a new hampshire republican political scandal scores a guilty plea…
The former head of a Republican consulting group has pleaded guilty to jamming Democratic telephone lines in several New Hampshire cities on Election Day two years ago.
The jamming involved more than 800 computer-generated calls and lasted for about 1 1/2 hours on Nov. 5, 2002, the day voters decided several races, including a close Senate contest between outgoing Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and GOP Rep. John E. Sununu, who won by fewer than 20,000 votes.
The lines that were jammed were set up so voters could call for rides to the polls. Democrats say the jamming was an organizaed, statewide effort that may have even affected the outcome of some local races.
i hope they dig deep on this one. even bad voting machines are no good if there’s a conspiracy to keep voters from the polls. yeah, i said it. conspiracy.
i doubt this phone-jamming effort stopped 20,000 voters from getting to vote, but even considering this a valid tactic smells just a bit too much like christie key. it may have been a rational decision in this win-at-all-costs society, but they got caught. it’s critical that the sanctions for this behavior are severe enough to send a clue to every political consultant who gets a neat idea about coming between people and their votes.
update: more here and here.
posted by roj at 2:26 pm
“They didn’t really have a specific plan for what to do, case by case, if we lost,” a senior Department of Defense official said on condition of anonymity. “The Justice Department didn’t have a plan. State didn’t have a plan. This wasn’t a unilateral mistake on Department of Defense’s part. It’s astounding to me that these cases have been pending for so long and nobody came up with a contingency plan.”
[an alternative source is reuters]
you’re kidding me, right? this administration – the one with the pentagon doing war planning for global warming that doesn’t exist (ahem) – didn’t even think about a “what if the court rules against us” plan?
posted by roj at 12:09 pm
yes, it was an optimistic statement, with just a couple tiny hints to go on, but… i guess it’s all too good to be true, because even when they try to clear things up then end up creating more questions than they answer.
trust us, we’re from the government.
posted by roj at 5:46 am
i didn’t intend to spend much time on the documents released by the white house this week that were supposed to clear up the questions about where the united states stands when it comes to toture, but i stumbled into this, and just had to comment.
Q Is there any concern within the administration that now that you’ve released these details and that al Qaeda knows the limits of what they’ll be subjected to, that it might embolden al Qaeda, given the fact that you described them as — they’ll fight until the rest of their lives against America?
MR. HAYNES: I think I heard your question. The Judge already talked about the difficulty of this decision. And we’re fighting a war. And to disclose in such a public way exactly what we do, it is — it hinders us in some way. The enemy now knows what some of the limits are. There’s some value in having some uncertainty. But the decision is made, and sometimes you make tough decisions.
this was the last question – more than an hour-and-a-half into a press briefing.
so if i’m reading this answer by mr. william haynes correctly, it’s bad to convey the simple idea that “the united states does not torture prisoners” because we want the evildoers around the world to think that we might torture our prisoners, even though we would never do that because it’s unamerican?
maybe i’m completely out-of-sync on this international relations stuff, but wouldn’t it be better for us to take the high ground on this, make the simple statement, and stick to it? didn’t we sign some international agreements to that effect anyway? didn’t we have a good reason for doing that at the time?
despite the aministration invoking principles so often, i guess this particular principle is still elusive.
and, by the way… where are the documents from the department of state, the cia and the fbi in this big, unprecedented disclosure?
posted by roj at 5:33 am
unintended consequences?
according to a state department media note, persons residing in the united states on e, h, i, l, o, and p visas will be required to leave the country to renew their documents.
the note says this is because new visas require biometrics, and only foreign embassies will be equipped to handle that little feature in time for an october legislative deadline – i guess our domestic department of state offices around the country won’t be, unless, of course, you’re on an a, g or nato visa.
lots of letter mumbo-jumbo, so let me translate a bit for you:
you can stay here and get your new biometric visa if you are an ambassador or foreign official (a), or foreign government representative to an international organization (g), or to nato (nato).
on the other hand, you have to “go out and come back in to stay” if you are a treaty trader or investor (e), a temporary worker (h), media (i), an intracompany transferee (l), a worker with extraordinary ability (o), or an althlete or entertainer (p).
posted by roj at 4:47 am
probably the most disturbing example of the department of justice’s apparent policy to push the envelope of the law…
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified, ” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in President Bush’s war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
….
“It’s really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we’ve taught the Geneva Convention one way,” said a senior military attorney. “Once you start telling people it’s okay to break the law, there’s no telling where they might stop.”
congratulations, misters ashcroft and bush, you have set the example for the world. generations to come will have to live with your flexible interpretation of principle.
[full text of the article below the cut. this is just too important to lock up behind a registration process. a nod from me to the washington post for doing the work.]
(more…)
posted by roj at 8:18 am
in my america, we do the right thing so we don’t need immunity.
not do the wrong thing and then demand immunity because you can trust us.
The US is seeking to renew the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by American peacekeepers, with a resolution before the UN Security Council
posted by roj at 3:08 am
it seems american officials can’t quite all get on the same page…
senor, coalition spokesman, may 12
was at no time under the jurisdiction or detention of coalition forces.
beth a. payne, united states consular officer in iraq, april 1 email to the family
“I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly
well, one of them is right, anyway….
posted by roj at 5:05 pm
this bothered me so much, i wrote about it, twice.
it also bothered some other people, showing up in an op-ed in the sf chronicle, oddly enough, titled not in this country. not quite “not my america” but close enough for editorial work :). slate also took a crack at it, and well… the news today (actually late yesterday) is odd…
In an April 9 letter to Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which had protested the incident, Scalia said he had written to the two reporters, Antoinette Konz of the Hattiesburg American and Denise Grones of the Associated Press, “extending my apology and undertaking to revise my policy so as to permit recording for use of the print media.”
Scalia called Dalglish’s concern “well justified” and said he had been “as upset as you were” to learn of the deputy marshal’s action, which, he said, “was not taken at my direction.”
i think i first got wind of this at the san jose mercury news, High court Justice Scalia apologizes to reporters for destruction of tapes.
going to the source…
the press release from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the scalia letter [pdf] from their site.
posted by roj at 8:50 am
us marshal nehemiah flowers can’t think of alternatives to the illegal siezure and destruction of media recordings documenting a speech by us supreme court justice scalia.
“The justice informed us he did not want any recordings of his speech and remarks and when we discovered that one, or possibly two, reporters were in fact recording, she took action,” Flowers told The Associated Press.
“Even with hindsight, I can’t think of what other steps she could have done,” Flowers said.
how ’bout these other steps?
1) confiscate the recording devices after the event and issue an injuction to prevent the use or reproduction of the recordings until the issue is resolved.
2) maintain the integrity of the recording as evidence.
3) allow a court to decide if the recordings should be destroyed.
just a thought… i dunno.
do we really need to help our law enforcement officials figure out this whole “due process” thing? we don’t even have to get into strange laws (like the privacy protection act – mentioned in the ap story), we can just stick to the simple ones:
us constitution, amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
us constitution, amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
posted by roj at 11:02 pm