Monthly Archives: March 2008

South Florida Delegate Results

Posted on March 4, 2008 by Michael Froomkin

The Florida Democratic party had caucuses last weekend; as far as I know these don't count any more than anything else Florida Democrats do.

The numerical results were determined by the voting in the Florida primary. The issue at the caucus was who would get to be the actual delegates.

How are the district-level caucuses run? Who chooses the delegates? The selection of district-level delegates will be in 25 post-primary district-level caucuses around the state on March 1, 2008. The highest vote-getters slotted under each presidential candidate are elected. (The numbers each presidential candidate gets in each district is dependent on the Presidential Primary results in that district.) In order to participate as a voter in the caucus, a voter must establish that he or she is a registered Democrat within the Caucus' Congressional District. Voters must present a voter registration card and photo I.D. The voter will then be required to fill out a statement of support for the presidential candidate whom he or she supports. Delegates and alternates will be elected only by those participants at the caucus who have declared support for the same candidate to whom the delegate or alternates are pledged. Each participating voter must vote for exactly the number of delegate candidates to which the presidential candidate is entitled. Undervotes and overvotes will result in that ballot becoming invalid and will not count.

See the unofficial results, if you want to know who won in south Florida.

Posted in Florida | Comments Off

Latest Obama Inspirational Video

Posted on March 3, 2008 by Michael Froomkin

will.i.am does it again for Obama.

Lots of Spanish for the Texas vote. Note that this isn't apparently an official campaign video, just a very effective one. (But are there declining returns to scale?)

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 1 Comment

1984: We’re Behind Schedule (Irish Edition)

Posted on March 3, 2008 by Michael Froomkin

Ireland's SiliconRepublic.com, In a State of surveillance:

We are about to enter into a state where every digital step you take is recorded. At the end of March, the Government will introduce the most draconian law in the history of personal privacy in Ireland: 24-hour internet monitoring. A log will be made of everyone's internet activity and every email sent and received.

Greetings from the State of surveillance.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 4 Comments

Vladeck on Omar and Munaf

Posted on March 3, 2008 by Michael Froomkin

At PrawfBlawg (like the blog, hate the name), Steve Vladeck has a very insightful post on two cases pending before the Supreme Court: Did Omar and Munaf Just Become the Same Case?

Steve being a friend, I know he'll forgive me for my quoting it in full:

Over at Opinio Juris, Kevin Heller has news of an immensely important development — the Iraqi Court of Cassation's reversal of Mohammed Munaf's conviction by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (the “CCC-I”). Munaf's habeas petition is one of two brought by U.S. citizens detained in Iraq set to be argued before the Supreme Court later this month (and in which I co-authored an amicus brief in support of the federal courts' jurisdiction).

Significantly, the distinction between Munaf and the other detainee — Omar — relied upon by the D.C. Circuit was Munaf's conviction by the CCC-I… the lower courts concluded that, where the U.S. citizen-detainee had not been tried and convicted (Omar), there was jurisdiction; where he had, there wasn't (Munaf).

If Munaf's conviction has now been reversed, that has the potential to change the whole complexion of the two cases; now, both present a challenge to “pure” executive detention, without the wrinkle added by Munaf's conviction (subsequent to the filing of his habeas petition). Indeed, Munaf's almost becomes the stronger case, since his, unlike Omar's, is not in the posture of a grant of a preliminary injunction…

How will the government respond? Will the Supreme Court now just decide Omar, and vacate and remand Munaf for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith?

One thing is for sure: If this all pans out, the reversal of Munaf's conviction serves to reinforce the deep flaws in his trial in the first place, and the reason why federal judicial review of his detention via habeas was—and continues to be—so critical in his case.