted [by W] starting in 2001, the tax system would have offset 20 percent of the increase in inequality. [emphasis added]

So, thanks to W, progressive taxes offset about 1/3 of the increase in inequality that they would have offset had Clinton's tax system remained in place.

Why does income inequality matter? Let's let noted Marxist economist, comrade Alan Greenspan, explain it to us:

Income inequality is where the capitalist system is most vulnerable. You can’t have the capitalist system if an increasing number of people think it is unjust.

So, in short, by contributing substantially to increasing income inequality, George W. Bush has put capitalism itself at risk.

OK. Does this mean I'm for four more years [ahem], or that I am now happy about the last eight? No. Income inequality is A Bad Thing. What's interesting, of course, is that Greenspan doesn't actually say that it's unjust. But recognition of a PR problem with capitalism is fueling a move from odd quarters back toward more progressive taxation. Yes, gross (and growing) income inequality is a symptom of a broken system, and so progressive taxation is sort of a band-aid. But it's still right, given the circumstances, and worth trying to get.

tags technorati : Bush, Capitalism, Economics, Taxes, Inequality