April 19, 2009 - April 25, 2009

« April 12, 2009 - April 18, 2009 | Home | April 26, 2009 - May 2, 2009 »

Week of April 19, 2009 - April 25, 2009

Tasers on the Road

April 24, 2009, 2:35PM

I ride my bike a lot; it's how I get to and from the office, and the way that I decompress on Sunday mornings as long as weather allows. I ride on the road a lot, and have had everything from horns honked (don't care) to AA batteries thrown (care) at me from passing cars. Cops are something that I never thought I would have to worry about.

Key quotes:

Both Tony and Ryan say that to keep from being run off the road, Tony quickly pulled ahead while Ryan braked and fell in behind the cruiser. Ryan says that once he was behind the cruiser, the Deputy slammed on his brakes, but Ryan evaded the imminent crash by riding around the cruiser. As Ryan cleared the cruiser, he says the Deputy opened his door and attempted to body-check him, but missed. Ryan caught up with Tony but, significantly, Tony says that Ryan didn't tell him what had just happened; unaware of what had just transpired, Tony continued riding, with Ryan following behind him. Having failed to run the two cyclists off the road, the Deputy got back in his car, and raced ahead. ...

By now, Tony says he was doing his best to defuse a situation that was rapidly spiraling out of control, but as he explains, the Deputy just kept making the situation worse. Tony says that after the taser had failed to have its desired effect, the Deputy pulled out his telescoping baton, and began swinging at Tony. However, he wasn't having any more luck with his baton than he did with the taser; Tony says the baton failed to open fully, so the Deputy kept flailing away at Tony while trying to grab him and simultaneously attempting to hold up his pants-which were threatening to drop to the ground with each swing. The scene was both comical and deadly serious.

The crime? Riding two abreast on a road. And I know, it's a small-town deputy that most likely fits every related stereotype (though not all do), and cops do a lot of other things that are good that no one writes about. But this guy should not have a badge. Period.

Read the whole thing.

Deep Thoughts

April 22, 2009, 11:04AM

If it worked, why did it need to be done 183 times?

Remind Me

April 21, 2009, 4:32PM

Why it was such a good idea to let Lieberman caucus with the Democrats?

Jane--Thank You So Much (or, in which I am reduced to stuttering rage)

April 20, 2009, 7:58AM

Dear Jane,

The last four years of GeorgeCo's Ongoing Felony Operation (TM) were the bestest ever! And we're so grateful to you for helping us bury that troubling wiretapping story so we could have four more glorious years!

We're so glad to see you get the recognition you deserve.

Yours sincerely,

Hank Greenberg

Joseph Cassano

CEO and AGFP Emeritus, AIG, Inc.

Chuck Prince

CEO Emeritus, Citibank.

Erik Prince

CEO

Blackwater Xe, Inc. (The name's changed, but the song remains the same).

Some Thoughts on the OLC Memos and, Believe it or Not, 24

April 19, 2009, 11:11PM

I have had a chance to review the OLC memos in some detail. If you read only one, read this one. And then reflect good and hard on the fact that the author is currently a federal appellate judge.

And allusions to 1984 and the simple sadism contained in those documents aside, what struck me was that the lawyers at DOJ, especially Bybee, did not believe that their clients were telling the truth. I say this because when lawyers say things like "you told us that", as opposed to "X happened on such and such a date." [CItation--if no citation, there is an implication of investigation]. There is a difference. In the first instance, the lawyer is not representing a fact as true. In the second, the representation is more direct. The difference is a subtle one. It is very clear from the information in this memorandum that NO independent legal investigation or other step was taken to verify that what was being told was true.

And here's what really sticks in my craw after reading this (and, believe it or not, where 24 comes in). If this torture was really necessary, the president could order it. Those ordered to commit it could be pardoned--in secret if need be, until the appropriate time. If word got out, then the President could say--"Yes, I did it. I believed and still believe that at the time it was in the best interests of the country." At that point, there is an obvious political remedy open to the Congress and the country. For good or for ill (and in this case for ill) that is what leadership looks like. And any attempt at prosecution of anyone further down the chain would be a serious and (in my view) unconstitutional encroachment on executive prerogative. (And here is where 24 comes in. The character saved the country once a year for however many seasons. Can a brother get a pardon?).

But that is NOT what the former administration did. The very party that has made the legal profession the scourge of American existence now has the gall to trot out this manufactured, intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant nonsense and attempt to excuse criticisms as partisan witch hunts. This kind of shit is the exact kind of thing that gets trial lawyers excoriated. A good example is the statement that "navy seals that went through waterboarding in SERE training don't have long-term psychological effects." Uh, of course not. It's a training exercise--given to guys that either can swim 100 yards underwater or pass out trying. These are among the toughest guys in the US military. If they've got serious drowning issues, they are in the wrong part of the service. There is no attempt--anywhere--to expose any evidence that would yield an opposing view--and that evidence was, as Josh pointed out--readily available.

Prosecutions? Hell, yes. Defenestrations.