Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post 766
The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."
Is this really a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Change? Sure.. there is change... (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let us know when you receive that DMCA takedown notice.
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats. To them, the president controls what food is on the table and how much gas costs, and the fact the neighborhood strip club raised its drink prices by $3/shot, and etc.
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills. NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina, the fact that louisiana's gov was incompitent was not the presidential responsiblity, but the responsibility of the state and population of the state to pick a capable leadership. They failed.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.
To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Between that and this pick [time.com], will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Funny)
Between that and this pick [time.com], will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
He is pro-technology. After all, DRM is tech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.
There. Fixed it for you.
Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Funny)
He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.
There. Fixed it for you.
I was trying to add a small degree of subtlety to the proceedings.
Oh boy this should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...
Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly. The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, you don't have to turn off American Idol to vote. You can pick up the phone whilst watching!
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless.
Am I missing a reference or something? Is this some sort of racist pun?
Re: (Score:3)
I know what a "chink in the armor" is. But since I don't see how one can easily mistype "armor" as "army" I was wondering if this was a joke (possibly from some inane comedy) where a character misspeaks. "Chink in the armor" implies a crack, but "chink in the army" implies the derogatory racial term for chinese, since having a crack in your army is nonsensical... hence my question.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First chink?
Holy f**k, Obama is considering ex Time Warner CEO as sec. of commerce!!!!! [time.com]
If that happens, Mr. Fox, here's the keys to the Internet chicken coop!!! Buh Buy to net neutrality!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
first chink in the army
I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".
Either that, or he thought Perrelli was Chinese...
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Make no mistake, I am not trying to support Obama's decision. Especially considering that his second pick was Ogden who, according to TFA, "...was responsible for organizing the defense of the Child Online Protection Act..." and "...successfully defended the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act before the U.S. Supreme Court."
I did a bit of research using Google and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some light information on Tom Perrelli. It seems he is most well-known for his copyright litigation, but did do work for the United States Department of Justice [wikipedia.org], including tobacco industry litigation. Also he was "... defending the constitutionality of federal statutes, defending federal agency action and regulations, representing the diplomatic and national security interests of the United States in courts of law, and conducting significant Title VII, personnel and social security litigation." That's a pretty sanitized summary, and its hard to find out if he was doing good work or bad, but the bit about defending federal agency actions, regulations, and statues against constitutional question leaves me with a bad feeling in my gut. There's a lot of unjust and unconstitutional laws out there, so I'd place my bets on him defending bad laws rather than good ones.
I couldn't find much on David Ogden, other than his firm's bio page, [wilmerhale.com] and fluff pieces. [upi.com] Apparently he was already involved with Obama's transition team and worked for Clinton's administration. He also has experience at the federal level. There's a lot of juicy stuff in the firm's bio page, but he seems to be pretty cozy with media and big corporations. Without a lot of detail, a casual reading suggests that he tends to represent the big corps over the little guys. The only two bright spots seem to be "Obtaining summary judgment and affirmance ... rejecting the claims of a major tobacco company seeking to shut down the .. nationwide counter-marketing campaign to discourage young people from smoking", and "Representing a US media company with respect to the detention and threatened prosecution by US Forces and the Iraq government of the company's Iraqi employee."
Overall, not much to be happy about. It looks like he picked two big-business, media-friendly lawyers. They have a lot of federal-level experience, but not the kind I would have wanted.
One character makes all the difference (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post
Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.
Re:One character makes all the difference (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
Most of what the RIAA has done in the courtroom has shown a total lack of ethics and has been judged by many (including many judges) to be illegal. That's the Bush way of running the executive, and it sickens me to see someone like this appointed by Obama.
Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I could stomach a person that defended cases that I disagreed with based on the case that everyone deserves fair representation in court, and carries out that representation ethically. The RIAA cases, however, have been pretty unethical from top to bottom, disregarding whether you agree or disagree with their position.
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.
And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".
Not Suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.
Re:Here we go again... *sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush. Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.
I am not a racist and I supported Obama.
But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.
Dear Mr. President: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.
And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.
The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.
Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.
Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
He's unworthy (Score:5, Informative)
So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.
The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.
Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.
I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.
not broken (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.
I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President [opensecrets.org]) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but... (Score:4, Informative)
That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200.
If you change the cutoff to $999, you get a percentage for Obama of 53%, compared to Bush's 38%. At least, so one commenter alleges on your linked article.
Lawyers are lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
I think alot of people are forgetting that lawyers are lawyers. They are paid to represent and fight whatever battle if someone throws enough money at them, regardless of their personal views on the case, much like mercenaries. I think Obama knows this being a Law Professor, so I'm personally not too worried about this appointment and don't see what the big deal is.
Re:Lawyers are lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
When you make a choice in your life you make a personal statement. Every time you decide who is your employer you take a big decision. There is a speech in the movie Clerks where they debate about the workers on the death star killed by the rebellion. They were working class, supposely the people the rebellion was fighting for, but they choose to work for the evil empire so they deserved to die. Well that's the point.
This guy choose to work for a organization that recklessly goes after private citizens, lobbied the government into absurd laws and hs been twice in judgement for the abuse of RICO tactics ( http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767 [p2pnet.net] ). This would have rang a bell in any "non sociopathic" human being looking for a job. Me for one would feel very bad in pursuing normal people with small incomes and ruin their lifes just to make a billion dollar industry richer. But this guy looks like he hasn't got these feelings and did indeed choose to work for them. But does being a lawyer qualify you for a moral licence to accept and pratice social unacceptable behavious like those emploed by the RIAA? I don't think so.
He is a lawyer but I hope not all lawyers are made this way. On slashdot there is a very active member that decided, for instance, to have a carreer standing with the people.
In other words Obama "for a change" instead of being lobbyed as his predecessors took a step forward and appointed the least qualified to rapresent people in a public institution. Infact this man with his choice has already shown to prefer money over ethics.
Good luck with your change.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
Then why do you engage in it?
Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
Those sentiments are no less true for being repeatedly stated. We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.
Re:South Park (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that this is the situation we're in, I ask why it has to be that way. Why do we only get the choice between hanging and shooting, why can't we get a politician that we don't see as the lesser evil, but one that we actually want to win?
A) Because those people generally don't run for high political offices.
B) A great many people in this country (so many that I have to wonder if the distribution is still normal, or if the mean is far too stupid) DO want either the cocksucker or the jerkoff to win. Usually based on one insipid bullet point. "The cocksucker will make the 10 Commandments into law and talks to Jesus! He MUST win!" "The jerkoff wants to make sure people have enough food to eat, and can get it just by making sure that no one gets TOO much to eat! HE must win!"
I seriously doubt, even after the clusterfuck of the last eight years, that Americans will ever understand the gravity of the choices they make (if they bother to make one) every other November.
Instead, they seem to think "Woah, Cool. It's like Bud Bowl, but with real people!"
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Interesting)
On what basis do you abhor this appointment?
I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.
A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.
Well, (Score:3, Funny)
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Hey, Libertarians! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hey, Libertarians! (Score:4, Interesting)
3% of the country pulled off the revolution at its founding.
Some ppl from Ohio have a message for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew_9GeuGA4 [youtube.com]
I am not part of their movement or any movement, but I am
watching and waiting for the time to get out of the cities.
I am not fighting, I am hiding, and they will be looking
for ppl like you not me, so good luck to you with your
insults to the Paultards as you call them.
The hour is late and the bell tolls for thee.
Re:Presidential responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.
Re:Presidential responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
That remains to be seen. Thus far what we have are promises, nothing more. If we should reserve judgment on the potential for disappointment, then we should refrain from claiming success as well.
As for competent, Mr Panetta has no qualifications for his rumored post. I'm hopeful that Obama will pick someone who IS qualified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.
And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep. And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Were they employed as counsel?
Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?
A lawyer as a duty to represent their client, irrespective of the lawyer's personal beliefs. I would expect any reasonably ethical lawyer to be able to separate those two interests. Whether they do in fact is a matter of examining the actions of any particular lawyer.
Whether Bush & Cheney were able to separate their duty to the corporations by which they were formerly employed, and their duty to the American people is similarly a matter of examining their particular actions. It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.
Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Interesting)
And any Lawyer that nearly gets sanctions for getting caught lying to courts...
I have no problem with someone who's willing to represent Hitler in Hitler v. Cute Puppies, or anyone, we do have a right to representation. But that's going too far.
Disprove the first sentence and my objections to him go away.
Re:Right, because the former chairman of Pepsi (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and Cheney: 1) Have job that pays millions 2) Give it up to earn $200K as VP, be vilified as Darth Vader 3) Profit???
Actually, quite a bit of profit.
Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton as well as having stock options which have mysteriously risen in value by 3,281% in just one of the past years.
[rawstory.com]
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Informative)
In courts of law there is guilt by association, and it is
clear through some of the tactics of the RIAA they have
broke the law.
Some ppl were innocent and brought to financial ruin,
and others were bullied and terrorized into accepting
plea agreements even thou they were innocent simply
because they could not afford a lengthy and expensive
blizzard of paperwork that would ruin them even if they
were found innocent.
Those who participated and assisted in their circumvention
of the law can be held guilty as accessories to the crime,
if the court can find the evidence.
Unfortunately the government is largely paid off by lobbyists
and we are well and goodly screwed.
THAT is why some ppl abhor this appointment amigo.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Informative)
Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court.
Yeah. Mostly against children, students, grandparents, stroke victims, the homeless, the deceased, welfare mothers, people on Social Security Disability, home health aides, etc. His track record against parties who can afford lawyers is nothing to write home about.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that was the insightfull part.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,"
he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that was some of the driest humor I've EVER read on Slashdot. Impressive.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
If he really wanted to change the system, he'd leave most of the "do nothing" cabinet positions empty, including the whole departments under those positions, and then apply the trillions of dollars saved to payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.
By the year 2016 Obama could claim to be the third president (and third Democrat) to operate the government with absolutely no debt.
THAT would be impress me.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.
Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?
Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
There - fixed that for you.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, it was an interesting situation
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.
The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.
As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.
To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.
But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.
So Bush's advisers clearly thought Blanco was incompetent and discussed using the Insurrection Act to send Federal troops and decided against it. This was in 2005. In 2006 they modified the Insurrection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Differences_between_old_and_new_wording [wikipedia.org]
Differences between old and new wording
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy
The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of
natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition
and only if
domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.
The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.
I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity who said Obama would solve all our problems? I keep hearing this drivel from sore republicans looking to blame Obama for the failures that Bush Jr already caused.
No one I know at least seriously thinks Obama can solve the majority of the problems that Bush has plagued us with, we all saw it coming as reckless spending always results in this outcome.
Most people I've talked to voted for Obama because they believe he will at least put the country on a path that the majority of us can agree i
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...
But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun (actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase), but I already had my concealed carry permit.
I spent most of the first 2 years out of college working in politics -- Palin was the only one of the candidates I haven't met. I voted for Obama anyway, while having an RNC card in my wallet, bec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what you're suggesting, other than that you like to gripe.
Who should you have voted for instead? Hillary? She's a hardcore DLC [wikipedia.org]er, working tirelessly to pull the Democratic Party to the right (not to mention her bog-standard low-road campaigning). McCain? Please.
No one ever said Obama was perfect or the Second Coming (except in Republican attack ads). I was a Kucinich man, till he dropped out, then for Edwards for the five minutes it took before he dropped out. Only then did I back Obama.
O
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
2nd worst is NOT best.
Political expedience (Score:5, Insightful)
I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.
The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).
Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.
It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.
I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...
(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything.
It will if "problem" is a code-word for a very large furnace.
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty. We have to make sure we do our best not to lock up the innocent. Despite the outcome, I'd have to applaud the lawyer for defending a client to the best of his ability, even if he thought the client was guilty. I don't think I'd have the stomach for that, but its a job that needs to be done for our legal system to even resembling something close to justice.
Re:Well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.
Common misconception. The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense. The problem is deciding which is which, before the trial.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, this is change I can believe in... I'd be shocked if he picked the head EFF attorney instead.
I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:5, Insightful)
All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.
It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.
I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.
I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.
I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.
Bruce
Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non-US citizen living outside of the US, I don't think the problem is Obama. The problem is that the US allows a ridiculous "democratic" system where corporates are allowed to sponsor elections, at all. This is an institutionalized form of corruption and I don't think it exists in countries that call themselves democratic other than the US.
For the rest I agree, Obama was the best choice, even if he was overhyped. This is for a big part due to the fact that the combination of candidates from the Republican party was an outright failure. I really wonder how they got to Palin. Maybe they thought that voters were already dumb enough to fall for just the show value of Palin. Could they, in all their members, not find ANY CANDIDATE that would be at least halfway competent to do the job better than Palin?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So is Obama a Politian after all? (Score:4, Informative)
I still respect the guy for being a POW, no amount of partisanship can take that away from him.
McCain was a traitor and a coward more than he was a P.O.W. You should dive deeper into his personal story and then you find out:
* He was a crappy soldier who didn't follow orders
* He crashed 3 airplanes - anyone else would have been drummed out long before him
* His family's power and influence kept him in the military
* When he was shot down, he wasn't following the rules which led to his crash
* The injuries he suffered that many claim was the result of "torture" was not torture but injuries from the crash
* He lasted TWO DAYS.... TWO DAYS IN CAPTIVITY before he coughed up the fact that his father was the commander of the Pacific Naval Fleet
* He then became a traitor to America and recorded VC propaganda messages that were broadcast to his own troops in Vietnam
He claims torture doesn't work, but then he claims he was tortured and "broken", then he claimed torture does work and supported Bush's torture of Guantanamo detanees. In addition to being a liar, by his own admission he committed treason. He's a traitor and calling him a "hero" is an insult to virtually every other Vietnam vet who served more honorably and didn't sell out their country.
It does not work like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you meta-moderated lately?
Re:It does not work like that... (Score:5, Funny)
Have you meta-moderated lately?
Excuse me, that's something I prefer to do in the privacy of my own home.
Re:I guess (Score:5, Informative)
Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!
Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.
Re:How everyone feels about this appointment. (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure that isn't a perl program that generates the lawyer's name?