Letters to the Editor
-
jojo
"I must be growing up; nothing else could hurt this much."
--Joel Rosenberg
That is the price of ephiphany, of expanding your ability to understand. And we had a President, at a moment of tremendous stress and terror, basically tell us to not grow up, to stay quiet and we would not have to change. He went with his gut.
-
Fraud
It's not just painful - it's crazy making. Serious reorganization takes a "dark night of the soul." That's why we're lucky that there is death and birth - otherwise, would still be in the paleolithic.
That, come to think of it, wouldn't be sooo bad...
-
signal to noise
That's why they hate being described so much, why Gaffney flipped out when Glenn asked him to explain what he was getting at. Gaffney didn't want Glenn to know his name.
The name is power. Anyone can choose a "name" but its what we do that makes us who we are.
When Sean Hannity equates Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, and Sean Penn with Kim Jong Ill, Hugo Chavez, and Amahnijahad it is not demonizing Hannity to say that he is employing a Nazi character-assasination tactic. He has demonized himself by acting like a Nazi.
What will Hannity reply? "I know you are, what am I"
That tactic loses its power when it is explained. There are millions of people listening to Rush Limbaugh tell them "liberals" are cockroaches.
It is not unfair of me, and I am not proscribing anything, when I say that the Rwandan genocide was proceeded by people calling "the other" cockroaches. I am stating a fact, and it bother Limbaugh because it is true, he is ashamed.
"I know you are, what am I."
The abyss reflected.
-
Just to clarify
I realize that one aspect of my previous comment may not have been clear. I did indeed mean proscriptions rather than prescriptions, m.b.f. We've already talked about what you think we should do that I think we shouldn't; here I was making the case that viewing our political adversaries as a complex of pathologies, even metaphorically, rather than taking them at their word, is to limit our interactions with them, and thus forego beforehand any possibility of genuine dialogue. Even if, in fact, many of them are pathological in their personal and political behavior, I believe that limiting contact with them in this way is unwise.
-
Ghosts
Not to change of subject of these interesting comments but on this post-Libby-is-a-felon-day, I can't help but ponder on the abject horror that has been wrought on Iraq and the US as a direct result of the actions of these folks and their manic desire for war:
Thousands killed
Thousands maimed
Thousands displaced
Billions in property laid to waste
Billions wasted in the effort
Torture, detention, abuse conducted in the name of my country....I mean wow!
How do these folks sleep at night?
And the Wall Street Media feel sorry for Libby!
-
@ Glenn Greenwald
Standing/Discovery
Arne:
I understand the reasoning behind this, but shouldn't this be regarded as a factual issue to be decided on the merits, rather than a way to prevent the discovery of the very evidence that could establish standing?
Actually, my bad. That was Chris's statement; I closed the italics too early....
But FWIW, I do think that standing should be liberalised a bit (hey, why not just cite Dubya v. Gore when you're writing the appeals brief after they deny standing; Dubya wasn't a Florida voter, and he certainly didn't show even a discriminatory effect, much less the "invidious discrimination" or "discriminatory intent" that some poor black would have to show to get in the door on an "equal protection" claim). I commented on this ("http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/better-approach-to-standing-in.html") a little bit over at Balkinization.
Cheers,
-
captain's quarters
Dear God, Glenn, how do you read *Captain's Quarters?* totally off-topic, I know, but, jesus, that guy is so intellectually dishonest he makes Josef Goebbels sound like Thich Nhat Han.
I read his most recent post about the libby conviction, and I just can't figure out how people like this function in the real world. He lives in morally bankrupt universe. He equates Libby lying about outing a CIA operative with Bill Clinton lying about screwing a woman who was more than happy do so.
These guys are ALL dangerous dingbats...and the people who post there? They're delusional psychotics.
Man. What a world.
-
Captain America is Dead!
I just read that Captain America is dead, assassinated for refusing to register with the government in it's anti-terror campaign.
I guess it's starting to percolate through the collective unconscious.
-
More on standing
Glenn:
At the outset of a case, a federal plaintiff is not required to be able to prove with evidence that there is jurisdiction, but they must be able to allege the facts which establish jurisdiction. Prior to discovery, the court will assume that all the facts about jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff are true, and then ask: "if these allegations are true, is there jurisdiction here?"
Agreed. I think this is what I said earlier.
In the FISA cases, virtually all plaintiffs cannot even allege that they were subjected to surveillance, becasue they simply have no good faith basis for that allegation. They and their lawyers would likely be sanctioned if they allege it. Thus, all of these complaints are missing what the Government says is a pre-requisite for standing to challenge surveillance activities: namely, that the plaintiff be able to allege that they were subjected to the challeneged surveillance.
But they can allege the "injury" to give them standing by saying that the very existence of the program, whether or not it is directed at them personally, is harming them. This they did in one case. The existence of the program is acknowledged by the gummint. In the case I mentioned, their claim is that the existence of the program has a "chilling effect" on them (and their contacts and sources) as journalists. They wouldn't be the first to succeed on a "chilling effect" claim; courts have struck down laws in First Amendment free speech claims because just the possibility of prosecution, even if the result might not stand for a specific instance, has such an effect on some legal and protected speech ("least restrictive means", narrowly tailored" and all that gets into the analysis).
If a plaintiff could make that allegation in good faith, then you could have discovery to obtain the relevant evidence and see if that alleagtion is true. But you can't run into a court and tell the court: "We don't know if there is jurisdiction here or not, but we would like to have some discovery to find out." The whole point of jurisdictional requirements is that a case should not proceed unless there is a clear basis for believing the court is constitutionally empowered to adjudicate the case.
I know it's a horrible dilemma. I hate even having to summarize the argument because the outcome is so plainly, glaringly and horribly unjust. But process matters, and constitutional limits on a court's jurisdiction definitely matters.
One solution might be for the judge to see, through in camera submissions, whether there are grounds for the allegations. The other it to assert the "harms" that they did in the one case.
There may be ways to get around this. The ACLU had some creative arguments for how you can have standing anyway. And this case written about by Singel might provide the way through. Or Congress could get to its FISA investgigations, find out the identity of the parties on whom the administration eavesdropped, and then find a way to empower them to challenge that eavesdropping.
Another possibility.
There are solutions here. But if I had to bet, I'd bet (based on the Argument and the law) the Sixth Circuit will reverse on standing, but nobody can predict these things and I've been wrong many times.
I agree, but let's trot out Dubya. v. Gore in the appellate and amici briefs.... ;-)
Cheers,