Letters to the Editor
dhbecker
Published Letters: 9
-
Ironic combination of stories
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's ironic that a story about Steve Kerr appears along with a story focused on pressing home the point that "the best player on the floor" should be criticized for insisting that he made the smart basketball play by dishing to a teammate for the final shot (even though the teammate missed the shot).
I was a Bulls fan in the 1990s and remember several memorable last games - Steve Kerr knocking down the winning shot in the 1997 finals game 6 on a dish from Michael Jordan; John Paxson hitting the winning shot in the 1993 finals game 6 (with Michael Jordan on the floor); Paxson hitting ten points in the last part of the fourth quarter after the Bulls went down 93-90, including a shot of a perfect no-look feed from Michael Jordan. Bottom line is that the truly greatest, smartest basketball players are those who will make the smart basketball move when it's the right time to do so -- and LeBron James made the smart basketball move when he dished off in game 1 after drawing defenders to him.
All LeBron was doing was following in the tradition of the greatest basketball player ever. And how impressive is it as a matter of leadership that the current greatest player in basketball trusts his teammates enough to dish off for the game's final shot? He should get praise for having made that pass in game 1, not criticism
-
GG lets 6th Circuit off too easily on the standing decision
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG is probably right that the Sixth Circuit's decision that the ACLU and other plaintiffs did not have standing was reasonable based on the evidence Judge Taylor had before her - the plaintiffs had no way to prove they had ever been subject to illegal surveillance. However, given the government's claim that national security and the state secrets privilege would preclude the government from disclosing to the plaintiffs whether or not they were ever surveilled, the Sixth Circuit should have considered a different avenue for deciding the case - a remand to Judge Taylor to take evidence from the government for review in camera (in her chambers, for her eyes only) regarding whether or not any of the plaintiffs were subject to illegal surveillance. The state secrets privilege is almost, but not quite, absolute -- there are precedents for a judge considering evidence that the plaintiffs are never allowed to see, but which support their cases, to show standing and otherwise prove their claims. A good recent example was U.S. District Court Judge Garr King's refusal to dismiss a similar warrantless surveillance case brought in Oregon by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. In analyzing the standing issue, Judge King found that it might be possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their case based on his review of secret documents in camera. The decision is at 451 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1226-27 and available at http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/al_haramian_opinion_09072006.pdf. In that case, the plaintiff was aware that the secret document showed that plaintiff had been subject to surveillance (the document was inadvertently disclosed, but was still classified "top secret") -- but when constitutional violations and potentially blatant statutory violations by the executive are at issue, the Sixth Circuit should have fashioned some means for Judge Taylor to take and review secret evidence on the threshold standing issue, instead of dismissing the plaintiffs' case outright. I completely agree with GG that standing is an important issue in regulating the power of the courts to hear cases -- but equally important is the courts' exercise of power as a branch of government equal to the executive. The Sixth Circuit abdicated that role by effectively conceding that the executive could - in this case - conceal its activities behind a claim that "state secrets" would be revealed if ANY information relevant to the plaintiffs' claim were presented to the court. The courts have a consitutional obligation to put such a claim to the test, and have the power to do so, if necessary, by fashioning extraordinary procedures to protect the secrecy of goverment submissions by allowing only the judge herself to look at and consider those submissions.
-
"Appropriate Action"
[Read the article: It's finally time for Bush to answer questions about Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We misunderstoodimated the President: when he said "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," it's now clear he meant "if someone leaked classified information or lied to cover up the leak, we'll take the appropriate action -- which is to pardon everyone involved."
We were too clueless to think that "appropriate action" meant anything but "fire, prosecute, and punish." Silly us.
-
Pictures worth 1000 words
[Read the article: American war culture in a nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's been great that GG has started posting photos with his blogs - you get to see that the Kagans look as loathsome as their writings are.
-
The Post-9/11 Mentality
[Read the article: Know your rights: The Kerry Taser incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every aspect of this event is terrifying for what it says about what we've become. The notion that it's acceptable for the government to impose order by applying disproportionate force is the logical outgrowth of what we've allowed our society to become in the past six years - one governed more by fear and sheeplike acceptance of restrictions on our liberties. Thanks to our complacency in the face of warrantless surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and permanent sequestration of enemy combatants without due process, we've become accustomed to think that even minor resistance to government power is tantamount to treason, and needs to be met with, at a minimum, six burly cops and a taser. I for one am grateful to see the student didn't go quietly, because in a free society he never should have been forced to go at all.
-
Maybe the senior White House official just hates his boss?
[Read the article: White House: Obama too "intellectually lazy" to work here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and means that the American people won't stand for another intellectually lazy President who simply tries to get by on charm? Which has long since worn thin?
Of course, the official also mischaracterizes Obama, who seems anything but intellectually lazy (certainly not when compared with the Pet Goat Reader currently in the Oval Office).