Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Morning Links: New Torture Report, Supremes Study Strip Searches, Peeping Fibbies
• Senate report says Bush officials were planning toture techniques months before getting rubber stamp from the Office of Legal Counsel; also says Bush political appointees pushed for torture of detainees to reveal connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
• Obama shifts, now says he's open to investigation, possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who provided the legal framework for torture.
• Big Apple fans eschewing top-dollar seats at shiny, new, taxpayer-funded Mets and Yankee stadiums.
• Supreme Court hears arguments in the school strip search case. NY Times summary doesn't look promising. "Several justices appeared troubled by the search, but also seemed loath to second-guess school officials confronted with a variety of dangerous substances."
• Acting CFO of Freddie Mac apparently killed himself this morning.
• FBI agents accused of turning surveillance equipment on dressing rooms to watch teen girls change clothes in a West Virginia mall.
• Inspector General report says TARP program susceptible to mass waste and fraud.
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 8:36AM|#
Acting CFO of Freddie Mac apparently killed himself this
morning.
I suspect this is related to the 7:41am story posted by Nick
Gillespie.
Hypothetical justice robc|4.22.09 @ 8:42AM|#
About half way thru the proceedings:
"Listen up retards. You can search anywhere you want if you first
get a fucking warrant. You cant even search her backpack, much less
her crotch without a warrant, so just get the fucking warrant
first, you motherfuckers. Fuck! Have none of you read the fucking
constitution?"
Im not sure if dropping f-bombs and calling the other 8 justices
retards is within the bounds of standard justice behavior, which
probably explains (along with not being a lawyer) why Im not on the
Supreme Court.
hmm|4.22.09 @ 8:47AM|#
Nothing like setting the precedent for prosecuting the losing
party. Yet another change that reeks of potential abuse and
arrogance. If they wanted to prosecute him they had the option to
start the procedure while he was still in office.
I'm no fan of FRE or FNM, but the pressure some of those guys are
currently under has to be immense. I feel for his family.
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.22.09 @ 8:51AM|#
Read the full Times article on Obama "shifting" his position on
prosecuting Bush officials.Underneath the headline is a discussion
of how Dennis Blair, BO's own intelligence chief, reported in a
memo that the waterboarding, et al, produced valuable
information...and how the "condensed" version of the Blair memo
circulated to the media left that little detail out.
Seems like Obama's "shift" is his way of telling Cheney and his
other critics to keep their mouths shut. But surely the Greatest
Man Who Ever Lived would never abuse governmental authority for
political ends.
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 8:51AM|#
Nothing like setting the precedent for prosecuting the
losing party. Yet another change that reeks of potential abuse and
arrogance. If they wanted to prosecute him they had the option to
start the procedure while he was still in office.
Remember, it was Pelosi and Reid who said after they gained
legeslative majorities that they were not going to try to impeach
Bush.
This is a whole different deal.
At least they are giving some lipservice to following a 'promise'
of sorts.
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 8:52AM|#
Seems like Obama's "shift" is his way of telling Cheney and
his other critics to keep their mouths shut. But surely the
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived would never abuse governmental
authority for political ends.
Didn't work on Cheney and I bet Cheney can kick Obama and Biden's
asses too.
Kyle Jordan|4.22.09 @ 8:52AM|#
"FBI agents accused of turning surveillance equipment on
dressing rooms to watch teen girls change clothes in a West
Virginia mall."
Hey! It's like that episode of Penn & Teller:Bullshit! Just not
as funny and far, far more angering and disturbing.
I have to ask though, were the chicks hot at least?
Xeones|4.22.09 @ 8:52AM|#
Inspector General report says TARP program susceptible to
mass waste and fraud.
In other news, Inspector General report says sun will appear to
rise in the east tomorrow, unless it's cloudy.
dhex|4.22.09 @ 8:54AM|#
"Read the full Times article on Obama "shifting" his position on
prosecuting Bush officials.Underneath the headline is a discussion
of how Dennis Blair, BO's own intelligence chief, reported in a
memo that the waterboarding, et al, produced valuable
information..."
so do illegal wiretaps and no-knock raids.
it doesn't make them right.
Kyle Jordan|4.22.09 @ 8:55AM|#
"Didn't work on Cheney and I bet Cheney can kick Obama and
Biden's asses too."
Nah. I'd much rather see Cheney do something to them that he's good
at.
Shooting them both in the fucking face with a shotgun!
Not killing them mind you. Just wounding.
|4.22.09 @ 8:56AM|#
The Cinderella Project at the Middletown Mall in the
north-central West Virginia town of Fairmont drew hundreds of girls
from 10 high schools in five counties.
The agents were described by FBI as "police officers". Where is the
sexual assault on a minor charge? Where is the lifetime
registration as a sex offender? I'll stay tuned.
Cabeza De Vaca|4.22.09 @ 8:57AM|#
"Justice Breyer elaborated on what children put in their
underwear. "In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old,
you know, we did take our clothes off once a day," he said. "We
changed for gym, O.K.? And in my experience, too, people did
sometimes stick things in my underwear."
WTF?
"My thought process," Justice Souter said, "is I would rather have
the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can't find anything
short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff
is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."
I can't believe people this dumb can get appointed to the Supreme
Court.
Xeones|4.22.09 @ 9:01AM|#
"Several justices appeared troubled by the search, but also
seemed loath to second-guess school officials confronted with a
variety of dangerous substances."
As dangerous as ibuprofen? You know what? Fuck those justices,
then, for not having a lick of goddamn sense. Any school official
who tries to strip search my kid for ANY reason is gonna get
second-guessed with a 2x4 to the face, Buford Pusser-core.
|4.22.09 @ 9:02AM|#
things go awry
Swelling was reduced, fevers diminished, pain was analgeized! It
was anarchy!
hmm|4.22.09 @ 9:06AM|#
Remember, it was Pelosi and Reid who said after they gained
legeslative majorities that they were not going to try to impeach
Bush.
That was the point. They had a chance when he was in office to take
action. Instead they wait until they have a mouth frothing majority
and such an investigation could easily turn into a witch hunt.
Setting the precedent of prosecuting the losing party reeks of
third world politics.
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.22.09 @ 9:07AM|#
dhex,
If it was Obama's position that improper techniques are wrong
regardless of how "effective" they are, that should have said that.
Obama claimed that these techniques were wrong because they were
not effective. He framed the terms of debate, and then lied about
the facts supporting his position. That was my point.
|4.22.09 @ 9:10AM|#
You know, if the Supreme Court operated on a presumption that the government was in the wrong in every case, they'd probably do a lot better. Instead of this mysterious deference.
Hugh Akston|4.22.09 @ 9:11AM|#
• Acting CFO of Freddie Mac apparently killed himself this
morning.
There's a metaphor in here somewhere, I just know it.
dhex|4.22.09 @ 9:15AM|#
wicks: the efficacy was not the driving force of the objection to them, as blair is quoted as saying in the nytimes piece.
|4.22.09 @ 9:17AM|#
Kyle,
I have to ask though, were the chicks hot at least?
West Virginia mall is the key phrase. So, no.
|4.22.09 @ 9:23AM|#
I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search,
if we can't find anything short of that, than to have some other
kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things
go awry.
What about the dead school administrators and nurse when I find out
my daughter was strip searched?
|4.22.09 @ 9:24AM|#
"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an
unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our
government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a
million years would we have thought something like this would
happen. We're in shock."
Who'd 'a thunk it?
|4.22.09 @ 9:26AM|#
I am absolutely disgusted that the school board appealed this
after they lost in the ninth circuit. Also, FUCK the five members
of the ninth circuit who voted to ignore the fourth
amendment.
-jcr
|4.22.09 @ 9:28AM|#
Where's my Earth Day post? I have comments building within me to a irresistible pressure.
|4.22.09 @ 9:31AM|#
Looks like Souter's not satisfied with Kelo, he wants
another case to make sure that this court is as reviled as the
motherfuckers who ruled against Dred Scott and Korematsu.
-jcr
Rimfax|4.22.09 @ 9:33AM|#
So far, here's the police get-away-with-it checklist:
OK:
* shoot dogs
* harass reporters
* shake down prostitutes for free services
* steal drugs from evidence
BAD:
* peep on girls in malls
I'll keep the tally here: http://reason.wikia.com/wiki/Police_checklist
|4.22.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Dennis Blair, BO's own intelligence chief, reported in a
memo that the waterboarding, et al, produced valuable
information
Are you referring to this?
"We do not need these techniques to keep America safe," said
Mr. Blair, who added: "The information gained from these techniques
was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing
whether the same information could have been obtained through other
means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image
around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far
outweighed whatever benefit they gave us, and they are not
essential to our national security."
Hardly an enthusiastic defense.
|4.22.09 @ 9:36AM|#
Where's my Earth Day post? I have comments building within
me to a irresistible pressure.
Visit juicymidgets.com and report back in 10 minutes...
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 9:38AM|#
And that last comment most assuredly put me on some type of
list.
If we post here we are on the new list of
Rightwingextremestmilitiapeople.
Where's my Earth Day post? I have comments building within me
to a irresistible pressure.
Your Ninja friend said Happy Earth Day a few threads back.
Abdul|4.22.09 @ 9:40AM|#
There are two burning hotness issues in the link roundup:
1) strip-searched girl has done a photo op. Definitely
not hot.
2) While Sugarfree makes a good argument that girls in a West
Virginia Mall are not hot, these were teenagers in a fashion
contest, which may rebut the presumption. Without photographic
proof, we can only speculate.
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 9:46AM|#
SF,
Are you sure it is Earth Day? I was gearing up for Festivus.
Which Commie's birthday is today? Stalin, Lenin, Carter? I have
trouble keeping them straight.
PantsFan|4.22.09 @ 9:49AM|#
domoarrigato | April 22, 2009, 9:36am | #
Where's my Earth Day post? I have comments building within me to a
irresistible pressure.
Visit juicymidgets.com and report back in 10 minutes...
I'm not seeing anything about Earth Day over there.
Telly|4.22.09 @ 9:52AM|#
Damn, this is a depressing post. What a bunch of all around nasty hearted, soulless shit.
|4.22.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Adbul,
Actually:
Hospice Care Corp. was sponsoring the event, offering prom
dresses, shoes and accessories to girls who could not otherwise
afford them. Dresses sold for as little as $5.
So they were poor girls from WV. I'm sure a few might have been
attractive, but I bet the bulk of them were, well... bulky.
As for the strip search: The mere fact that the Supreme Court had
to hear this case, instead of the police arresting the school
officials involved on the spot, indicates that something is so
fundamentally broken in our society that it may be impossible to
repair.
PantsFan|4.22.09 @ 9:57AM|#
FBI agents accused of turning surveillance equipment on
dressing rooms to watch teen girls change clothes in a West
Virginia mall.
Why
don't you have a seat over here?
Pop|4.22.09 @ 9:59AM|#
" Obama shifts, now says he's open to investigation, possible
prosecution of Bush administration officials who provided the legal
framework for torture."
Can you really prosecute someone for rendering a legal opinion?
|4.22.09 @ 10:03AM|#
Oh, they'll put an Earth Day post. But they'll wait until I'm
not around to do it. And they know when I'm away from my desk, too.
THEY ALWAYS KNOW.
Shh! What was that?
|4.22.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Acting CFO of Freddie Mac apparently killed himself this
morning.
That's going on my Obama Death List.
What did he know and when did he know it?
Where was Joe Biden yesterday?
Where was Barney Frank?
Can we start uploading exploding fruit videos yet?
Hillary knows about faking suicides - where was she?
PC|4.22.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Acting CFO of Freddie Mac apparently killed himself this
morning.
Joe Biden is President? This should be interesting.
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.22.09 @ 10:11AM|#
P. Brooks:
What you quoted was not the Blair memo itself, but Blair's
subsequent comments when asked about the memo.
|4.22.09 @ 10:11AM|#
Can you really prosecute someone for rendering a legal
opinion?
If you decide it's not fair to prosecute people who were only
following orders, then all you are left with is the people who
conceived those orders. unless you decide it wouldn't be fair to
prosecute them.
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.22.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Not to drag this out any further, but this was Blair's original
internal statement:
"High-value information came from interrogations in which those
methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al
Qaeda organization that was attacking this country," Dennis C.
Blair, the intelligence director, wrote to his staff last Thursday
as the previously secret memos were released.
P., you quoted Blair's subsequent comments when he was subsequently
questioned about his original statement.
Pop|4.22.09 @ 10:17AM|#
"If you decide it's not fair to prosecute people who were only
following orders, then all you are left with is the people who
conceived those orders."
So you are saying that a legal opinion is the same as an order?
|4.22.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Can you really prosecute someone for rendering a legal opinion?
IANAL, but I would think not. Or, if I'm not mistaken, the bar
would be quite high. I would think you would have to prove that it
was an act of collusion. IOW, not an honestly rendered opinion but
a lie to give cover. One wonders why anyone would do that though,
since following bad legal advice is never a defence AFAIK.
However, one could opine that such an opinion indicated poor legal
judgment or even incompetence, so disbarment would certainly be an
option.
Not to mention impeachment and removal of anyone who might have
been appointed to the federal bench and removal of tenure from
anyone who might have gotten a plumb academic appointment.
Public disgrace and destruction of a professional career may not
give the same satisfaction as seeing someone in a jail cell but
they are quite suitable sanctions nonetheless.
|4.22.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Senate report says Bush officials were planning
did not use torture techniques
for months before getting rubber stamp
from while the Office of Legal Counsel
researched the legal issues and developed guidelines for
complying with applicable law;
More contentious? Less contentious?
Can you really prosecute someone for rendering a legal
opinion?
Not unless they do so as knowing participants in a criminal
conspiracy, no.
Why the blase reaction to Obama's decision not to prosecute the
actual torturers because, and I paraphrase, "they were just
following orders"?
Wicks Cherrycoke|4.22.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Perhaps we goofed at Nuremberg. Instead of prosecuting Goering
and his fellow Nazi leaders, we should have prosecuted the lawyers
who advised them.
I am surprised the ABA is not flipping out about the idea of
lawyers being prosecuted for their opinions, however wrong they may
be. It may be malpractice, but how is it a crime? And how are you
going to prove criminal intent? Merely asserting that an opinion is
wrong, or even frivolous, does not prove intent to commit a
crime.
So if I want to rob your house, I need to find a lawyer who will
write me an opinion that the robbery is not illegal, and he will be
prosecuted instead of me. Astounding.
High Every Body|4.22.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Can you really prosecute someone for rendering a legal
opinion?
Where have you been since January? If the massiah can replace CEOs
he sure as hell can prosecute for rendering a legal opinion he does
not like.
|4.22.09 @ 10:27AM|#
High-value information came from interrogations in which
those methods were used and provided a deeper
understanding
Geithner gave a speech this morning. He assures us that if we
hadn't thrown nearly a trillion dollars at the "economic meltdown"
we would be in much, much worse shape than we are now.
Any government act, by definition, is the only possible
alternative.
Okay.
Brandon|4.22.09 @ 10:32AM|#
They might fuck up the strip search case, but it's worth noting
that yesterday the SCOTUS got
one right. A 5-4 majority decided that the mere arrest of a
driver, say for a traffic violation, is not by itself sufficient
justification for cops to search the driver's car. So a cop can't
throw you in the back of his cruiser for driving 100 MPH and then
look for pot in your trunk. I would have thought this was already
the case, but apparently not.
Also worth noting that Scalia and Thomas defected from the
'conservatives' to join the majority, and Breyer defected from the
'liberals' to join the dissent.
|4.22.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Pedophilia vs. ibuprofen.... You think you'd know which side of
the argument would win. You are wrong.
Listen pedophiles, this is what you do. Become and administrator or
a nurse at a school. Find a way to accuse your target (You know,
the one with the blue eyes and blond hair and sprouting nipples
that you've had your eye on since she was 6) with any drug. Hey,
doesn't matter how innocuous or safe the drug is. It doesn't matter
if she has a prescription. The courts are not going to question
your judgment because all drugs are equally bad....mmmm'kay. You
don't have to look for a troubled child either. You can pick the
brightest and those that don't have any discipline problems. The
courts are not ever going to question your judgment. So have at it
pedophiles.
Next topic: Oh so they got some good info out of the torture. Oh so
what you are saying is that the ends justifies the means. That is a
hell of an argument. You went to harvard to come up with that?
|4.22.09 @ 10:36AM|#
a lie to give cover
Conspiracies are made of such things.
What happens to the people who devise and sell tax shelters which
are found not to comply with the tax code? Does the fact that they
merely offered an "opinion" about the legitimacy of their products
shield them from prosecution?
|4.22.09 @ 10:46AM|#
this is a follow up to yesterdays 'batin thread. from the Dothan
Eagle and the AP:
a resolution has been introduced in the Alabama House that praises
Miss California for speaking out against gay marriage. The
resolution was introduced by Republican Jay Love of montgomery.. He
said Prejean stuck to her conviction even if it meant losing the
pageant. The resolution has been referred to the House rules
committee.
Bill|4.22.09 @ 11:05AM|#
"What happens to the people who devise and sell tax shelters
which are found not to comply with the tax code? Does the fact that
they merely offered an "opinion" about the legitimacy of their
products shield them from prosecution?"
In fact, the Treasury has issued detailed and complex regulations
providing pretty serious penalties precisely for those people. It's
known as "Circular 230" and in recent years, the regs have been
revised a few times and greatly strengthened. Any attorney
"practicing before the IRS", including tax return preparers or
those giving certain written opinions - most especially those
regarding the tax treatment of tax-shelter type transactions - are
exposed to significant potential penalties.
In that area, at least, the law expressly covers that issue.
|4.22.09 @ 11:14AM|#
The resolution was introduced by Republican Jay
Love
You just can't make this shit up, can you?
In fact, the Treasury has issued detailed and complex
regulations providing pretty serious penalties precisely for those
people.
What are the intent requirements?
|4.22.09 @ 11:23AM|#
R C Dean, Jay Love ran for U.S. House of rep last fall for the vacated seat of the retiring Terry Everett(sp). His ads bludgeoned us with, "It's time to get some conservative Christian values back in congress!" We got Bobby Bright instead. A conservative democrat, former mayor of Montgomery Alabama.
Charles|4.22.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Brotherben,
And to think some people say our legislature never gets anything
done!
I hope you've been calling your state senator about the Gourmet
Beer Bill.
Dave Krueger|4.22.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Good thing it was the FBI. If it had been ordinary citizens it would have been serious crime warranting hard time and lifetime membership on the sex offender registry. But, since it was just law enforcement doing the peeping, it's merely a misdemeanor and it's all hush-hush to protect the victims.
Dave Krueger|4.22.09 @ 12:37PM|#
"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an
unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our
government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a
million years would we have thought something like this would
happen. We're in shock."
ROFLMAO!!!!
Mike Laursen|4.22.09 @ 12:54PM|#
How odd to include the assessed value of the CFO's home as a factoid in the article.
Geotpf|4.22.09 @ 1:46PM|#
I've completely given up on the Supreme Court. It's not that they always rule the way I think is the "wrong", it's that their rulings are totally random. Sometimes they rule the "right" way for illogical reasons. There's no consistancy from one ruling to the next. Lots of goofy 5-4 decisions as well, which mostly depend on what Kennedy had for lunch that day, as far as I can tell.
|4.22.09 @ 1:57PM|#
I've completely given up on the Supreme Court. It's not that
they always rule the way I think is the "wrong", it's that their
rulings are totally random.
Given the age and decrepitude of several members of the current
Court, I expect Obama will fill two or three seats. Then we won't
have random rulings, we'll have decades of dead wrong rulings
piling rocks on the grave of the Constitution.
|4.22.09 @ 2:18PM|#
It's not that they always rule the way I think is the
"wrong", it's that their rulings are totally random.
They aren't ruling on what's right or wrong they're ruling on how
to interpret the often-bad laws passed by congress or state
legislators, and trying to avoid overturning prior SCOTUS decisions
wherever possible.
This is about process, not about outcome.
Then we won't have random rulings, we'll have decades of dead
wrong rulings piling rocks on the grave of the
Constitution.
Riiiiiight....
jtuf|4.22.09 @ 4:04PM|#
I object to the waterboarding. I haven't gone through the
details of the other methods. I've got some questions to throw out
there.
First, I remember when the New York Times reporter (I think her
name was Palmer) was sent to jail for contempt of court for
refusing to reveal her source during a case. Should it also be
legal to jail people who refuse to talk about others during an
interrogation?
Second, the legal bar for injecting someone with pychiatric drugs
and holding him in a mental institute for a couple of weeks to get
him talk is quite low. I don't approve of that practice either, but
I'm surprised the interrogators did not use it. It's more effective
than water boarding, and happens commonly without any political
fall out.
Third, how can Obama, who was in the Senate for years before
becoming president, manage to look like a Washington outsider on
this? The call for an investigation of congressional compliance
with the water boarding ect. is noticeably absent.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245