Reason Morning Links: New Gitmo Allegations, Terrorism Arrests in New Jersey, Madoff Finds His Niche


NEXT: Two Approaches to Curbing Student Drinking Problems

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. FTA: “The officer declined to take a breath alcohol test.”

      WTF? Would I be able to get away with that after shooting someone 13 times at close range* after leaving a club at 1:30 a.m.?

      *I consider close range for a handgun to be anything under 5 yards. Witnesses say Brown (a brown man btw if you didn’t rtfa) was approaching the off-duty prick with hands raised to show he didn’t have a weapon.

      No charges filed yet. I wonder how this will be twisted into a justified shooting.

      1. WTF? Would I be able to get away with that after shooting someone 13 times at close range* after leaving a club at 1:30 a.m.?

        Only if you’re a cop, Madbiker.

      2. It wasn’t even the first time he’d shot someone while off duty and drunk.

        Guglielmi said Tshamba, a 15-year-veteran, shot a man in the foot after a confrontation while off duty in 2005. The shooting was found to be justified, but Tshamba was disciplined because he was under the influence of alcohol.

        1. Yes, didn’t you know that police are immune to the judgment-impairing effects of alcohol?

        2. There’s even more:

          In July 1998, Tshamba was involved in another police shooting, this time while on duty in East Baltimore. Police at the time said he shot a man in the back during a foot chase after hearing a gunshot and thinking the suspect he was after had fired a gun. They said another officer a block away had fired at another fleeing suspect but missed.


          I’m glad we have such brave men serving in law enforcement.

      3. I wonder how this will be twisted into a justified shooting.

        The guy was capable of unprovoked groping. ‘Nuff said.

        1. Don’t worry brother, we got your back!

      4. Maybe a few Marines will take steps to rectify the problem themselves, if that happens. One can hope.

    2. Guglielmi said Tshamba, a 15-year-veteran, shot a man in the foot after a confrontation while off duty in 2005. The shooting was found to be justified, but Tshamba was disciplined because he was under the influence of alcohol. [italics added]

      The cop shoots people when he’s drunk and the city of Baltimore keeps him on the job. You can’t make up shit like this.

      Just think, if someone had recorded the incident with their cell phone they’d probably be behind bars right now.

      1. I can’t even type my own handle correctly this AM.

        1. Rage makes my hands shake, too.

    3. Det. Ellis Carver: You know, this is why I think we can’t win this.
      Det. Thomas Hauk: How come?
      Det. Ellis Carver: They screw up, they get beaten. We screw up, we get a pension.

    4. Are there laws in Maryland against open carry?


      I don’t need this on monday morning…it is bad enough I am guranteed to get it from Radley now everyone wants to do a good nut punch.

      I hope justice is served but I am realistic.

      Cleared of all wrongdoing. Brown guy dead, problem solved

      1. Well, Balko did the morning links, so I figured it was topical.

  1. A (PDF) article from the World Bank that’s surprisingly not totally pro-govt. Interesting blurb about SEC rule changes in 2004.

    World Bank: The Political, Regulatory and Market Failures That Caused the US Financial Crisis (PDF)

    A different SEC rule change in 2004. They were going to micromanage the large investment banks, but since the govt was just as clueless as the banks, this meant taking the banks word for everything:

    Ex-SEC Official Blames Agency for Blow-Up of Broker-Dealers

    1. I’ve added the SEC rule changes from 2004 to my short post about what the govt did in 2004/05 to cause the housing crash:


      The article now has graphs. Oooohhhh…pictures!!! 🙂

      1. Isnt 04-05 a little late for them to do anything to cause the crash?

        By then, the crash was inevitable. The bubble caused the crash. They caused the bubble well before 2004.

        1. The bubble’s existence isn’t binary (yes it exists/no it doesn’t). It had started by 2004 but it got much, much worse in the following 3 years. Rule changes in 04-05 could certainly have an effect.

  2. I thought New Jersey was a jihad against America.

    1. What other ticking time bombs await?

      I can think of several. Effing Bush!

    1. First rule of avoiding criticism:

      Purity of commitment to one’s beliefs is non-negotiable. Never, ever dabble in anything that does not tow the party lion.

      I learned this one well when I was a silly-poseur-tweet going to hardcore shows in the early 90s with kids my age who were apparently cooler and a “real” member of the scene because their discovery of punk and hardcore pre-dated mine by six months.

        1. “The voice we need to hear right now is President Obama’s?evoking the language of his great predecessors, from Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt?inspiring in all of us a greater sense of national purpose more expensive tastes in hookers.”


          Honestly, there no better voice among us for for urging us on to greatness other than “The Fucking Steamroller.”

        2. You can’t fool *me*, Astrid. That’s from The Onion.

          1. If only.

            1. When it gets hard to tell me from reality, the end is nigh! I should change my name to Cassandra!

      1. Of course it was the poor who couldn’t afford to pay a substitute or pay the “fine” who made the sacrifice for the Union army.

        1. Not really-this is another myth. But that’s another story.

    2. That means it’s time to play… Anti-Libertarian Bingo!

      You forgot “The only industrialized nation in the world…”

      1. I think it’s covered by “But Europe Does it!”

        1. True, it does capture more of the petulant, stomping feet lefty.

        2. To which my response is always “you should move there if it’s so great. They need people willing to provide for their mooches.”

      2. You forgot “ANARCHISTS!” and “Impractical”.

        1. Well, “Utopians” gets to the impractical argument. But “Anaarchists” is a good point. I guess I was thinking that most leftists just imply we are anarchist, and they have no idea how to untangle the word from their anti-globalization buddies who they they are striking a blow for the world’s poor by breaking windows at a Starbucks.

          1. Apology accepted. 😉

    3. @SugarFree

      From the article’s comments:

      I have a strong distrust and disrespect for men in uniform.

      Followed by:

      Heinlein helped me be a Socialist.

      How does this guy think socialism is enforced? Surely not by guys in uniforms…with guns!

      1. Typical leftist stupidity. They think everyone wants to be socialists, but the evil media corporations are keeping them blind.

        I don’t think everyone wants to be a libertarian or would be one if they knew what we actually believed. But it’s an integral part to leaving me the fuck alone, and so, for them, that’s too goddamn bad.

      2. Uniforms are optional. The secret police may wear street clothes.

        1. We prefer earthen tones for our shirts.

          1. In the UK, they wore black and in the US they wore silver.

      3. Heinlein helped me be a Socialist.

        No, I think you managed that gobstopping idiocy all by your lonesome. Heinlein is just today’s massive rationalization.

        Be proud of who you are. Don’t try and blame The Man for your innate shortcomings.

        1. How in the world would Heinlein turn someone into a socialist?

    4. I can’t decide which I hate more, poor people or the environment.

      1. You could hate homeless people, poor people who are in the environment. Saves time.

    5. But, but what about teh externalities?

  3. Guglielmi said Tshamba, a 15-year-veteran, shot a man in the foot after a confrontation while off duty in 2005. The shooting was found to be justified, but Tshamba was disciplined because he was under the influence of alcohol.

    1. Is this an example of the new professionalism?

  4. “But their preparations apparently were unsophisticated. They lifted weights, bought military-style pants and water bottles, played violent video games and watched terrorist videos online.”

    That’s it. I’m turning in three of my students today – they fit the profile. BDUs, violent video game fetishes, and a penchant for working out. They must be terrorists in training. One of them even wears a counter-cultural faux-hawk in his hair. To Gitmo with thee!

    1. The only sort of crime associated with a a faux-hawk is how three years ago it is.

      Why can’t they just have Beiber’s astronaut’s wife hair?

    2. I bet your little fuckers can’t squat worth a shit.

      BDUs are pretty cool, though.

      1. We agree!

      2. I thought BDUs were out in favor of some other acronym. Especially since they started wearing their BDUs to the office.

        1. ACUs are the current uniform, but they’re cut differently than BDUs. And they have velcro all over the place, instead of buttons, in order to accommodate today’s fingerless soldier.

          1. Buttons are the reason we lost Vietnam. I prefer the old BDUs, myself. The velcro doesn’t sit right with me either, nor the 6 dpi digital camo.

      3. No, they’re not!

        1. They’re better than ‘aquaflauge’

      4. Rip posted a link in the SS forum to the HnR post about the viral SWAT video. Reason needs to let him post here until they learn that great rants are always under 1000 words.

        “Coach, can you comment on my form.”
        “You’re too skinny.”

  5. “Obviously the town meetings are magnets for people who have a political agenda, but it’s worth putting up with the talking-point-induced political dialogue to get good ideas,” said Mr. Boucher, who was one of the few Democrats last week who did hold a wide-open meeting

    Well said, Rick, but you’re still being voted out in November.

    1. Political town halls attracting people with “political agendas”. Why, the nerve

      1. Clearly the First Amendment wasn’t created to apply to political speech. Just cursing and bad art.

    2. Politicians need to remember those they refer to as “people with political agendas” are the same ones pollsters refer to as “likely voters.”

  6. Lefty doyenne of the White House press corps Helen Thomas tell the Jews of Israel to go back to Auschwitz where they belong.

      1. We like the cut of her jib! She was great in Legend!

        1. Had anyone else posted this, it would arguably be a hate crime. Whew!

        2. It’s now being reported that the hideous old bat has finally, uh, “retired”.

    1. She didn’t say go back to Auschwitz, you nimrod, she said they should go back to the countries they immigrated to Israel from. (No explanation of where Jews born in Israel should go.) What she said was bad enough, no need to exaggerate it.

  7. It’s a fine, warm, almost-summer Saturday night. And what do the ladies of Jezebel spent it doing? Commenting 3778 times on an open thread.

    I’m a fat, married, diabetic cripple, but at least I had something better to do Saturday night than kvetch on-line.

    1. I’m a fat, married, diabetic cripple, but at least I had something better to do Saturday night than kvetch on-line.

      Like stealing teddy bears from orphans while wearing a top hat and monocle monocle?

      1. I didn’t steal them, I just paid far below the market average. Stupid orphans don’t know the value of anything. I guess that why their parents abandoned them.

    2. Well, what do you expect them to do, dress up, go out, and stop bitching long enough to smile for once? PATRIARCHICAL CISOPRESSOR

      1. You just wait till we run the SCOTUS, paternalistic misogynist! Elena and Sonya are the first of many! We’ll cut you a mangina that Buffalo Bill would die for!

  8. It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public can know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge.

    If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP’s north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

    Robert Reich


    1. Stand up, Robert!

      1. (gumble..mummph..slumph) I am Joe! I’m the perfect fucking height!

    2. Ummm…is BP not still a British Company (no clue, actually, but the B is still in the name)?

      1. Don’t bother him with details, he’s moralizing.

        1. “temporary receivership” my ass.

      2. Did foreign ownership ever stop socialists from nationalizing companies?

    3. The Slope, it is slippery with oil.

    4. …Ensure BP’s strategy is correct? Do these people really believe that government gets it right every god-damn time?

      1. Every time. The key is to have the right people in charge.

    5. But those of us who warned of the slippery slope at the time of the bailouts were just being paranoid!

    6. How long before Exxon or Shell scoops them up on the cheap? Let that market cap keep plunging, and BP might go away all on its own…

    7. Because no one — NO ONE — knows more about how to stop a gushing oil pipe a mile under near-freezing cold water than agents of the federal government.

      Yes, by all means, Obama, have the feds take over trying to stop this leak. Take ownership of the spill, and the inability to end it.

      1. The irony? The leak is on government owned land.

        You could make an argument that it is ultimately their problem. Just like it would be my problem if I rented a house and called a plumber to fix a sink and the plumber ultimately flooded the house.

        This by no means is meant as a government endorsement or to suggest that government has a fucking clue what it is doing in any business other than killing foreign brown people. (they’re pretty good at that)

        1. If the plumber caused damage to houses hundreds of miles away, that would be a great analogy.

        2. Hey, dude, don’t sell ’em short – they’re pretty good at killing domestic brown people too. Just because we’re libertarians doesn’t mean we can’t give credit where credit is due.

        3. Hey, dude, don’t sell ’em short – our government is pretty good at killing domestic brown people, too. Credit where credit is due.

        4. It’s not us that kill brown people. It is the bullets we buy from the private sector that are racist.

    8. Ironically, BP was government-owned until 1987.

    9. That would make it easier to restructure BP along the lines of GM and Chrysler.

      No, nothing Corporatist about that…

    10. How about temporary Reavership? That could solve a few problems.

  9. That whole “Rule of Law” thing is a silly remnant of the days before we had the Right People in Charge. We need to get things done!!

    1. I like the way you think, P. May I offer you a job in my administration so you won’t run for elected office?

  10. Stupid orphans don’t know the value of anything. I guess that why their parents abandoned them.

    It’s a cultural thing. Their parents apparently couldn’t be bothered to teach them about value. You don’t just abandon children; you sell them into slavery.

    1. Selling children into slavery violates core libertarian principles.

      OTOH, working the 16 hours a day in sweatshops, paying them starvavation wages while charging them exobitant room and board fees is not only free market, it’s more profitable than slavery where you’re on the hook for those damned health care costs.

      1. Nice Tony parody strawman, J sub.

  11. I could have sworn that it was Krugman urging us to emulate the Red Chinese. But here comes Reich telling us to nationalize an oil company.

    Its getting harder and harder for lefties to credibly deny that they aren’t crypto-socialists, yes?

    1. I hope you get cancer, asshole!

  12. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”

    Your voice doesn’t count if it says the wrong things. You fucking peasant.

    1. Is he talking about himself? Because I’ve never been to a town hall meeting where the Congressman actually wanted to discuss the issues and wasn’t just politically posturing.

    2. Right, because politicians are known for honestly discussing issues with people and giving straight answers to questions.

  13. Madoff:

    the dorms are named after Atlantic Coast Conference colleges

    Maryland, the unit where child molesters are

    I knew there was something wrong with Maryland.

  14. I agree with Madoff about his victims. There is an old saying “you can’t con an honest man”. For years Madoff produced rates that should have been unbelievable to anyone with a brain. But those people didn’t care. They were just greedy. They were just as big of crooks as he was. They had to have known he was lying or ripping someone else off to get those returns.

    1. Actually, part of Madoff’s genius was that he never offered insane returns. His fund earned 10-17% per year, which is nice but not enough to make most people suspicious.

      The real red flag was that he never had a down quarter, and only reported a few down months over many years.

      1. sustained 10 to 17% returns are insane returns. And everyone has a down year once in a while. His investers were just a greedy and crooked as he was.

      2. Well, that guy who spent years trying to get the SEC to investigate disagrees. He started asking questions because he couldn’t see any way, based on the reported numbers, that Madoff was making his money legitimately.

  15. Oh, happy belated National Day of Slayer, you vile reprobates.

  16. The men had traveled to Jordan three years ago and tried to get into Iraq, only to be rejected by jihadists, Kelly said.

    How big of a fail are you if you can’t make the cut to be a suicide bomber in Iraq in frakin 2007? It’s like being a woman so ugly you can’t pick up a guy in a Norfolk bar the day the Eisenhower battle group returns from a 7 month deployment.

    (On the other hand, it kinda shows that in 2007 at least, the insurgency had higher standards than the US Army that year – a recruiter would have signed these guys up in a heartbeat.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.