Billmon reports that not only is he back to snark hunting full time, but that there is plenty of snark to go around. (And if there isn't we can always throw money at the problem.)
Link to great epic poem
Link to snarky software
Link to academic write-up of snark hunting
Link to Hi-test snark
Snark dating??? Must be a joke…
Via Majikthise (nice blog), I find Interviewing with the National Security Agency, which purports to be an inside account of the lengthy process required to get hired by the NSA.
While my opinion of the CIA is pretyy low, my opinion of the NSA is much higher. It's not just that they have good taste in lawyers or that the folks they send to meetings seem smart and sensible, but that from what one hears their work contributes to US security, and maybe even world peace. (Unlike the CIA, for which I have my doubts about both.)
It isn't often I agree with Lynn Nofziger, but today is one of those days. Well, mostly. Nofziger muses,
I keep wondering. Was it constitutionally proper for Vice President Cheney to order Air Force jets to shoot down high-jacked passenger planes? Or was he exercising authority that belongs solely to the president.
Yes, the president apparently gave him permission to issue the order. But how did the Air Force generals know? The fact is, they didn't. they had to accept Cheney’s word.
In this instance and under those particular circumstances it was probably all right. But it seems to me that this sets a dangerous precedent.
In the future what is to prevent an overly ambitious vice president or one who is at odds with the president from picking up the phone and issuing orders which, if carried out could result in the death of the president.
Not possible, you say. Who would have thought the events of nine/eleven were possible? Not likely is better. But not likely events occur every day.
It seems to me that the person who should have issued the order was the commander in chief, President George W. Bush. If he could talk to Cheney he could talk directly to the military, leaving no doubt who was in charge.
I think that was the voice of inexperience at work. I don’t think it will happen again.
The last paragraph strikes me as too charitable, but otherwise, I pretty much agree.
Shorter Eric Soskin, Harvard Federalist Society, writing in Ex Parte:
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush's official statement to Congress (a certification required by law as a precondition for force), that invading Iraq was “consistent with” a resolution that authorized force against “international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” wasn't “unambiguously false” but just legalistic and misleading—so why is everyone getting so worked up about it?
I think the guy has a future in the OLC if Bush is re-elected.
[Update (6/22): A read writes to complaint about the "re-". Point taken.]
Phil Carter points out that the Patriot Act usefully expands US criminal law jurisdiction to sweep in “crimes committed by or against any U.S. national on lands or facilities designated for use by the United States government”:
Sure enough, Sec. 804 of the USA PATRIOT Act … amends 18 U.S.C. 7, also known as the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction” statute of federal criminal law, to include U.S. military bases and embassies outside of the U.S. Here's the relevant text of 18 U.S.C. 7
Of course, this is of no great value to parties wishing to file civil law suits, and the odds that a US Attorney is going to start investigating Guantanamo seem pretty low. Prosecutions at Abu Ghrabi are firmly in the hands of the military justice system, and it's too soon to tell whether the military honor reflex or the military cover-up reflex will dominate.
But, as noted on Intel Dump, this amendment has borne fruit in the prosecution of a civilian contractor in Iraq for an assault that lead to the death of a CIA detainee. Update: Washiington Post explains the background to the prosecution.
By The Power of Stipulation: I Have The Power!: Belle Warring at Crooked Timber's demolition of the TABNY scenario is much more enthusiastic than mine.
I am sick and tired of hearing about that ticking nuclear bomb in Manhattan. You know the one. Why? Because, if you let me put my thumb on the utilitarian scales, I can get you to agree that you have an affirmative moral duty to torture a three-year-old child to death.
I will utilitze my mighty powers of stipulation, thusly: the earth is invaded by a race of super-intelligent, but malevolent beings.
Go read the rest.
Jotwell Blenderlaw