Citizen 4.0

Much a do about nothing?

hypnoticmix — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:49:13 -0800

Holder's Decision "Reasonable"

stephley — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:58:47 -0800

Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR200911...

Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.

Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.

A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom. Moussaoui's trial was challenging because his request for access to terrorists held at "black" sites had to be litigated. Difficulties also arose because Moussaoui acted as his own lawyer, and the judge labored to control him. But it is difficult to imagine a military commission of rudimentary fairness that would not allow a defendant a similar right to represent himself and speak out in court.

In either trial forum, defendants will make an issue of how they were treated and attempt to undermine the trial politically. These efforts are likely to have more traction in a military than a civilian court. No matter how scrupulously fair the commissions are, defendants will criticize their relatively loose rules of evidence, their absence of a civilian jury and their restrictions on the ability to examine classified evidence used against them. Some say it is wrong to give Mohammed trial rights ordinarily conferred on Americans, but a benefit of civilian trials over commissions is that they make it harder for defendants to complain about kangaroo courts or victor's justice.

The potential procedural advantages of military commission trials are relatively unimportant with obviously guilty defendants such as Mohammed, but they help explain the attorney general's related decision last week to consign five men accused of attacking the USS Cole to a military commission. Holder indicated that he was doing so in part because the Cole was a military target outside the United States, but that reason does not hold up. The Pentagon was a military target, many aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks were planned abroad, and the Cole attack is already the subject of a federal indictment in New York.

It is more likely that Holder decided to use a commission system still learning to walk because the Cole case is relatively weak and will benefit from the marginal advantages the commission system offers the government. It is also likely that the Justice Department will decide that many other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay will not be tried in civilian or military court but, rather, will be held under a military detention rationale more suitable to the circumstances of their cases.

These decisions have already invited charges of opportunistic forum shopping. The Bush administration, criticized on similar grounds, properly explained that it would use whatever lawful tool worked best, all things considered, to incapacitate a particular terrorist. Holder's decisions appear to reflect a similarly pragmatic approach.

Of course, the attorney general made a different call on Mohammed than did the Bush administration. The wisdom of that difficult judgment will be determined by future events. But Holder's critics do not help their case by understating the criminal justice system's capacities, overstating the military system's virtues and bumper-stickering a reasonable decision.

Correction to This Article
The Nov. 20 op-ed by Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith said that Attorney General Eric Holder sent to military commissions five suspects charged with bombing the USS Cole. Holder did send five detainees to be tried by military commission, but only one was previously charged in the Cole bombing.

Italy collector finds Galileo's lost tooth, fingers

amybdk — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:55:50 -0800

Source

Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:17pm EST

ROME (Reuters) - An art collector has found a tooth, thumb and finger of the renowned Italian scientist Galileo Galilei who died in the 17th century, Florence's History of Science museum announced on Friday.

The body parts, along with another finger and a vertebrae, were cut from Galileo's corpse by scientists and historians during a burial ceremony held 95 years after his death in 1642.

Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti, a science historian who cut away the parts and wrote about the ceremony, "confessed he had found it hard to resist the temptation to take away the skull which had housed such extraordinary genius," the museum said.

The newly-found relics had passed from one collector to another until they went missing in 1905. The remaining finger and the vertebrae have been conserved since 1737 in a mummified state in museums in Florence and Padua.

"All the organic material extracted from the corpse has therefore now been identified and is conserved in responsible hands," the museum said in a statement.

"On the basis of considerable historical documentation, there are no doubts about the authenticity of the items," it added.

They will be exhibited from early 2010, when the museum will re-open after current renovation work and will change its name to the Galileo museum.

Galileo, born in Pisa in 1564, is considered one of the fathers of modern science due to his studies in physics, mathematics and particularly astronomy, where he led great advances in developing the telescope.

His lost fingers and tooth were bought by an unnamed collector at a recent auction, where they were being sold as unidentified artifacts contained in an 17th century wooden case, the museum said.

For 95 years after his death, ecclesiastical authorities refused to allow Galileo to be buried in consecrated ground because his findings were considered contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church.

His body now lies in Florence's Santa Croce church, opposite the tomb of Michelangelo.

Diocese: Pedophile priests should get benefits

amybdk — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:19:42 -0800

Source

Nov 20 11:47 AM US/Eastern By RANDALL CHASEAssociated Press Writer

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - The Catholic Diocese of Wilmington says it is obligated to keep paying retirement benefits to six priests who church officials have confirmed are pedophiles.

The diocese filed for Chapter 11 protection last month. Officials had told the judge the church would not make any payments to priests accused of sexual abuse without a court order, even if the abuse had not been substantiated.

But in a filing late Thursday, the diocese said it has an obligation to care for retired clergy, including priests dismissed from public ministry.

The motion asks for permission to continue paying benefits to six confirmed pedophiles, including 80-year-old former priest Francis DeLuca, who was defrocked after serving a jail term in New York for repeatedly abusing his grandnephew.

Why Oprah Is Hanging Up the Mic

amybdk — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:32:59 -0800

Source

Posted: November 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Oprah Winfrey is going to announce today that she will be leaving her eponymous talk show in 2011. The New York Times believes Winfrey is resigning from network TV in order to focus on the cable network she's working on, called OWN, which will feature shows from all of her favorite cronies, like Dr. Oz, Rachael Ray, and Dr. Phil. While this might be the case, I think another reason Oprah is hanging up the mic is because she has destroyed the core of what made her so popular in the first place: She's no longer relatable.

Last year I profiled a blogger for the Times who was living her life based on all Oprah's advice for a year. The blogger, Robyn Okrant, has a forthcoming book based on her experience, and one of the major points she makes is that Oprah is now more famous than almost anyone she interviews. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that Oprah gathered her fan base because of the fact that she was just like them. What pop-culturally conscious woman who was alive in the mid-'80s does not remember when Oprah dropped 67 pounds on the crash diet Optifast and wheeled out a giant tub of fat on her show to signify that weight loss? And who doesn't remember when she gained it all back? The average Jane could easily commisserate with this kind of vulnerability and outward struggle. Of course, Oprah still struggles with her weight, but she does it with the help of a vegan chef, a physical trainer, and a team of assistants.

Many women without personal chefs still watch Lady O, but her ratings have been declining substantially. During the July 2009 rerun season, Oprah had her lowest ratings since the show debuted in 1985. Oprah's minions still have enough of the common touch to appeal to the audience that she seeks to move over to her cable network. Or at least that's what she's hoping.

How do you feel about the new women's health guidelines?

hausfrau — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:30:04 -0800

There's been a lot of attention in the news lately about the new women's health recommendations that 1) you don't need a mammogram until after 50 and then only every 2 years and 2) ACOG's new recommendation that women in their 20s don't need a pap smear every year, but only every 2 years.
Some articles:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_he_me/us_med_fewer_pap_smears
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=6896727582381
So, how do you feel about this?

Fox News again accused of airing misleading video

Roarman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:06 -0800

For the second time in just over a week, Fox News is coming under fire for misusing old news footage. The latest flap is leading some people to charge that the cable news network is intentionally misleading its audience, while Fox claims a "production error."

Wednesday's incident occurred when Fox News host Gregg Jarrett mentioned that a Sarah Palin appearance and book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout. As footage rolled of a smiling and waving Palin amidst a throng of fans, Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book,'' adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning."

However, the video used in the segment was from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. In response to the minor uproar that arose after clips of Jarrett's report hit the Internet, Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video."

On Thursday afternoon, Fox News issued an on-air apology delivered by host Jane Skinner:

Yesterday we told you about Sarah Palin kicking off her book tour and then we spoke to Sean Hannity about an interview that he did with former Governor Palin. When introducing the segment we showed you footage of people lining up in Michigan for a book signing that evening. In the tease before the segment, the tease to commercial, we told you how those people were already lining up to meet Palin. The problem is we didn't show you the video we were actually referencing. Instead we mistakenly aired what's called "file tape" of Sarah Palin. We didn't mean to mislead anybody in that tease. It was a mistake, and for that we apologize.
The current mishap comes on the heels of a controversy sparked last week when footage from a conservative rally held over the summer was played on "Hannity" during a segment on a more recent rally. During the clip, host Sean Hannity marveled over the large turnout for a Washington, DC protest. The Daily Show later pointed out that there seemed to be some inconsistencies with the video shown on Hannity's show, namely that the atmospheric conditions seemed to vary from shot to shot. Hannity later apologized on the air for what he called "an inadvertent mistake."

Barely a week into Palin’s blitz to promote “Going Rogue,” media coverage is becoming its own story. Fox News rival MSNBC caught heat last week for using altered images of Sarah Palin on the air, for which they later apologized. On Wednesday, Yahoo! News reported Newsweek’s defense of their latest controversial cover, which Palin herself blasted as “sexist.”

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

Sour

PETA sends the troops chocolate...

Yogaforlife — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:08:05 -0800

Heard this on the radio this morning:

PETA thinks they can boost morale of the troops stationed in Afghanistan by sending them vegan chocolate. They heard the troops were craving chocolate, which is hard to come by and PETA decided to do something about it. They are making vegan chocolates that have the image of Osama Bin Laden with the words "Bin Laden Bites" underneath. Biting off Bin Laden's head is an added bonus of the chocolates. The PETA website says it's a delicious and biting oxymoron - cruelty-free beheadings.

PETA says they’re using the chocolates as a way of protesting bin Laden’s “torture and killing” of animals in the days following the attacks on the U.S. in 2001 when the “guardians” of said animals were killed, leaving the animals to die of starvation, toxic fumes and dehydration. Oh yeah, they oppose the attacks too.

The chocolates are selling on the PETA website for $15 and will ship in January. Proceeds from the sales are to benefit PETA programs.

Brazil Future Economic Super Power?

hypnoticmix — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:25:06 -0800

After decades of political instability, poverty and uncertanty has Brazil finally hit her stride? We all know that Brazilians know how to party and play (football) but can they roll with the G8 and give them a run for their money? In 2001 Goldmen Sachs placed Brazil with Russia, India and China as the economies that would come to dominate the world.

Some may find it queer to place a country with a growth rate as skimpy as its swim suits, an economic fragility that consistantly suffered with any financial crisis, chronic political instability and a history of squandering economic potential could have so effectively put those wose behind them to pave the way for such a prosperous future. China is said to lead the world out of our currant economic down turn with Brazil hot on their heals. Brazil did not avoid the down turn but was among the last in and the first out. Their economy is growing at a rate of 5% annualy and will pick up in the short term as new deep sea oil fields come online. Brazil also enjoys a food and mineral trade with many Asian countries.
Sometime after 2014 Brazil is scheduled to become the worlds 5th largest economy saying to Great Britan and France uhm excuse me I beleive that's my seat. In many ways Brazil is said to outclass the other up and comers (Chine, India and Russia). Unlike China and Russia it is a democracy. Unlike India it has no insurgent, ethnic, religious hostility or unfriendly neighbors. Unlike Russia it exports more than oil and arms and treats it's investors with respect. Is that code for arss kissing? LOL
Under the Presidency of Luiz Inacio Lula da Sylva (damn I bet his momma knew he was going to be President one day), a former trade union leader born into poverty his government has moved to remove inequalities and enact smart social policy. They say that the world has a lot more to learn from Brazil than from China. Its recent award of the 2016 Summer Olympics is all to symbolic of Brazils future on the world stage and f.y.i. Rio de Jeneiro will also host the World Cup in 2014 as well.
Unlike the blast off which Jesus was so kind to model for in the photo above Brazil's emergence has been steady not sudden. Begining with a set of sensible economic policies in the 90's inlfation was tamed and all levels of government were required by law to rein in their debts. The Central Bank was granted autonomy charged with keeping inflation low and ensuring that banks avoid the adventurism that has damaged Britain and America. Hey at least some one out there is learning from our mistakes, right on. The economy was thrown open to foreign trade and investment and many state industries were privatised.

Despite their newly laid ground work towards economic strength Brazil is still young in it's adjustment period and is still suseptible to overspending and underinvesting by private and public markets so their future standing is very dependant on the right moves now. The (real) has gained almost 50% against the dollar since early December which boosts Brazils living standards and good business for importers but makes life hard for exporters. Lula's smart industrial policy seems to be whipping his country into shape though archaic labor laws are the next hurdle his country will have to face to acheive the economic forcast that is expected of them.

At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Shark

Eleuthera — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:52:13 -0800

by Ann Coulter

11/18/2009

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.


"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"

By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.

Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine."

Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement.

Except mere nonsense makes more sense than "diversity is a strength."

If Gen. Casey's wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn't kill it, nothing will.

Among the worst aspects of America's "diversity" is that liberals' reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood -- as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.

In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying -- including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.

But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums.

After conferring with everyone at Zabar's, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it's good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!

Mohammed's military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.

In a liberal's reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.

Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one's defense.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens -- and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.