Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nor could he. Scalia's "policy" amounts to nothing more than his effort to enforce his copyright.

There could be a contract argument, too, but still, even if the audience member breaches a contract, the audience member is entitled to due process. It is not a crime to do this. If the reporter did anything wrong at all, all it could give rise to is a civil cause of action. The federal marshalls are not authorized to enforce Scalia's perceived contractual rights or copyrights. That is the whole 5th amendment procedural due process thing.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
I listened to a good bit of it. When I first tuned in, I had that impression, too, but then, after listening for a bit, (especially during Roemer's "questioning"), it became apparent that the hostile questions weren't really being put up as questions, but as mini-speeches, and she was being interrupted after about four words of reply. Being the rather assertive person that she is, she simply rolled over many of the interruptions and kept going with her answers until she was finished. Thus, in many of the sound-bites that have been replayed, she appears unresponsive, but it's deceiving.

Finally someone chimes in with this. I heard all of the testimony and had similar observations:

1. The art of framing a question so that it subtly makes a statement is lost on Roemer. How embarrassing that he believed his statements could pass for questions. He looked like the people you see stammering foolishly in municipal court after the judge tells them they have to frame things in questions if they want to try the motor vehicle charge they are fighting.

2. Did he have a bet going with another commission member over who could say "Dr. Rice" "Dr. Rice" more during questioning? That "Dr. Rice" stuff was disrespectful and condescending. He may as well have shouted "M'am!". If I were Rice, I'd have demanded that he drop and give me twenty. ("Mountain Climbers! `Git em!).

3. To the extent he thought Rice was not responsive to his questions, he may want to work on his own responsiveness. See e.g., CNN Interview with Blitzer:

BLITZER: What's the biggest discrepancy that you'd like Condoleezza Rice to clear up when she testifies?

ROEMER: One of the biggest discrepancies -- and we'll have plenty of questions for Dr. Rice this Thursday. But one of them is, there was really continuity in the plan between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There doesn't seem to be big, major differences between what the Clinton people were doing when they left office, and then the Bush people take about seven months in a bottom-up review to review all counterterrorism policy.

Um…and the discrepancy is……? The rest basically has Blitzer trying to get Roemer to say what constructive factual information he expects to obtain through a public questioning of Rice, followed by Roemer “answering” by bitching about this or that, and praising Clarke, etc. I’d respect him if he’d just said, “Even after we questioned her in private, we still think she and the President fucked up and I’d like the opportunity to tell her that in front of the American People. I know I will not get additional factual information from additional questioning and will not change my mind on anything that happened. Instead, I’d like to debate her in public to convince other Americans to agree with MY point of view.”

4. Hindsight…. 20/20….but still I’d love to have heard Rice respond to Roemer differently. I was happy she didn’t crumble (or bristle) under Roemer tactics, but I’d have done a few things differently. Example: Roemer made a big deal about the “principals” not having a formal meeting specifically on AQ (with everyone sitting in their swivel chairs; coffee pot in the middle; water glasses for everyone – just like the movies) but then asked why the principals didn’t “speak” about what was going on. I’d have said simply, “they did” to shut Roemer up. Then I’d have launched into all the things that WERE done and communications that WERE made, and concluded with the message that action and communication were more important at the time than making sure the White House records showed a formal symbolic “meeting” for CYA purposes.

5. Since someone asked Rice where “Congress was during the last few years” on the topic of terrorism, if I were Rice I’d have slipped in a question to Roemer what involvement he had on the topic. Later the press could look into that and dig up Roemer’s pre-occupation with drugs in Columbia and the war on sports-betting. He reminds me of the guy in The Onion article who read a book about The Taliban after 9/11 and presents himself as a longstanding expert on The Middle East crisis.

6. Roemer’s interviews during the pendency of the commission’s task are unseemly. As was his “question” to Rice that she or another Executive Brancher should have resigned after 9/11 as a symbolic gesture. (Are we in Japan, Roemer?).

Have a nice weekend.

DK

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
At best, all he has is some sort of contractual right and only then if there was a meeting of the minds between him and the audience that resulted in a contract not to record him.

Um, before today, did you happen to know of Scalia's fear that recording his voice or image would steal his soul?

Even if you did, do you think that the typical audience member has been informed of that sufficiently for there to be any meeting of the minds?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Would the Talmud do? The death penalty is allowed under Talmudic law. There are a variety of legal hurdles that must be met, including at least 2 witnesses to the crime, but if those legal hurdles are cleared, the sentence can be death for certain crimes.

BTW - under Talmudic law there are different standards for gentiles and jews. It is much harder to put to death a jew under Talmudic law than a gentile. For instance, you only need one witness to sentence the gentile.

Hey, thanks for that. Any word on how Talmudic law is interpreted and enforced in the 21st century?

Who are you identifying as the "direct descendants of the people who wrote it"?

Because the Christian scriptures have nothing to say about capital punishment other than an illustration of its unintended consequences, I was focusing on the Hebrew Scriptures. So, the Jews, unless you want to personally claim authorship.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Um, before today, did you happen to know of Scalia's fear that recording his voice or image would steal his soul?

Even if you did, do you think that the typical audience member has been informed of that sufficiently for there to be any meeting of the minds?

No. That is why I said "at best" and put in that part about the meeting of the minds.

See that is the difference between the Reps on this board and the Dems. Reps will criticize those of similar party affiliation if they are deserving of criticism. We won't defend someone simply because they are a Rep if they do something wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But it sure is "genuinely interesting" in light of how Clarke's statements have been portrayed in the media for the last several weeks.

(1) Not really. The gist of Clarke's pre-9/11 beef is that the stuff he was pushing in 1/01 went nowhere until 9/4/01, when they had that meeting. And even then, it wasn't moving. It just took that long to get a meeting.

(2) You are surprised that "the media" has done a poor job of telling you about the substance of a book about counterterrorism policy. Duh. So read the book.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
What is it that you don't understand? Perhaps I can clear it up for you.

Today?

(1) What has Kerrey done that is "anti-American"?

(2) What is the equivalence between Lott and Dodd?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The paparazzi are beating down your door as we speak for some legal advice.

(1) Different interests. You don't have a copyright interest in your image, only in your creative products. If the paparazzi are beating down my door, or anyone else's, there's no copyright claim. I have a potential invasion of privacy tort claim, but I have to prove the elements of one of those, which in several instances includes non-newsworthiness, which will be easy for me and hard for Scalia.

OR

(2) Whiff?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Edited to delete my post because I really don't care.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Me
And everyone knows that Catholics are the original and true Christians and all the other groups are just wannabes.

Uh, I thought we were talking about whether certain Catholics were being big fat hypocrites for stating that the Church should deny Kerry the sacraments for being pro-choice, while death penalty supporters would still get to partake of the Body and the Blood.

But ok.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Hey, thanks for that. Any word on how Talmudic law is interpreted and enforced in the 21st century?

You are welcome. How it is interpreted depends on whether one is reform, conservative, orthodox, or ultra-orthodox.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because the Christian scriptures have nothing to say about capital punishment other than an illustration of its unintended consequences,

By Christian scriptures I take it you mean the New Testament and perhaps the Book of Mormon if you consider them Christians (I don't, but they do). I disagree that the New Testament has "nothing to say about capital punishment." Some claim it abolishes the death penalty whereas others say it allows it. It is, like every other religious teaching, just made up stuff and people interpret this made up stuff any way that suits their own needs/goals/desires.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(1) Different interests. You don't have a copyright interest in your image, only in your creative products. If the paparazzi are beating down my door, or anyone else's, there's no copyright claim. I have a potential invasion of privacy tort claim, but I have to prove the elements of one of those, which in several instances includes non-newsworthiness, which will be easy for me and hard for Scalia.

So you have less right to control your creative works than your image? My view, which accords with how the law should be, not necessarily how it is in a number of states, is that an image improperly obtained without the subject's consent my not be published for commercial gain or otherwise. And I would adhere to a similar view for Scalia's speeches. Besides, would fair use protect their broadcast of the speech? I think not; they could write down selected quotes and use that fairly. So erasing the tapes doesn't necessarily prevent their fair use of the speech.

(no whiff--although the paparazzi are beating down your door because they likely your loose view of what's in the public domain)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Uh, I thought we were talking about whether certain Catholics were being big fat hypocrites for stating that the Church should deny Kerry the sacraments for being pro-choice, while death penalty supporters would still get to partake of the Body and the Blood.

But ok.

We were but I just threw that statement out there to illustrate my general disdain for religion. I have actually heard Catholics claim this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
No. That is why I said "at best" and put in that part about the meeting of the minds.

Ah. Sorry. I thought that the argument was so weak that it might not have been worth proposing at all. My bad.

See that is the difference between the Reps on this board and the Dems. Reps will criticize those of similar party affiliation if they are deserving of criticism. We won't defend someone simply because they are a Rep if they do something wrong.

Hey, are you saying Scalia is a Republican? Shame on you for viewing the world through such a partisan lens.

And you know, I've heard this line of argument from you, oh, two or three or twenty-five times now. I must say, for someone whose maintenance of a consistent persona is dependent upon argumentative hairsplitting such as "well, I didn't really say I was black, you fools, I just said what if I was," your ability to make blanket statements like this takes some real guts. Brava!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) What has Kerrey done that is "anti-American"?

I feel that criticizing the US's war against terrorism on the basis that it is really a war against radical islam is Blame-America-First type of anti-Americanism. We have the right to defend ourselves when attacked, even if that means going after a particular religious group, which is what is necessary to do when a particular religious group attacks us.

Last I checked, radical islam (a religion) is actively attempting to destroy all things western and in particular the United States of America (often referred to by these religious nut cases as the Great Satan or something similar). Their goal is to force Islam on the rest of the world and to kill those who won't submit to worldwide Islamic rule.

Fighting this religion, and that is what they call themselves, is our right of self-defense. Kerrey's comments to me sounded like an indictment of the US actions against radical islam. I find that anti-american much as I would if he had said the same thing about our right as a nation to attack the Japanese after pearl harbor.

As I stated before, maybe he didn't mean what he said the way I interpreted it. But if he did mean it the way I interepreted it, I find his statements anti-american.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(2) What is the equivalence between Lott and Dodd?

Hank did a good job yesterday of explaining that. I will humor you with a summary. Both Lott and Dodd made statements that were perceived by others to indicate they endorsed the racist pasts of two men with racist pasts.