meta-roj

in today’s “you might be a terrorist” story, you might actually not be a terrorist, but that might not keep you out of detention and/or prison you unless the prosecutors change their minds and decide to do the right thing. this is the trial that went wrong – the one that you’re not hearing about – because the kobe trial is more fun.

U.S. Asks Judge to Dismiss Terrorism Convictions [reuters, september 1, 2004]

The U.S. Justice Department has asked a federal judge in Detroit to toss out the convictions of three Middle Eastern men caught in a roundup of hundreds of Arab immigrants after the Sept. 11 attacks and charged with supporting terrorism and document fraud.

you may remember the arrest and prosecution of this “detroit terror cell” in the days and months following september 11. scooped up in the sweeping detentions of arab-americans, this group of people was captured on september 17th. lauded as an early victory in the war on terrorism (inasmuch as you can actually have a war on a method), we nailed the terrorists in our midst. we locked them up and even had a “star witness” willing to help make the case. by june of 2003, the department of justice had secured convictions for three of the four defendants, on charges ranging from “conspiracy to provide material support for terrorism” to “document fraud.”

the problem is that the case was vapor.

and in the process, our department of justice, the federal agency tasked with enforcing the laws of the united states of america, compromised those laws and legal principles in its quest for political victories, and at the cost of human lives.

sure, that’s a pretty bold statement from a lowly citizen of this country, but the ashcroft justice department has done more damage to this country than a dozen planes could do to a dozen skyscrapers. dead people are tragic, the economic damage is huge, but the survivors go on, damage is fixed. it’s simply much more difficult to restore principles and ideals that have been violated. the united states was held up in the world as a beacon of justice and principle. now, we know better.

making hay

attorney general john ashcroft stepped up to the lectern to proclaim success and progress in the war on terror, violating the judge’s gag order for the case, and violating standards he is, supposedly, charged with enforcing.

Ashcroft mouths off, ignores gag order [capitol hill blue, april 19, 2004]

Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said Friday that Ashcroft made the comments during a wide-ranging news conference and “certainly had no intent to contravene the judge’s wishes regarding publicity.”

which explains why the name of the witness, with commentary, is available here on the doj website in the “prepared remarks” of a press conference. worse, the prepared remarks have a note, “The Attorney General often deviates from prepared remarks.” ashcroft does deviate a bit in this case, and you can see some of that deviation over at the cnn transcript of the event.

His testimony has been of value, substantial value in that respect. Such cooperation is a critical tool in our war against terrorism, and those who may be contemplating terrorist activity are aware of the fact that there are others who had been involved in the terrorist network who are cooperating and providing information.

emphasized above, the “deviation” from the prepared statement. of course hmimssa’s testimony was of substantial value – it’s about all they had to make terrorism charges stick. but, stick they did, and we apparently got what might be called “wrongful convictions” out of the detroit sleeper cell case.

it turns out that the government’s “star witness” is a self-described scam artist. that evidence was withheld from the defense, and that misleading testimony was solicited from witnesses in order to score the convictions.

withholding evidence

a few months ago, there was news related to this case, when word got out that las vegas had been cased by terrorists.

DOJ Superiors Accused of Hindering Terror Prosecutors [ap, via new york lawyer, august 10, 2004

Behind the scenes of the first major terror trial after Sept. 11, frontline prosecutors complained bitterly they had not received needed help from the Justice Department and were prevented from introducing some of their most dramatic evidence in the courtroom, internal memos show.

so just a month ago, there was news about withholding evidence that would strengthen the case against these so-called terrorists, but the statement filed by the department of justice shows the flip side:

Judge throws out terror convictions [ap via usa today, september 1, 2004]

“In its best light, the record would show that the prosecution committed a pattern of mistakes and oversights that deprived the defendants of discoverable evidence (including impeachment material) and created a record filled with misleading inferences that such material did not exist,” Justice told the court.

…

“Misleading testimony was elicited that created the false impression that there was initial consensus that the drawing depicted the Queen Alia Hospital and that photos could not be taken due to diplomatic red tape,” Justice conceded.

these are the weapons our great justice department brings to bear againt the terrible threat of international terrorism? that’s the best we can do?

well, that leaves us with….

no reasonable prospect of winning

Excerpts from Justice Department’s 60-page memo [detroit free press, september 1, 2004]

As fully explained in the detailed memorandum of law, the government has concluded that there is no reasonable possibility that it could endure further hearings and emerge with the convictions intact. In its best light, the record would show that the prosecution committed a pattern of mistakes and oversights that deprived the defendants of discoverable evidence (including impeachment material) and created a record filled with misleading inferences that such material did not exist. Accordingly, the government believes that it should not prolong the resolution of this matter pursuing hearings it has no reasonable prospect of winning.

which, come to think of it, is something that the president mentioned recently too, albeit in a broader context.

fortunately, since i started preparing this post, it seems that the media has picked up on the story to some extent. the official word is that the terror convictions are thrown out (when i began this, the news was that the department of justice had requested that they be thrown out), and the so-called detroit sleeper cell terrorists will be prosecuted for document fraud instead.

so, do i feel safer now? either there was a real detroit sleeper cell planning terrorist attacks, and my justice department screwed up the prosecution so badly that they’ll be out on the streets in a few years, or there wasn’t a real detroit sleeper cell, in which case my justice department spun its wheels trying to make terrorist charges stick where no terrorists exist.

no, i do not feel safer now.

tejano

it’s election season… so why is it that i’m not allowed to kill politicians?

how do you get something done, when you don’t want to look bad doing it? you ask your friends. it’s good to have friends.

i bring this up because there’s a thing about ben barnes that’s picking up traction in recent days, and will probably show up on 60 minutes over the weekend. it’s the story of how president bush got into the national guard.

i first saw it over at talking points memo, from josh marshall, and they conveniently provide a link to a pretty horrible video and provide a transcript of the comments:

Ben Barnes, May 27

Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you’re in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

now there are some holes in this story, as with everything in politics, particularly 35 year old politics, recollection is hazy and facts aren’t easy to establish, but doubt is.

the first problem is that ben barnes apparently wasn’t the lt. governor when he did the favor for the younger bush – he was the speaker of the texas house. he did end up being the texas lieutenant governor a little later, tho. so there’s a fuzzy question about which office he was sitting in when the call came in to save bush from vietnam.

this thing broke on the net, but it’s reached all the way to the white house press rom:

Ex-Lawmaker Regrets Helping Bush in Guard [ap via phillyburbs.com, august 29, 2004]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Barnes’ comments: “It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat. The allegation was discredited by the commanding officer. This was fully covered and addressed five years ago. It is nothing new.”

that, of course, doesn’t mean that the allegations from the swift vets that have also been discredited, in some cases, decades ago aren’t worth revisiting again and again.

but back to my original line of thought on this subject…

Ben Barnes in Heavy Rotation [austin chronicle, september 3, 2004 (yes, a day ahead)]

The original rumors also held that then-U.S. Rep. George H.W. Bush himself had asked Barnes to get his son into the Guard. However, Barnes testified instead that the late Houston oilman (and Bush buddy) Sidney Adger, not Bush’s family, had interceded on young George’s behalf – a loophole that allowed the then governor (already a presidential hopeful) to claim (as he does still) that he knew nothing about it.

plausible deniability and call in the favors. keep that in mind.

how do you compete as the nth player in the online music store game? you land the beatles.

first reported back in june, the recent msn music store news is now covered with rumors that the beatles are on board.

taking a cue from disney which decided not to distribute farenheit 9/11, it seems warner brothers wants to avoid political blowback as well.

Citing Politics, Studio Cancels Documentary [ny times, september 2, 2004]

Warner Brothers has decided not to distribute the director David O. Russell’s new antiwar documentary when it re-releases his 1999 Gulf War movie, “Three Kings,” this fall, judging it “totally inappropriate” to do so in a political season, a studio spokeswoman said.

major media companies can’t afford to take political stands – or even be associated with people that take political stands. they depend entirely on the good graces of politicians to extend and defend their copyrights and all the other things that guarantee their livelihoods. the pattern is clear – you can’t get controversial material from a giant media conglomerate.

is it a brave new world? or a cowardly one?

circuit court judge joseph p. manck ruled in favor of using the diebold touchscreen machines, without a paper trail, and without mandating any security or procedural change for the election in maryland.

i’ll come back and add some links later, but i wanted to get the verdict on the record.

last night, zell miller said this:

zell miller, september 2, 2004 at the republican national convention

George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a “yes/no/maybe” bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

i’m going to make just a little leap from “terrorists” to “evildoers” and put this on the record for a little chuckle:

President George Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

now, for a quick review the scorecard on the axis of evil:

weapons of mass destruction: iraq (no), north korea (yes), iran (maybe)
military intervention by the united states: iraq (yes), north korea (no), iran (maybe).

from george w. bush, we get a yes/no/maybe track record to compare with our “bowl of mush” from john kerry. oh, and by the way, it seems like we have more enemies (having been ‘encouraged’) and fewer friends (having been ‘confused’) over the past few years, but that’s a topic for another day.

the tactic i see from the republican party, over and over again, is one that a blogspammer used on me once, and it’s particularly uncomfortable in politics where there’s actually real stakes: accuse your opponent of whatever it is you think you might be vulnerable on. do it first, do it hard, and keep them explaining, that way they’re losing.

two stories crossed the ap wires recently, and being the kinda person that synthesizes stuff all the time, they just begged for a little calculation…

last came the news today about the wealth of bin laden and in that the cost of the september 11 attacks.

the attack’s price tag of just $400,000 to $500,000 over two years.

a couple weeks ago, there was a story about the top insurance companies losses, related to an expected double-whammy hurricane action going on in florida, that included this:

Terrorist attack (New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania), September 2001 – $20.7 billion.

that’s a ($20,700,000,000 / $500,000) = 41,400-fold multiplier.

just a comment now that i have a figure on it… you can’t beat that with an army. bush was closer to the truth than maybe even he realized.

thumbing their nose at american economist benjamin “time is money” franklin, researchers at the university of washington and the wharton school have published a paper, Spending Time Versus Spending Money [pdf] that seems to contradict the conventional wisdom.

erica okada and stephen hoch prepared the paper back in may of 2003.

Although we agree that an understanding of the opportunity costs of time is important to making good decisions, in this research we find systematic differences in the way that people ex ante spend time versus money and ex post differences in how they evaluate decision outcomes experienced after spending time or money.

translation: people have a pretty solid idea of what money is worth, but we’re a little flexible when it comes to deciding what time is worth.

this, of course, has immediate ramifications when it comes ot the concepts i’ve dragged through this blog in a thread about attention markets and the constraints thereon. you’ll find echoes of this over at barry’s blog as well, as we both bounce around theories and comments on the subjects of falling tv ratings, collapse of the music business, and other such things.

just for the record, because i have a blog, my time is worthless.