Law

I just came across an old post of mine on the Internet Infidels’ Discussion Boards: February 22, 2004, 05:24 PMI keep seeing this TV commercial from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The commercial shows a girl standing on a dock on a lake, with a life preserver sitting on it, and another drowning in the water as she looks on. The voiceover says something like “If you had a friend who was drowning, you’d help, wouldn’t you?" Every time I see it I think it’s going to be an argument for the nonexistence of God. The ad is online, though it doesn’t seem to be one of the ones the ONDCP put on YouTube, with subsequent ridicule. The ONDCP ad campaign has been studied by the GAO and found to be ineffective, but the government continues to spend over one hundred million dollars per year on it. ...

The Montana Law Review has published an article by three Discovery Institute Fellows, a reply by Peter Irons, and a response by the DI Fellows (DeWolf, West, and Luskin). Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has now published a reply by Irons to the short response from the DI Fellows; you can find all four contributions at his blog. I recommend starting with the first Irons reply, followed by the short DI Fellows response, followed by the Irons reply that Ed has published.

FCC Kevin Martin has responded to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on “fleeting expletives," which not only went completely against the FCC but suggested that the grounds for the FCC’s authority to regulate indecency on the broadcast airwaves may no longer exist. Here’s part of what he had to say: I completely disagree with the Court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families. I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that “shit” and “fuck” are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience. The court even says the Commission is “divorced from reality.” It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word “fuck” does not invoke a sexual connotation. ...

The Open Government Act, a bill which would require the government to provide justifications for refusal to answer Freedom of Information Act requests, has been blocked in the Senate by an anonymous, secret hold placed by one Senator. This is the same process by which Sen. Ted Stevens placed a secret hold last year on a bill to create a publicly searchable database of earmarks. After the Society for Professional Journalists began a search for the responsible Senator who wants the government to continue to be able to stonewall FOIA requests without justification, he came forward–and it’s Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars reports on how gay parents have relied on the development of new methods to ensure their ability to adopt and serve as guardians of children. Second-parent adoption and visitation rights to adopted children by non-custodial parents (the two examples Ed provides) are also available to unmarried straights. The result is that unmarried couples who previously married solely to obtain such legal protections don’t need to do so.

Andrew Sullivan reports on the origin of the term “enhanced interrogation techniques," as well as justification for their use that directly parallels those of the Bush administration.

Susan Ralston, who was personal assistant to Jack Abramoff before she was special assistant to the president reporting to Karl Rove, is seeking immunity in order to testify before Rep. Henry Waxman’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. With any luck, this will be sufficient to tie Rove to the Abramoff scandal and result in criminal charges against him.

The Senate Judiciary committee subpoenaed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appear before them yesterday at 2 p.m. EDT with copies of all of Karl Rove’s emails regarding the U.S. Attorney scandal. He didn’t show up. Here’s the letter from chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking member Arlen Specter to Gonzales, which includes this paragraph: You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance. Your action today is in defiance of the Committee’s subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing so.Hasn’t the Bush administration already made it abundantly clear that it does not consider itself bound by the rule of law? UPDATE: The Department of Justice has responded to the subpoena by producing a single Karl Rove email sent on February 28, 2007.

There’s now much discussion in the blogosphere about former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey’s testimony before Congress. Comey related that in 2004, the warrantless wiretapping program had come up for reauthorization–the previous authorization was due to expire the following day. Comey, filling in for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital for emergency gall bladder surgery, refused to sign Bush’s order for reauthorization. Bush secretly sent his White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to Ashcroft’s hospital bedside to get his signature, but an aide to Ashcroft tipped off Comey. Comey rushed to the hospital, and obtained from FBI Director Robert Mueller a directive to Ashcroft’s security staff to not remove Comey even if Gonzales and Card insisted upon it. At the hospital, Ashcroft also refused to sign the reauthorization directive. Comey related that the entire senior staff of the Department of Justice, including himself and FBI Director Mueller, were prepared to resign over the issue. Had that happened–in an election year, no less–perhaps the outcome of that election would have been different. Bush consulted directly with Comey and Mueller, and gave them assurances that the program would be modified to comply with Department of Justice recommendations, and Comey signed the reauthorization several weeks later. It’s not clear whether it continued to operate without authorization for that period of weeks. A Talking Points Memo reader comments: ...

Kearny board of education member Paul Castelli has apparently decided that the town hasn’t had enough controversy over history teacher David Paskiewicz’s misuse of the classroom as an evangelizing pulpit, and has gone public with a denunciation of the board’s conciliatory statement from last week. The Observer reports: “Matthew LaClair is absolutely not a hero,” Castelli said, referring to a statement the Board made last week that praised Matthew for standing up for his rights. “His parents are opportunists and it’s a combination of both Matthew and his parents. Though I leave it up to the people to decide for themselves, it’s pretty obvious that he (Matt’s father, Paul) did just as much speaking as his son did.” In addition to seeing Matt as far from a hero, Castelli also said he was not convinced the Anti-Defamation League’s curriculum was what was needed. The ADL will soon be instructing students and teachers on the parameters involved in the separation of church and state. “I would have been more comfortable if there had been more specifics as to what they would be teaching the students and teachers,” Castelli said. “It was really unclear what they were actually going to do.” He also says the Board was never given a clear resolution to a Board-directed investigation into suspected harassment against Matthew. Matthew claimed to have been harassed numerous times by classmates, including a death threat on his Myspace Web page — an incident that was investigated by the Kearny Police Department. Finally, Castelli says that despite suspected closure in the matter with the agreement, he still feels the Board is susceptible to being named in a lawsuit, should someone (he didn’t mention anyone or entity specifically) decide to sue the LaClairs.Who, and on what grounds, would someone sue the LaClairs? They’ve done nothing wrong–all they’ve done is insist that the board of education do the right thing about improper classroom behavior by a teacher whose initial defense was to deny what he had been recorded doing. Castelli is also quoted at the Observer saying that he doesn’t feel sorry for Matthew LaClair for receiving taunts and threats from classmates, stating (incorrectly) that “Throughout the ordeal, he was asked to identify the kids who had done these things to him, and not once did he identify anyone. How could anyone be expected to take action if they didn’t know whom they were taking action against? It wasn’t possible. And it wasn’t possible to feel sorry for someone unless they were willing to give up the information we needed to ensure a proper investigation took place.” As the Observer points out, “Matthew has said it was impossible to identify possible threat makers because often, taunts would be hurled from within a large group of kids. Additionally, Matthew did identify, for police, the student who made the Myspace death threat against him several months ago.”