The Wirenius Report Blog
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
John Wirenius' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 | | 9:42 pm |
The Bell Case Today's protests of the Sean Bell verdict led me to re-read Justice Cooperman's statement explaining his rationale in acquitting the officers. Here is Justice Cooperman's precis of the facts: Yet, it was apparent from the testimony of the participants that the confrontation that took place in front of the club was heated. The SUV owner, Fabio Coicou, gave the impression that he had a gun, causing at least one of the group to threaten to take it away from him. And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation between Mr. Coicou and the group, the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street. Defendant Isnora approached the Nissan Altima into which Mr. Guzman and Sean Bell, two of the more active participants in the heated exchange, entered. The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck defendant Isnora and collided head on with the police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up on to the sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, defendant Isnora -- who testified in the grand jury --observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon. defendant Isnora yelled, "gun" and fired. Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street.
The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds. The officers responded to perceived criminal conduct; the unfortunate consequences of their conduct were tragic.
Much of this recitation is unanswerable: without having been in the courtroom myself, I can't comment on the credibility determinations Justice Cooperman made, and I certainly agree that the burden of proof in a criminal case makes such credibility determinations key. And yet, I'm not at peace with this. Maybe it's because the DA didn't charge the officers with criminally negligent homicide--which might have been the most likely charge to stick. Under NY Penal Law 125.10, criminally negligent homicide requires, naturally enough, that one act with criminal negligence, defined in Penal Law 15.05(4), that one acts "with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." That theory wasn't in the case, and may have been critical; Justice Cooperman made that point clear: The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums. Under this standard, we can't predict how the case would have come out. The quantum of negligence required is more than that in a civil case; as the Court of Appeals summarized it in People v. Ladd, 89 N.Y.2d 893 (1996): "carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary negligence, that a finding of criminal negligence requires proof that the defendant's conduct was of such a gross and flagrant character as to warrant the imposition of criminal liability, and that defendant's conduct must have been seriously blameworthy." The reliance of the other officers on Isnora's cry of "gun" was not inherently unreasonable, but the sudden barrage of shots--fifty shots fired off based on the single word "gun"--suggests that the lessons of the Amadou Diallo case have not been learned. But what would have resulted had the charge been included, we can only speculate. | | Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 | | 10:39 pm |
| | Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008 | | 8:06 pm |
| | Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 | | 10:51 pm |
I Know the Feeling
Just saying. | | Monday, April 14th, 2008 | | 8:21 pm |
In Memoriam  When I was a boy, the story of the Titanic fascinated me, with its combination of technology, tragedy, Edwardian gallantry,and luxury. As I grew older, I read most of the historical accounts, and became aware of the various controversies--such as that involving Captain Lord and the Californian, which could have, but did not come to the rescue (count me in with the "Anti-Lordites," for what it's worth). In retrospect, the beauty of the ship, the courage of passengers like Colonel Archibald Gracie and Archie Butt, and the sheer weirdness that Morgan Roberstonin his novel Futility predicted the wreck almost exactly--in 1898--all these captured my imagination as a boy. (Long before the dreadful film!) Of course, all of this interest arose out of a monument to hubris, class prejudice and folly. (For a corrective to all the romantic myths, see the writings of the late Wyn Craig Wade. The "unsinkable" ship went down on this date in 1912. Requiescat in pace! | | Friday, April 11th, 2008 | | 9:12 pm |
"History Will Not Judge This Kindly" The involvement of the top echelons of the Bush Administration, including Bush himself, in approving torture is now clear. Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Colin Powell all were briefed on "harsh interrogation tactics"--some of which were demonstrated for them--and approved them. What were these tactics, used in conjunction? 1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him. 2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear. 3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage. 4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions. 5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water. 6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
These tactics were approved for use on, and resulted in confessions from Abu Zubadayah--the worth of which the FBI has assessed as "crap." This is not surprising; these tactics were copied from the Soviet Union, North Korea and Vietnam, which used them to get propaganda confessions from Western prisoners--without any regard to truth. (Interestingly, the USSR appears to have drawn the line short of waterboarding; the Times quotes KGB manuals as disapproving of such overt brutality as "repugnant to Communist principles"). In a flash of insight, John Ashcroft saw the future--though sadly not the point: Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said. </p>According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." Condoleeza Rice, by contrast, showed the real spirit of the GOP: "This is your baby," she told the CIA "go do it." | | Monday, April 7th, 2008 | | 8:43 pm |
"I love you my son. Even when you fail."  The late Charlton Heston was, as well know, very much a conservative later in life. Generally, not a way to win my approval. Still, his performance in the splendid The Three Musketeers and its even better sequel The Four Musketeers was a favorite from my childhood. Heston was surprisingly subtle as Cardinal Richelieu--the performance stands up over thirty years on--sly, funny, ruthless, and all with a firm conviction of his own superiority to the flighty Queen and ridiculous, ineffectual King. He anchors the film, and, in his great confrontation with his henchman, Rochefort (a chilly Christopher Lee), disarms him with the phrase quoted above--after getting Rochefort to confess his fear and loathing of his master. It's the best acting work from Heston I can recall. And in what must be my favorite pair of linked films. Also, for a conservative to star in liberal-themed sci fi movies from The Omega Man and Planet of the Apes, to Soylent Green (it's people, you know), says something about him. For all these credits, I can forgive "from my cold, dead hands," and even the atrocity of his remake of A Man for All Seasons. Vogue a la galere. | | Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 | | 9:11 pm |
| | Saturday, March 22nd, 2008 | | 9:25 pm |
| | Thursday, March 20th, 2008 | | 10:57 pm |
Trust Us  From MSNBC: Two contract employees of the State Department were fired and a third person was disciplined for inappropriately looking at Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's passport file. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the department itself detected the instances of "imprudent curiosity," which occurred separately on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. He would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined. "We believe this was out of imprudent curiosity, so we are taking steps to reassure ourselves that that is, in fact, the case," McCormack said. Oh, I see. So no political motivation, eh? As the WaPo points out, the privacy safeguards disregarded by these contractors were put in place in 1992, when the passport files of Bill Clinton were mysteriously accessed and admittedly searched for " documents that would show whether Mr. Clinton had ever considered renouncing United States citizenship or becoming a citizen of another country to avoid military service in Vietnam. No such information on Mr. Clinton was found." (Interestingly, just days after Clinton's inauguration, one of the State Department officials involved in searching Clinton's files was hired by Senate Republicans "to monitor State Department activities under the new President. " Hmm...two Republican Presidents named Bush, advised by Karl Rove (Bush I fired him for dirty tricks--both in 1980 and in 1992),and almost identical surveillance incidents using the State Department against the Democratic rising star...what's not to trust? UPDATE: From TPM, note the dates on which Obama's files were accessed: "Jan. 9th, Feb. 21st and March 14th. That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Democratic debate in Texas and the day the Wright story really hit." Move it along. Nothing to see. | | Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 | | 11:25 pm |
Five Years In I've nothing special to add, but the Iraq War has gone on for 5 years now, and we still have we no template for what victory would look like, or, even, why we went. (Well, unless you're Hitch. He's consistent, say that for him). The legacy, for our nation? Propaganda, directed to Americans by our own government. Torture, as institutionalized policy. Over a half a trillion dollars spent. Almost 4,000 American dead; 29,000 + wounded.Number of Iraqis dead, in the name of freeing them? Unknown. | | 10:58 pm |
Huckabee Shows His Mettle An interesting perspective: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.</p>Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS... HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK? HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them. JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters. HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote. And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.</strong> A fair point, well made. | | Monday, March 17th, 2008 | | 9:24 pm |
Free Markets--Free of Risk, That Is The insincerity of those who purport to believe in "conservative" ideology was exposed again this past Friday, when the Fed and J.P. Morgan arrived at a taxpayer guaranteed $30 billion bailout package for Bear Stearns, which will be acquired by J.P. Morgan for 7 cents on the dollar--at no risk, because We the People will pay the losses. Meanwhile, for homeowners who are in trouble, Bush says: Drop dead. After all, as Dear Leader made clear at the Economic Club, he rejects proposals for bankruptcy reform, and $4 billion in aid to homeowners in foreclosure. After all, he explained, “in a free market economy there will be good times and bad times.” Unless, of course, you are a big player. Then, you get to play risk free. Well, at least the Financial Times will be happy. The small government conservatives? For it.With the exception of a small, politically inconsequential group of purists--such as the Ayn Rand Institute--is there any reason why, after Terri Schiavo, limitless surveillance and now this arrant favoritism for the rich over the poor, we should believe that those who proclaim small markets and limited government themselves take conservatism seriously as a political philosophy? | | Monday, March 10th, 2008 | | 9:43 pm |
Political Tragedy Eliot "I'm a fucking steamroller" Spitzer has landed in the soup with a thud. The Governor's involvement as "Client 9" with a prostitution ring is particularly ironic in view of his prior prosecutorial high hand with respect to the issue: Though his signature issue was pursuing Wall Street misdeeds, as attorney general Mr. Spitzer also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force. In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island. “This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”
The Governor's behavior is almost inexplicably self-destructive; after a prolonged feud with State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, he surely had to know that his political reservoir of good will was at an all-time low. And that, with the knives sharpened, he was offering an irresistible target. What a sad point to have reached in a career that only fifteen months ago offered such promise. | | Friday, February 29th, 2008 | | 8:06 pm |
The Runner Stumbles Sen. John McCain has enthusiastically accepted the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, a right wing extremist evangelical whose bigotry toward Muslims, Roman Catholics, and the city of New Orleans (God smote them, d'ye see, for allowing the gays to march), may be seen here, here, and here. Anyone who can unite Glenn Greenwald and Bill Donohue--oh, and Ann Althouse--in denouncing him is having a bad day. Althouse found an outrageous video of Hagee in anti-Catholic action: But the Maverick does not back down; he's still defending Hagee's endorsement. Meanwhile, again courtesy of Professor Althouse, is this statement by Sen. McCain, that the debate he will conduct will be "dispirited" because he's "a proud conservative liberal." Enjoy: (Of course, McCain could have flummoxed 'em by pointing out that Anthony Trollope in his Autobiography described himself as "an advanced, but still conservative liberal," but that would hardly do in this modern age of simplistic partisanship, hey?) Not a propitious start for Senator McCain in the general election. | | Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 | | 9:54 pm |
William F. Buckley, RIP William F. Buckley, founder of National Review died today, at age 82. He was, to put it mildly, a complicated man. The youthful McCarthyite, the elitist, the obnoxious provocateur--these facets of Buckley we can easily dismiss. But the charming, erudite wit who engaged with liberals (and even leftists) in substantive and entertaining debate, who challenged (actually creamed) then-Governor Ronald Reagan in a debate, and even declared the Iraq venture a failure--that man is not so easily dismissed. An elderly imp (his friend David Niven describes him as playing pranks on him, including falsifying a blurb, purportedly from Niven for one of his novels: "Positively the best book ever written," Buckley quoted Niven on a mocked-up dust jacket, "about fucking the Queen"), who nonetheless loved ideas, Buckley provided a forum for all political stripes on his outstanding television program Firing Line. I vividly remember Buckley's slouch (he looked as if his spine had been surgically removed), his arched eyebrow, and his witty summaries of political issues. And, even to the end, he could be generous to aspiring young journalists, even one he described as "an ardent enthusiast for the American left" (who, commenting on that crack, replied "damn straight"). Don't get me wrong; I disagreed with WFB on almost everything (although I enjoyed it when he hammered George W. Bush's conservatism). But, across the gulf of ideological disagreement, I salute an advocate of wit and charm--and a man who brought substance to political debate in a medium that more commonly debases it. | | Sunday, February 24th, 2008 | | 1:40 pm |
| | Monday, February 18th, 2008 | | 11:35 am |
The Sorrow and the Pity Many of my friends who have heard me defend the honor of John McCain have criticized my respect for him. I was impressed by his struggle against the Bush Administration's insistence that it be afforded the "right" to torture, and admired his refusal to descend to the level of the vitriol that is standard issue to GOP candidates. (For example, Mitt Romney, in ceding the primary to McCain, characterized a Democratic victory, by either Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama, a "surrender to terror.") Now McCain last week has done an appalling reversal on torture, voting against a bill that would hold CIA interrogations to what McCain has called the "gold standard" of permissible interrogation, the Army Field Manual. The Democratic partisan side of me should be happy, I suppose, that McCain has blotted his record on a matter of fundamental principle that will likely disenchant independents from him in the general election. But the human tragedy of a man who, until recently, redeemed his own experience as a victim of torture by insisting that we as a nation be better than those who tortured him, sell out his principles for the prospect of political power overwhelms any partisan glee I might feel. I am reminded of the time Jacob Riis and Lincoln Steffens told then Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt that he could be President of the United States: "Don't you dare ask me that," TR yelled at Riis. "Don't you put such ideas into my head. No friend of mine would ever say a thing like that, you-you--"
Riis's shocked face or TR's recollection that he had few friends as devoted as Jake Riis halted him. He backed away, came up again to Riis, and put his arm over his shoulder. Then he beckoned me [Steffens] close and in an awed tone of voice explained.
"Never, never, you must never either of you remind a man at work at a political job that he may be President. It almost always kills him politically. He loses his nerve; he can't do his work; he gives up the very traits that are making him a possibility. I, for instance, I am going to do great things here, hard things that will require all the courage, ability, work that I am capable of...but if I get to thinking what it might lead to....I must be wanting to be President. Every young man does. But I won't let myself think of it; I must not, because if I do, I will begin to work for it. I'll be careful, calculating, cautious in word and act, and so--I'll beat myself. See?" Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (1979) at 510-511 (Lincoln Steffens, Autobiography (1936) at 258-260). McCain, sadly, has fallen into the trap the young Roosevelt worked so hard to avoid. In his seventies, the Senator has betrayed his finest moment as a young soldier--and the hopes of all Americans who thought that the GOP could be in any measure redeemed from the indiscreet sleaze of the Bushwarsee. | | Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 | | 9:00 pm |
We Torture Waterboarding, according to White House spokesperson Tony Fratto, has been used by the United States, and, since it was approved by the Attorney General (Ashcroft at the time), was legal, and therefore not torture. Nice, hey? If the Attorney General says it's legal, why, it isn't. And our current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey? Well, as he testified to the Senate recently, it's only torture if we really don't want the information--or if it's done to him: Land of the free, ma! | | 8:45 pm |
Heckuva Job, Mr. President! Did you notice this story in this morning's Times? Al Qaeda is gaining in strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, the director of national intelligence told a Senate panel on Tuesday.The director, Mike McConnell, told lawmakers that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, remained in control of the terrorist group and had promoted a new generation of lieutenants. He said Al Qaeda was also improving what he called “the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.” — producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets. A senior intelligence official said Tuesday evening that the testimony was based in part on new evidence that Qaeda operatives in Pakistan were training Westerners, most likely including American citizens, to carry out attacks. The official said there was no indication as yet that Al Qaeda had succeeded in getting operatives into the United States. At the risk of seeming churlish, I've been blogging this story since September of 2006. During which time,the Decider (that's Captain Codpiece to you) has focused monomaniacally on staying in Iraq, partisan sniping at the Democrats, and appeasing Pervez Musharraf. No doubt when the inevitable attack happens, if it falls on Bush's watch (like September 11 itself, come to think of it), he'll know who to blame: Bill Clinton. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jwirenius's journal
