Dancing Shrub
Spot the missing evil-doer.

"We've had too many cases of people abusing their responsibilities and people just need to know that the SEC is on it, our government is on it, and Arthur Andersen has been prosecuted. We will pursue, within our laws, those who are irresponsible."
- posted by levinson @ 6/26/2002 09:12:00 AM

 
WorldCom's Cafe Americain
"Our senior management team is shocked [... SHOCKED!] by these discoveries," said John W. Sidgmore, who became WorldCom's chief executive after Mr. Ebbers left in April.

Pardon me if I'm not surprised. And here are your winnings Mr. Sidgmore.
- posted by levinson @ 6/26/2002 08:31:00 AM

 
Where have you gone Oliver Cromwell?
I've been away for a week and so I'm just catching up on some news now. I was keenly interested in the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the legality of executing mentally retarded convicts. I was turned on to this decision by an article I had read some weeks ago but cannot at the moment remember its author or title. Regardless, what has struck me most from reports is the following comment criticizing the court's decision:

• "The arrogance of this assumption of power takes one's breath away."

Pretty strong stuff. Certainly given the court's recent past, it has plenty of critics that would certainly lob such a complaint. The comment's author? Antonin Scalia.
Nino, you are a disgrace. Should a man with such a clear political agenda [this is the part where I abandon the story that brought the subject to mind in the first place] be allowed to continue on the highest court in the land? I don't object to jurists having a political stance. I think it's natural that some people who are in constant review of our laws would develop very strong or even radical views on how this country should create and execute our laws. However, I think such people should be vetted out of the running for the supreme court by our senate. Unfortunately the system has become such that each side is now looking for the most politicized jurist possible to fill the next vacancy (which I'm betting will come immediately after the next election if W retains his office). One thing that seems to have been lost on many people in the land is that according to the Constitution, "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour."

The link is to a book on the subject published in September 2001. I haven't read it. What I'd like to find is some good discussion on the subject of what good behavior is and how/why judges (supreme or lower) have been impeached for it. My point is this. Ultimately the judges serve at our discretion, far from a life appointment if we don't like them, and we should remind them than conduct such as that in Bush v. Gore is unbecoming of our constitutional supervisors. The constitution exists because the people ratified it. Our judges serve at our pleasure. If an act is so egregious, they should be removed. Some of those on the current court have so offended the rule of law in the past that they should be removed. A highly political affair you suggest? Especially given the way the last election was decided, you continue. It is for precisely that reason, that the outcome was so brazenly political, that the conduct of the justices should be scrutinized and, if necessary, those deemed to have behaved poorly (thereby violating their one and only mandate) should be impeached. I know this won't happen because the politicians charged with the investigation could not sustain the opposition to their actions. However, were a media source to do much of the leg-work for them (as has happened many times in the past), the need for further and official investigation would be undeniable. All those that serve at the discretion of the people are accountable. Nothing in the papers of the justices concerning the last election could be deemed national security. Also, they have no clients but the people and thus no privilege to claim. And no, this wouldn't stop judges from being politically motivated in their decisions; nor would it stop any judge from issuing a controversial or unpopular decision. Vincent Bugliosi is certainly angry enough to call for not simply their impeachment but their trial for crimes.
- posted by levinson @ 6/21/2002 07:24:00 PM

 
Habeus Corpus?
Stretching the term "time of war" as justification for indefinite incarceration of US citizens when Congress has not declared war and basing such justification on a 60-year-old supreme court ruling is, to me, very dangerous indeed:

• "We have acted under the laws of war and under the clear Supreme Court precedent which established that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts," Ashcroft said.

It seems to me that Ashcroft et al. are trying to skirt their responsibility to defend the legality of their actions by turning the accused over to the defense department. If this man is guilty and there is substantial evidence to prove it, I see no reason to turn him over to defense for indefinite detention without trial. The shredding of our civil rights will bring greater aid and comfort to our enemies than any dissenting congressman with a microphone ever could.
- posted by levinson @ 6/11/2002 06:57:00 AM

 
Bad Moon Rising
Good that the Feds have caught someone plotting to blow stuff up in DC. However, the rumblings that this US citizen might be tried under the tribunal system is deeply troubling. I don't think he will be, but even holding him as an "enemy combatant" raises questions. There is a lot to this story that has yet to come out, but at the outset, there are many troubling questions all stemming from the fact that the accused is a US citizen. This prosecution will help show in what regard this justice department holds a US citizen's civil rights.
- posted by levinson @ 6/10/2002 01:47:00 PM

 
Realizing Synergies
I guess my first question about the new agency is, where on this chart does it go?


- posted by levinson @ 6/06/2002 08:24:00 AM

 
Fat Cooks, Small Kitchen
Just my initial reaction to the announcement:
Didn't he already create an office to coordinate the efforts of the various intelligence agencies to strengthen homeland security? Is this now the death knell of that agency? Perhaps this is an attempt to blunt the efforts to make Ridge's position a cabinet post?

Most importantly, isn't the bureaucracy large enough already? Haven't we seen in the intense cover-your-ass game that the FBI and CIA have been playing of late that yet another agency may not be the answer. If this works, that would be great, but if it doesn't, haven't we just created another trough to which information will go and never be analyzed? It all seems like an idea that just won't work and will only make the bloated bureaucracy that much larger. I thought Republicans wanted to make the government smaller.
- posted by levinson @ 6/06/2002 08:20:00 AM