Discourse.net

Richard Clarke Goes for the Bush Jugular

Richard Clarke is going to get his 15 minutes, and more, before he either falls into the Memory Hole, or holes the Bush Administration below the waterline.

In reading him, and about him, please keep a few things in mind:

1. Clarke’s a Scoop Jackson Democrcat — that is, the right-wing kind;
2. He’s serverd both Deomcratic and Republican Presidents, and very ably by all accounts
3. He’s a smart man, and a patriot, and widely considered one of the best nuts and bolts guys around on national security.

That doesn’t make what he says true, but it ought to buy him a respectful hearing.

Crocodile Medallions French Style

I am not ordinarily given to recounting my personal life here, much less to restaurant reviews, but I can’t resist mentioning the place I went to dinner last night, “Las Culebrinas.” We wanted to go somewhere new, so we were trawling the Miami Herald restaurant review archive in the minutes before the babysitter arrived, looking for places that were not too far away, not too pricey, and interesting sounding. Then we found this.

I began to think that this might make for an interesting night out when I got to this part in the review, especially because I was pretty hungry:

Our waiter, a fellow with a merry twinkle in his eye and a deft hand with a blowtorch (more on that later), advised us not to order anything beyond the giant tapas. “TOO MUCH FOOD,” he declared. We pressed on. Great rewards awaited.

But the next two paragraphs really sealed the deal:

There is a regular entree menu underneath the glass tabletop, but you need not look at it. Each night, a sheet bearing some 25 specials is circulated, and it is there that the truly interesting stuff can be found.

It is there that we spotted what no Spanish restaurant ought to be doing without, an entree called “Crocodile Medallions French Style” ($12.95). This is a must-order, filet after filet of thinly sliced, pearly white, slightly chewy but delicious and virtually fat-free meat. Compare it to a good veal. The “French style” involves a light egg wash and a bit of white wine and butter in the saute. Julia Child, meet Wally Gator. Served with a nice little row of tasty potatoes and a side salad made of mixed field greens, not the typical pallid iceberg.

I Hate It When She's Right

Most of the time I think Maureen Down’s column varies between vacuous and an insult to our collective intelligence. But I have to admit that about twice a year she hits one of the park. Sunday’s paper has one one of those power slams: Quid Pro Quack, about Justice Scalia’s apologia pro anas:

Time for $199 Donations?

Fundrace.org isn’t reachable right now because the whole world is trying to get to it, but according to this morning’s paper it not only lists everyone who gave more than $200 to a Presidential campaign, but allows you to display all the contributions by your neighbors on a nice clickable map.

Sorta like Miami-Dade’s map of sexual predators.

First Guantanamo Trials Likely to Strain Legality, Credulity

Prof. Neal Katyal of Georgetown has a depressing if unsurprising item in Slate, Gitmo’ Better Blues - The folly of the new Guantanamo trials, suggesting that the first round of Gitmo charges will not be big fish, and will not be clear examples of war crimes by fiendish terrorists…but rather…an accountant and the videographer of the Cole bombing. Folks who worked with bad folks, yes, but, as Prof. Katyal puts it,

But despite the tremendous merits of our civilian conspiracy law, these military charges are unconstitutional, inconsistent with international law, and unwise.

They will demonstrate what critics of the military tribunals have been saying all along: that the administration has sought to create an end run around guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and universally accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.

…

While glorifying the Cole bombing and moving al-Qaida money are certainly bad acts, if there were any evidence that these two men actually engaged in serious war crimes, it would be in the indictment. It’s not. Instead, the government can only allege the amorphous crime of aiding of al-Qaida.

Contrast these vague indictments with the position of Assistant Attorney General Herbert Wechsler during World War II. Wechsler, perhaps the most important 20th-century scholar of American criminal law, deplored a Pentagon proposal to file conspiracy charges against Germans who were not “prime leaders.” To Wechsler, such charges could not be based on ideas drawn from American conspiracy law without “proof of personal participation in a specific crime.” In the absence of such proof, he said, “the force of the broad criminal charge against the leaders may be seriously weakened in the eyes of the world,” especially “if too many individuals are included in it.” Today there is no Wechsler in the administration advising restraint—striking, in light of America’s recent experience with the Independent Counsel Act, another device that encouraged overzealousness at the price of balance and fairness. Fairness and process, of course, can give way in an emergency or when the matter concerns Bin Laden or his close associates. But a cameraman and an accountant, even if they double as bodyguards, just don’t come close.

Be proud, fellow citizens, of what your country does in your name. Or throw the rascals out.

Cybercrime Treaty Goes Live

Via Michael Geist’s newsletter on Internet law, I learn that the Council of Europe’s cybercrime convention has entered into force due to its fifth ratification — from Lithuania. The US has signed but not yet ratified. The key aspect of the convention is that it imposes a duty on signatories to do Carnivore-like snooping on domestic internet users at the request of a foreign government…so long as the snooping method is consistent with domestic law.

It’s widely believed that the US wrote this and pushed it through the Council, both to get access to foreign communications and especially to impress on Congress that Carnivore in the US should be seen as business as usual, and something demanded by our allies.

Scalia Won't Recuse. No Way. No How. Got That?

Scalia takes 21 pages to explain why he will not recuse himself in the Cheney case

Some of the arguments are pretty good; others hover round the laugh test. Can anyone really believe that,

Nothing this Court says on those subjects will have any bearing upon the reputation and integrity of Richard Cheney. Moreover, even if this Court affirms the decision below and allows discovery to proceed in the District Court, the issue that would ultimately present itself still would have no bearing upon the reputation and integrity of Richard Cheney.

Can anyone believe that? I sure don’t.

I’d post more, but I have a deadline. (Thanks, Dan, for the tip.)

Bruce Reed, Anthropologist

Bruce Reed — DLC honcho, former Clinton domestic policy guru, and once, very very long ago, the nice Presidential Scholar from Idaho whom I met on our joint trip to Washington, D.C. (as I lived in DC my ‘trip’ was on the Metro) — has written a lively, funny, account of the habits of two Washington tribes, the Wonks and the Hacks. In it he suggests that the currernt administration’s major failing is that it has cast its lot with the hacks, and declared war on wonks.

It’s a great piece and you should read it all, but here’s the irrelevant throwaway line about one of my least favorite political operatives that made me glad I wasn’t drinking coffee while I read it:

For all his faults, though, [Dick] Morris was often a useful spur to the bureaucracy, because he enabled the White House policy team to deploy our own Madman Theory: If the agencies wouldn’t go along with our sensible proposals, we warned them that the president might just listen to Dick Morris. Agency productivity soared as a result.