FBI Investigating "Rights" Groups

This sounds like the complaining parties are protesting a little too much to me.

The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Greenpeace, are suing for the release of the documents. The organizations contend that the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.

The FBI has identified 1,173 pages related to the ACLU and 2,383 pages about Greenpeace, but it needs at least until February to process the ACLU files and until June to review the Greenpeace documents, the government said in a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Now I can easily think of why an anti-terrorism task force would investigate these groups. The simplest one to pop into my mind relates to camouflage. But I'm certain that the ACLU does a complete and thorough check on all it's activities to ensure that there is no possible chance that a suspicious party can't utilize them as a stalking horse. Here's a quote from Anthony Romero of the ACLU.

"I know for an absolute fact that we have not been involved in anything related to promoting terrorism and yet the government has collected almost 1,200 pages on our activities," Romero said. "Why is the ACLU now the subject of scrutiny from the FBI?" [emphasis mine]

The all seeing, all knowing Romero. With denials like that I'm starting to hope that the FBI has done a thorough job.

John Passacantando, Greenpeace's U.S. executive director, said his group is a forceful, but peaceful, critic of the Bush administration's war and environmental policies.

"This administration has a history of using its powers against its peaceful critics. If, in fact, the FBI has been deployed to help in that effort, that would be quite shocking," Passacantando said.

Ah yes, it's only about suppression of speech. Not that an especially loud enterprise like GreenPeace wouldn't be a great screen for a domestic terrorist group like, say, ELF or ALF.

This is the best part of the article.

The ACLU has sought FBI files on a range of individuals and groups interviewed, investigated or subjected to searches by the task forces. The requests also are for information on how the task forces are funded to determine if they are rewarded with government money by labeling high numbers of cases as related to terrorism.

Sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Something that wouldn't be allowed by law enforcement, but will be openly allowed by a group under investigation.

I really don't have any issue with the government showing some due diligence related to these groups. They can protest all they wish that they are clean, but I'd rather have a third party tell me that then their own spokesman. As for the release of the documents, I think they should be released, if the investigation is over and there is no related investigation/prosecution that will be harmed.

You can go to the ACLU website to view their denunciation of the FBI's investigation. I find it almost laughable that these people are almost religiously certain that there is no chance that anyone in these organizations could be using them illicitly.

Fantasy Character

Supposedly this one covers a lot of ground and has a wider choice of characters. Well, I think it's BS. I came out as one of the most reviled (by me as well) characters ever created, Wesley Crusher. Since I can't find the swine that created this site, I'm going to go & kill myself now.

Wesley F'ing Crusher...

Eminent Domain Amendment

Here is an entry at Libertarian Leanings.
Three versions with only slight variations from three of those batting this around.

Go and read.

Military Tribunals Allowed to Restart

Finally, and thankfully, the GITMO detainees may now go forward to the military tribunals.

A Guantanamo detainee who once was Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried by military tribunal, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, apparently clearing the way for the Pentagon to resume trials suspended when a lower court ruled the procedures unlawful.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni.

More broadly it said that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members. That supports a key assertion of the Bush administration, which has faced international criticism for holding hundreds of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without full POW protections.

Federal Appeals court made this decision. That means only one step higher if it's challenged. The lawyers provided the expected rhetoric.

Two lawyers representing Hamdan, Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift, said the appeals court ruling "is contrary to 200 years of constitutional law."

"Today's ruling places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States," the two defense lawyers said in a statement.

"Unchecked by the Constitution" is an interesting point of view considering these dolts just received this finding from one of the highest courts in the country. I'm betting the judges did a little checking against the constitution here. Oh, let's not forget that they also likely looked at those Senate ratified treaties and found them non-applicable.

Oh and let's not leave out the human rights activists. Can't leave them silent on an issue even if they are wrong.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, a critic of the commissions, said the Pentagon would be better off using the normal courts-martial process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"By permitting trials before military commissions, the court gave the administration enough rope to hang itself," Roth said. "That's because, as currently conceived, the military commissions are deeply flawed."

Hang itself? In what way I wonder. I'm sure Roth would have had the same of opinion at the end of WWII.

And not to be out done, we have the Center of Constitutional Rights has to spit out the same old tired argument that just doesn't follow.

One of the leading critics of the Pentagon's military commissions, the Center for Constitutional Rights, called Friday's ruling "misguided" and said it could have an impact beyond the status of Hamdan.

"The ramifications of the decision may be enormous in terms of the danger created for U.S. soldiers stationed abroad," it said. "If the United States does not use fair and just procedures that guarantee military detainees due process protections in the 'war on terror,' no other country will feel the need to do so either."

So they are still assuming that the terrorists out there will provide our soldiers with "fair and just procedures." Funny, the US is going to actually give them a trial. Not that they are being tried with the rights of an American citizens, which they don't deserve. Maybe we should treat them as they treat captured civilian contractors. You know, cut off their heads and video tape the activity to broadcast to the world. Is this the rope they would prefer?

Why don't these people ever have a grip on reality?

J. M. Davis Museum

Back from vacation. I dragged the family (well, my Mom and daughter, the GeekWife, son & Dad came willingly) to this place while on vacation. Man, oh, man was it terrific. Anyone that can get to Okiehoma that has even a passing interest in the history of firearms, or just gets off on guns, should go and visit. We were there for hours and didn't see anything like all of the 20,000 firearms on display. I skipped the shotgun section entirely and on the way out noticed about 4-6 racks of handguns that I missed. The collection is pretty heavily weighted to American and civilian arms, but there's enough there of everything to satisfy almost anyone. I especially enjoyed all the under-hammer guns manufactured in where we live, the fantastically preserved gatling gun, the case full of matched dueling pistols, the racks of "History of the American Military" firearms. There was a cool collection of criminal paraphenalia, World War 1 posters and swords. They also had a huge collection beer steins and saddles that I glanced at.

First complaint, you can't shoot any of the guns and looking at all the stuff in there, my fingers were twitching more than once towards the glass (if I run really, really fast with this B.A.R. ... hmmm, nah). Second, while some of the organization made sense, a lot of it seemed sort of willy-nilly. Sometimes things were organized by caliber, sometimes by time period, sometimes by manufacturer, but with no hard-core rhyme or reason that I could discern (other than, these are rifles, these are hand-guns, these are shotguns). Lastly, some of the descriptions I noted on firearms that I'm fairly well acquainted with (Makarov, Mannlicher-Carcano, others) were wrong. They had a full length 1891 Carcano that they, incorrectly, identified as the same kind of gun used to kill Kennedy, one display case away from a 1938 Carcano carbine, which actually was. One of the Makarov's was labelled something like "firearm, possibly of Russian origin" when it was pretty clearly a Makarov and from the markings, you can place the origin to Bulgaria, East Germany, Russia or China pretty damned accurately.

But those are really nits. It was a great time except that the GeekWife couldn't find a Baker rifle.

Pew Poll on Islamist Support of Terrorism

Nice bit here on how several polled Islamic countries now view Bin Laden and terrorism unfavorably and how they are starting to believe that democracy could work in their countries.

Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a "considerable degree" Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.

"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam," the poll concluded.

The one exception is attitudes toward suicide bombings of U.S and Western targets in Iraq, a subject on which Muslims were divided. Roughly half of Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco said such attacks are justifiable, while sizable majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia disagreed. Yet, support for suicide bombings in Iraq still declined by as much as 20 percent compared with a poll taken last year.

Nice to see that the effort is starting to show some results.

Tax Cuts, the Deficit, and the Budget

Informative overview of the effect of the tax cuts on the economy, historical perspective, and looming problems that ought to be addressed. And a little bi-partisan blame, just to make everyone feel welcome.

Terrorism and the Hague Convention of 1907

I'm going to state up front that I have quite a few issues with this article that I found linked at Bainbridge.

The refusal of groups like Al Qaeda to play by the rules poses serious problems for states fighting against them. First, it means that literally anything is a target-- subways, busses, commercial buildings, schools, shopping malls, and so on. It is impossible in any society, let alone a free society, to begin to protect all such targets. Second, it places legal constrains on state combatants that do not seem to affect the non-state actors. We are to play by the rules, even as they explicitly refuse to do so.

Some have suggested that the United States and its allies should set aside the traditional rules relating to the conduct of war. In this Global War on Terror, the gloves should be completely off, and we should do what is necessary to win. But that approach poses more problems than it solves. Abandoning the laws of war undercuts our international legitimacy and, even worse, turns us into the very thing that we fight.

This argument is really getting old for me. Let's parse out some of the reasons why the Hague Convention and the Geneva conventions also don't apply to this topic.

First the easiest of them all. Go directly to the Hague Convention Article 1.

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Now I want someone to tell me that this article is being upheld by the terrorist groups. It obviously doesn't apply. They fall outside of the classification of the norms of warfare as defined in the convention, thus they deserve no protections outlined therein. Article 2 even reinforces this concept.

Next, jump to article 22.

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Does this need discussion?

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Should we discuss Chapter III on flags of truce? Not that the insurgency hasn't killed quite a few soldiers of the coalition while surrendering or under a flag of truce. Oh, wait, they have.

I could continue discussing how the terrorists don't provide any of these protections to our combatants thus nullifying their own protections. Anyone who argues that will only mean that our soldiers won't be provided these protections has been living under a rock.

The call that we should follow every rule of war, while they violate every one is ludicrous. This "war on terror" is only a war in the most trivial sense of the definition.

I'm not advocating the violation of the norms that we provide for non-combatants. I believe those hold themselves as self-evident for civilized cultures.

As to de-legitimizing our cause, that is just bizarre. Should I wear a bulls-eye on my forehead to make my murder more simple? Each conflict needs to be fought with the means necessary to survive. Where the line is drawn is up to the culture (in our case) to define.

Chirac: Making Friends and Influencing People

I've come to the conclusion that I don't "hate" the french people. I hate their president.

"I don't think that the British model is the model that we should envy or copy," he said, sitting in a private corner of the Élysée Palace's gardens. "If you take the major elements in society - health policy, the fight on poverty - we are clearly better off than the British."

When the two French interviewers pointed out that Britain's economic growth was faster than France's, and its jobless toll half that of France, the president promptly reeled off a list of statistics that appeared to have been prepared for this purpose.

Chirac, who only 10 days ago made snide remarks about the quality of British food, now cited France's higher birth rate and longevity. In France, he added, only 7 percent of children lived below the poverty line, compared with 17 percent in Britain, and 2.2 percent of gross domestic product is spent on scientific research, more than the 1.8 percent used for this purpose in Britain.

Chirac is an artist at the petty put down. Too bad his countries record doesn't speak well on much else.

UN's Desire to Seize the Internet

Here's a nasty topic. Want to see the Internet come to a crashing end? Want to see security defined by countries like China? Want to see the UN bureaucracy controlling one of the largest economic ventures in the US? I certainly can see a couple of reasons to resist this. [h/t TriggerFinger]

An international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet.

U.N. bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many less-developed nations claim the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.

While the formal proposal from a U.N. working group will be released July 18, it's already clear what it will contain. A preliminary summary of governmental views claims there's a "convergence of views" supporting a new organization to oversee crucial Internet functions, most likely under the aegis of the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. [emphasis original]

I'll state straight out that I work for a company that provides security solutions for the internet. I've seen some of the ITU solutions and I'm really really convinced that they shouldn't be given control.

At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access."

I don't see much issue in sharing decisions of number use or domain name decisions. Personally I think those are pretty much trivial concerns. But, control of the infrastructure and taxes I think should never be given to the UN or any agency related to it. As for surveillance, I think that concern is going to be controlled by the country where the infrastructure lies, and what the UN or the US decides for that is something that they won't ever control.

Then there are some of the specific complaints by some countries:

Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."

Oh, you have to buy equipment everyone else has to buy? My heart bleeds for you. Might have to spend some of those huge oil profits you have?

Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."

Oh, please. If a domain has an .xxx then you can control access to those domains if your country really desires that level of censorship. Brazil is bitching about this? If you can't figure out what the domain prefix means, then go on the web and look it up. How bloody stupid.

China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."

Ok, couple of big issues here. Do I want countries like China defining what is allowed for security on the internet? I'd say NO. If you need to understand why, you should probably look at the government that is there and the repression of people's political speech in that country. There has already been proposals attempted in the US to require that encrypted traffic use keys that the government controls so that they can view your internet traffic if they wished. Guess where that concept went. Now you believe that China should have a say in that policy?

And WHEN did the UN become a "competent body?"

Those proclamations served to flush out the Bush administration, which recently announced that it will not hand over control of Internet domain names and addresses to anyone else.

That high-profile snub of the United Nations could presage an international showdown. The possibility of a political flap over what has long been an abstruse Net-governance issue casts a shadow over ICANN's meeting this week in Luxembourg, and will be the topic of a July 28 symposium in Washington, D.C., called "Regime Change on the Internet."

Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN--but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.

"It wasn't until now" that a fragmented root was being talked about, says Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University and participant in the Internet Governance Project. "China and other countries might be pursuing responses that lead to fragmentation."

Such an outcome remains remote, but it could happen. That possibility means an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become surprisingly important.

Balkanization of the Internet would be incredibly foolish. The effectiveness would be greatly reduced and considering that the vast majority of the structures which make up the WWW exist in the US, this policy would pretty much hurt those countries who choose to segregate themselves from the Internet overall.

Fine, give the ITU the names and numbers control. Ensure that they are forced to implement IPv6 so that they can't screw it up by restricting address space through petty politics. (IPv4 has 4,294,967,296 addresses while IPv6 has 3.4e38 addresses.)

But as for content control, security, and infrastructure, the control of those items should remain in local control or be controlled by market influences. Yeah, capitalism. You can be assured that if a Communist country defines or controls those areas, no one will have control or security.

Chinese Bid for Unocal

This is one of those topics that makes me nervous. A Chinese Governmental entity Coonc Ltd. is looking to purchase Unocal. Unocal is a large US oil company.

Opposition to the Chinese firm's bid intensified in Washington as House members held a hearing and a senior Republican legislator questioned the involvement of a prominent U.S. law firm lobbying for Cnooc. The Chinese company would need approval from U.S. regulators to purchase Unocal, including the endorsement of a multi-agency panel that would decide whether the sale would pose a national security threat.

And

Anti-China sentiment in Congress has been building for several years, stemming from security concerns, complaints of currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, and other unfair trade practices. The hearing Wednesday by the House Armed Services Committee was dominated by witnesses who opposed Cnooc's bid to buy Unocal. Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), told reporters that Cnooc's proposal should be rejected on security grounds.

Most of Unocal's oil and natural gas reserves are overseas, which Hunter said is a problem for the United States because the company provides natural gas in Southeast Asia and is an investor in pipelines running through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, which he identified as "critical players and key U.S. allies in the global war on terrorism."

I do understand the security grounds that they mention. I just wonder how much of their resources are used to supply the US economy. The reason for this particular concern is the same as my arguments for economic protectionism for certain key industries that are failing in the US. (Like Steel) If a conflict occurs with China, what impact would there ownership of this company have on the economy and safety of the US? Could China manipulate the company in a manner that does damage to the economy?

I've found economic analysis of the bid, and some broader conversations.
This one discusses more on topic of what security means in this context.

Holocausts and Gun Control

I've misplaced where I saw this linked. Sorry.

I've only read a little, but I'm putting it here so I can find it later. And so other interested parties may read it as well.

Supremes on Self Defense

Yeah yeah, so I'm late on this discussion. Link is from SCOTUSblog.

Not really surprised by the finding. Though the arguments discussed are interesting.

In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court reversed a Tenth Circuit decision that permitted a due process claim against a local government for its police department's failure to enforce a restraining order.

Castle Rock presented two questions: (1) Whether federal law permits a procedural due process claim against a local government for failing to enforce a partial restraining order, exposing its holder to private violence; (2) If such a claim is allowed, what kind of process is required? Sixteen years earlier, the Court rejected an analogous substantive due process claim in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept of Social Services, but made it explicit that DeShaney created no precedent regarding a procedural due process claim of the same variety.

Justice ScaliaÂ’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices OÂ’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, held that Gonzales could claim no property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order and declined to reach the second question. Justice Souter filed a concurrence, which Justice Breyer joined, and Justice Stevens filed a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsberg.

From what I read it's all realted to this section of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can read the case. It's not excessively legalese.

Not unexpected, the lawyers for the case performed a lot of whining.

"We need to put pressure on our elected officials to pass laws that offer real protection to women and their families," she said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which championed her cause.

After the court defeat, the ACLU urged state legislatures to adopt tougher laws on restraining orders and police negligence.

Gonzales' lawyer, Brian Reichel of Broomfield, doubted that would happen in Colorado, considering the immunity the state already has extended to police.

"For us, there's nowhere to go," Reichel said. "For Jessica Gonzales, the fight is over."

Reichel said the Supreme Court had "given the green light" to police to ignore restraining orders. "Police now have unfettered discretion to ignore these directives."

"Unfettered discretion to ignore" I would say is over the top. Do they honestly wish us to believe that the police will intentionally ignore restraining orders? Police are professionals, and I don't see them just ignoring any such case. I doubt that was even the case here.

Now, where does this leave one on the topic of self-defense? Again affirming that the police have no requirement to provide protection, and you have no right to be protected by a governmental agency, they are telling you "you're on your own."

Lawyers on Lawyers

I found this site while looking for a quote about killing all the lawyers first. (from Henry IV)

For example, one legal firm states:

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

(from Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP Firm Profile)

Or

As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.

(from THINKING LIKE A LAWYER)

I was completely taken aback that these lawyers actually believe that Shakespeare's characters really meant it that way. The web-site goes on to discuss this warped point of view.

Bias

Alphecca's weekly check on bias.

Some pretty interesting topics on Amnesty International and the UN regarding small arms possession by the people. I especially love this quote:

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone the escalation of the flow of arms to the region," said Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy. "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation. "Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them the arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results could be."

I think AI is trying to say that there is no right to self defense.

I'm of the opinion, that instead of killing all the lawyers first, we go after the pacifists and peacenics. Then we do the lawyers.

Humorous Sites

Found both of these links at the Ministry of Minor Perfidy.

The title link is to WeaselWords. I think the title is pretty much self-indicating for the actual topic of the site. Some really great weasely quotes there.

There is also the Bush Conspiracy Generator. Kind of fun to find out where Franken and Moore get their talking points.

America: Terrorist Nation

Caught this one at Ravenwood's Universe. These guys always find interesting stuff that I seem never to hear about.

The reporter is Julianne Malveaux who writes for USA Today.

"Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to give you a litany of terrorism? You want me to start with what's happened to the Indian population? You want to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"

I always enjoy the Indian argument. History with no context. Let's ensure that we don't mention that the Indians used tactics in fighting that were just as bad as any used by the federal forces. Should we be disgusted with the methods used by the military? Sure. They were horrible in many cases, but then what they were fighting wasn't a "kind and respectful race in tune with nature" either.

You can also despise the actions of the riots of Tulsa in 1921. They were indeed horrific. But one must gain a little perspective. Does the actions of a single town in 1921 represent the actions and policies of the USA to this day? Did those actions represent the country at that time? The answer in both cases is No.

Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a "terrorist nation," Malveaux shot back: "Oh, Absolutely."In the next breath she added, "The chickens have come home to roost," in an apparent reference to the 9/11 attacks.

And

As the interview was winding up, Malveaux went on a tear about the Iraq war and "the weapons of mass distraction."You know they weren't there. I know they weren't there," she told Hannity. "George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."

Nothing like reasonable and learned discourse. I'm surprised she didn't call for the assassination of the president or yell that he was installed by the Supreme Court.

Inequality of Sacrifice

Post on QandO. Topic is the inequality of the ethnic break down of those serving and those that died in Iraq. Dale Franks quotes an article from the Philidelphia Inquirer where the writer still is claiming that more minorities are paying the price for the war in Iraq. Fortunately Dale shows us some real data which shows just how untrue that statement is. (I added a comment on numbers related to the 2003 Population Representation in the Military Services report.)

Sex Offense?

I've seen this one floating around for a few days and I'm still amazed that this happened. I'm also a bit miffed that I haven't seen any commentary on why this is wrong other than the "travesty of justice" title.

A man who grabbed a 14-year-old girl's arm to chastise her after she walked in front of his car, causing him to swerve to avoid hitting her, must register as a "sex offender," the Appellate Court of Illinois has ruled.

Fitzroy Barnaby, a 28-year-old Evanston, Illinois, man was prosecuted for attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges following a November 2002 incident in which he nearly hit the teen with his vehicle.

The girl testified Barnaby yelled, "Come here, little girl," when he jumped out of his car and grabbed her arm. She broke away and called authorities. Barnaby says he was merely trying to lecture her for her carelessness.

The trial jury accepted Barnaby's version of the story, but found him guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor – a sex offense under Illinois law.

As a convicted sex offender, Barnaby is required to be listed on the state's sex offender registry and must keep authorities informed of his place of residency. He also isn't allowed to live near schools or parks. The Illinois Sex Offender Information website, operated by the Illinois State Police, lists those in the registry, along with their photographs and home addresses.

Trial Judge Patrick Morse ordered registration reluctantly, acknowledging it was "more likely than not" Barnaby only intended to chastise the girl. "I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute."

The travesty statements have been coming out because the jury believed Barnaby's side of the story. The facts of the case were considered and found by the jury, but the law forced an unreasonable result that had no context in the scenario. The main issue I have with all of this is the fact that this prosecution waters down and thus weakens the system used to document and control truly dangerous sex offenders.

This isn't a rare event either. How about the Illinois sex offender related to public nudity.

4} SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY FOR PUBLIC NUDITY
Date: 4-4-02 Bill Number: HB 5874 Votes: For=118 Against=0
Vote to make skinny dipping a crime by adding "public indecency" to the list of sexual offenses that require a person convicted to register with the state as a sex offender. This bill will require a person who is arrested and convicted three times for public indecency to register with the state as a sex offender. Currently, public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor; if arrested more than three times it becomes a Class 4 felony with the possibility of 1-3 years in jail. Existing Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/11-9) prohibits any person 17 years of age and over from performing the act of public indecency, which the law defines as "[a] lewd exposure of the body done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person." Public indecency is an offense when performed in a "public place," which the statute defines as "any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others." Public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a third or subsequent violation for public indecency is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

Anyone else see something wrong here?

I don't want any of the arguments that deviant behavior like skinny dipping leads to more violent sexual offenses. The pot use scenario isn't even valid for pot, never mind sex.

Reid and Rove and Politics as Usual

I saw this on Brit Hume last night as obviously did Dafydd at Captain's Quarters. I won't go into the details he did, you can read his piece. Let's just say I'm tired of the whole thing, but that it just points out just how very unreasonable politicians are.

The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow-through on this pledge.

-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Flamingo Hotel & Casino), June 11th, 2005

If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

-- George Walker Bush (president-entire country), September 30th, 2003

Doesn't something strike you as an obvious issue here?

I don't doubt that the BS would be flying just as much if the demosprats and repuglicans were in each other's shoes. The whole theme of politics makes me want to take the extremes of both parties and put them on a little desert island together. And never come back.