Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you're staking out the position that asking tough questions about what happened before 9/11 is un-American,

Did you even read any of what I said? That wasn't my point.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
assclam.

Is that some sort of misogynist slur?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But we confess we were unprepared for Bob Kerrey's Vice Presidential audition.

As usual, the WSJ is ahead of the political curve. I can see the campaign slogans now:

Kerry/Kerrey '04: You No Longer Need To Recall That We're Actually Different People

Kerry/Kerrey '04: The Extra "e" is For Potato

Gattigap

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you still pissed that Dan Quayle took Air Force 2, instead of commercial, on a couple of golf outings?

What is the objection, the use of a federal marshall, as opposed to him doing it himself? Methinks you'd be objecting if he'd asked the law school dean to do the same thing.

And I doubt this is the federal marshall of the wild west days. It's some former FBI guy who's gotten fat and lazy, and probably spends most of his time sitting at the X-ray machine at the local federal courthouse reminding you to remove things from his pockets.

I'm not particularly pissed about this, but the account I saw reported that the marshal took the recorder from one of the reporters and deleted the tape herself. This is something that the rest of us can't do. That's all I'm saying.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay, fair point. Had he done the following at the end (or in the middle of) the speech, would it be alright (putting aside the wisdom of his policy, which, I agree, is, at best, unfortunate.): "Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this at the outset, but I have a policy that my speeches not be recorded. If anyone recorded this speech, I would appreciate your erasing the tape. One of my aides will be checking with a couple of folks who may have been recording to confirm any recordings are erased."

Sure, that goes down easier. Would be nice, though, if he'd add something like:

"Thanks, I appreciate it. It's my plan for history to remember me solely for the body of my work on the Court, especially the venemous dissents of which I'm so fond. Recently I've found that when I take off the robe and step outside, it rarely ends well."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In another arena Ms. Rice might have blamed Democrats of the John Kerry stripe for another barrier to effective counterterrorism. Instead, she politely limited herself to pointing out the 1970s-era laws forbidding information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement officials. It was only the much reviled Patriot Act that finally changed that.

And does anyone think that the Patriot Act had more than a snow ball's chance in hell of passing prior to 9/11? Anyone? Anyone?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This is something that the rest of us can't do. That's all I'm saying.

That is true. Although my guess is that you and I are far less likely, if we were giving speeches, to encounter people unwilling to delete them from their tape recorders if asked nicely, particularly when confronted directly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did you even read any of what I said? That wasn't my point.

I will admit that it's hard to follow what you're saying.

Is that some sort of misogynist slur?

No. Thanks for asking and letting me clear that up. BTW, some oysters alternate their gender, male one year, female the next! I thought you might find that interesting.

This is not a clam or an oyster, but it is a mollusc:

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
It is impossible to find this "genuinely interesting" if you have read the discussion of it and the months leading up to it in Richard Clarke's book. It would not surprise me to learn that the troglodytes on the WSJ editorial board haven't bothered to read the book, but it also would not surprise me if they weren't being genuine.

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sure, that goes down easier. Would be nice, though, if he'd add something like:

"Thanks, I appreciate it. It's my plan for history to remember me solely for the body of my work on the Court, especially the venemous dissents of which I'm so fond. Recently I've found that when I take off the robe and step outside, it rarely ends well."

One clarification (that might be a result of visions and confusions on my part, but I don't think so):

Scalia has the policy. The marshall acted on her own authority, pursuant to that policy. Scalia actually had nothing to do with the specific actions - he didn't request that anyone go and get the tapes he saw being made.

The head marshall has stated that, in retrospect, he wishes it had been handled differently. But, I find it hard to believe that the reporter didn't know exactly what Scalia's policy was beforehand, anyway.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I will admit that it's hard to follow what you're saying.

What is it that you don't understand? Perhaps I can clear it up for you.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Scalia has the policy. The marshall acted on her own authority, pursuant to that policy. Scalia actually had nothing to do with the specific actions - he didn't request that anyone go and get the tapes he saw being made.

Nor could he. Scalia's "policy" amounts to nothing more than his effort to enforce his copyright. Which is his right, but there's a fair use statute right on point --- reporting is fair use; no remedy for a news reporter's fair use. I don't know that Scalia has any avenue other than to keep his mouth shut when he sees a tape rolling. If I were a reporter, I'd bring a tape recorder to every public appearance. In some states, the reporters could surreptitiously record, and Scalia couldn't do a damn thing about it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
One clarification (that might be a result of visions and confusions on my part, but I don't think so):

Interesting clarification, if correct.

What I'm trying to get a handle on is the perceived problem.

One is the supposed "abuse" of government power. That is, Scalia sent a marshall, to whom ordinary people don't have access, to enforce his silly rules. Similar objection therefore could be leveled if he sent a marshall to stand in line at the airport checkin, and then give him "frontsies" when Scalia arrived. Issue? None, I think, because he's been appointed to a position with certain perquisites.

The other is the supposed violation of the "freedom of the press" because they had a recording that they were forced to erase. But as I pointed out earlier, they had no "right" to the recording in the first place, in light of Scalia's long-standing policy.

To me, two nothings don't make a something.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nor could he. Scalia's "policy" amounts to nothing more than his effort to enforce his copyright. Which is his right, but there's a fair use statute right on point --- reporting is fair use; no remedy for a news reporter's fair use.

The paparazzi are beating down your door as we speak for some legal advice.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Let me be less unclear. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to demand that his public statements are not recorded (though I find it to be an odd fetish).

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.

However, even if he does have a contractual right, the reporter still is entitled to a 5th Amendment due process notice and an opportunity to be heard before his property is confiscated like that by an agent of the federal government acting in her capacity as an agent of the federal government.

And then there is the whole state action by a federal marshall in violation of the First Amendment.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
One clarification (that might be a result of visions and confusions on my part, but I don't think so):

Scalia has the policy. The marshall acted on her own authority, pursuant to that policy. Scalia actually had nothing to do with the specific actions - he didn't request that anyone go and get the tapes he saw being made.

The two accounts I've come across don't distinguish that specific point for us, although one of them does point out that Scalia had no qualms with taking similar action earlier that same day to some sadly uninformed members of the media:

Earlier Wednesday, Scalia prompted a minor flap at nearby William Carey College, a private Baptist school.

Reporters and TV crews were told that they could not record Scalia's speech, but that they could photograph him afterward at a social reception. But when the justice entered the reception area, he told the reporters and TV crews that they would have to leave.

Originally posted by bilmore
The head marshall has stated that, in retrospect, he wishes it had been handled differently. But, I find it hard to believe that the reporter didn't know exactly what Scalia's policy was beforehand, anyway.

One of them was an AP reporter, so you may be right there. The other one, however, was a school reporter for the Hattiesburg American, so I doubt that this schoolgirl should be charged with knowing Scalia's individual fetishes.

Gattigap