Turnover Down Under?

Emma Griffiths, Kevin Rudd to face off against Julia Gillard in Labor leadership spill, loser to quit Parliament Australian Broadcasting Corporation (June 26, 2013).

The consensus Down Under is that Gillard is out.

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Booze-Free Flight to Havana, Courtesy of the FSB

Barry & Herzenhorn, Empty Seat Deepens a Mystery in Moscow NYTimes (June 24, 2013):

MOSCOW — Seat 17A was empty on Monday afternoon as Aeroflot Flight 150 took off from a Moscow airport. But most seats around it were filled.

Dozens of journalists had scrambled to book seats at the last minute, certain they were a half step from the most sought-after interview in the world: Edward J. Snowden, who was widely reported by Russian news agencies to have booked Seat 17A. But as the plane taxied from the gate, a reporter from The Associated Press published a photograph of the empty seat, and the situation became abundantly clear.It seemed that a stream of reports from unnamed Russian officials, disseminated over Russian news agencies, had been an exuberant deception, throwing up a cloud of dust while Mr. Snowden quietly evaded the United States government. At nightfall, it was impossible to say with certainty where Mr. Snowden was.

By contrast, everyone knew where half of the Moscow press corps was: halfway to Havana, on one of the few regular Russian flights that does not serve alcohol. It was the kind of plan that the F.S.B., and the K.G.B. before it, would describe as a “special operation.” And somewhere in Moscow, it was clear, someone was laughing.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Edward Snowden

I would not have done what Edward Snowden did. But I find it odd that almost all of our political leaders – Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Lindsey Graham, etc., etc. – condemn Edward Snowden without even considering the question of whether the government surveillance he revealed is legal or illegal. I wonder: Would they condemn him if they believed the government surveillance he revealed violates the Fourth Amendment?

Another point: Why do so many apparently intelligent people take the position that if the Executive Branch and Congress (or some part of Congress) "approve" of government surveillance (often by inaction, it is supposed), that such approval legitimates otherwise unconstitutional surveillance? Have they forgotten that it is black-letter law that ordinarily neither executive nor congressional approval transforms unconstitutional government action - state action that violates a Bill of Rights guarantee - into constitutional government action? The default rule is that neither the Executive Branch, nor Congress, nor the Executive Branch and Congress acting together, have the authority to approve government action that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Expedient legal thinking rules in the halls of our government. Postscript: it is hard to say – it is impossible to say – whether there has been judicial review of the constitutionality of this or that type of covert surveillance by the NSA. That's because the opinions of the FISA court are secret! &&& The dynamic evidence page

American Wars

This is a perceptive essay about why America should have a less active (a/k/a less belligerent) foreign military policy, but it is odd that Haass makes no mention of the moral considerations for reduced resort to wars and foreign military operations:

Richard N. Haass, America Can Take a Breather. And It Should. (Op-Ed.) NYTimes (June 22, 2013)


A snippet:

The United States is currently enjoying an unprecedented respite in the foreign policy arena — a temporary relief from the normal rigors of history that allows us to take stock at home and abroad.

It may seem outlandish to claim that we’re in the midst of a lull, given that America faces a civil war in Syria, an Iran that seems to be seeking nuclear weapons, an irresponsible North Korea that already possesses them, continuing threats from terrorists, a rising China and rapid climate change.

Yet the United States enjoys a respite all the same. For the three and a half centuries of the modern international era, great powers have almost always confronted rivals determined to defeat them and replace the global order they worked to bring about. In the last century, this process unfolded three times. The results were violent, costly and dangerous, and included two world wars and a cold war.

Today, there are threats, but they tend to be regional, years away or limited in scale. None rises to the level of being global, immediate and existential. The United States faces no great-power rival. And this is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

The biggest strategic question facing America is how to extend this respite rather than squander it. This will require restraining foreign involvement and restoring domestic strength. We can no longer seek to remake countries in the Middle East and South Asia, as was tried at great cost and with little success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Instead, we must revive the American economy, something that will not only improve the living standards of our citizens but also generate the resources to discourage would-be competitors from choosing the path of confrontation and to deal with them if they opt for confrontation all the same.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

For the good of the little people ...

Perhaps Mr. Obama now muses: Why do those little people care about religion or the use the federal government makes of the telephony metadata it collects from and about them? We (people in the government) don't want to listen to their (little people's) telephone calls. We just want to know who they call, who calls them, when the calls are made, and where the calls are made and received. What harmful use could the government possibly make or want to make of such information? In any event, don't they - the little people, that is -- realize that the government is only acting for their own good? How could anyone possibly think that the government might use such information to harm little people? (Joe Stalin, you say? Stasi, you say? The military juntas in various times and places, you say? Well, they weren't American, were they? Res ipsa loquitor, wouldn't you say?) 

Rick Lempert coined (or adopted) an apt phrase that describes the problem we face: the creation of the infrastructure of tyranny.

&&& The dynamic evidence page

Christians in the Middle East

Oppression of people because of their religious beliefs is deeply offensive and wrong. In government and media circles there is, fortunately, a fair amount of concern for  religious groups such as (depending on the country or region) Shiites and Buddhists. But, with rare exceptions, there is little discussion by prominent U.S. government spokesmen for the fate of Christians in countries such as Iraq, Egypt, and Syria.
&&& The dynamic evidence page

Obama and Civil Liberties

You know you're in trouble when the Wall Street Journal questions your commitment to civil liberties:

Nicholas & Bravin, Obama's Civil-Liberties Record Questioned Wall Street Journal (June 6, 2013)

&&& The dynamic evidence page

The "need to have all schools connected to the internet"

"Speaking at a fund-raiser in Silicon Valley Thursday night, Mr. Obama did not mention the surveillance programs or the leaks of secret documents. In comments to tech executives at the home of Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the president focused on the need to have all schools connected to the Internet." (Wyatt, Baker & Shear, Spy Chief Calls Leaks on U.S. Surveillance ‘Reprehensible’ NYTimes, June 7, 2013) Presumably that's because NSA also needs to monitor students at our elementary and secondary schools.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

America, the Surveillance State

Dan Roberts & Spencer Ackerman, America's surveillance state: anger swells after data revelations The Guardian (online) (June 6, 2013).

Snippets:

"The scale of America's surveillance state was laid bare on Wednesday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

"After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

...

"Intelligence committee member Mark Udall, who has previously warned in broad terms about the scale of government snooping, said: "This sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I've said Americans would find shocking." Former vice-president Al Gore described the "secret blanket surveillance" as "obscenely outrageous".

"The Verizon order was made under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) as amended by the Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But one of the authors of the Patriot Act, Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, said he was troubled by the Guardian revelations. He said that he had written to the attorney general, Eric Holder, questioning whether 'US constitutional rights were secure'.

"He said: 'I do not believe the broadly drafted Fisa order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.'...

"[White House spokesman Josh Earnest said] the [FISA] order only relates to the so-called metadata surrounding phone calls rather than the content of the calls themselves. 'The order reprinted overnight does not allow the government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls,' Earnest said.

"'The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber. It relates exclusively to call details, such as a telephone number or the length of a telephone call.'

"But such metadata can provide authorities with vast knowledge about a caller's identity. Particularly when cross-checked against other public records, the metadata can reveal someone's name, address, driver's licence, credit history, social security number and more. Government analysts would be able to work out whether the relationship between two people was ongoing, occasional or a one-off."

&&&

The dynamic evidence page