~ Archive for Legalese ~

The Final Word, Hopefully, on Kiwi

1

I don’t have the energy to describe the ruckus that Kiwi, now K.A.D. Camara, caused at HLS during my 1L year (here’s a link to an article
about the Black Law Student Association protest surrounding these
events), but it now appears that even though he’s an Olin Fellow at
Stanford, he has created havoc at the Yale Law Journal, to the point
where they’ve started an entire blog devoted to debating whether or not to rescind an offer to publish his article because he’s an admitted racist.

Even though I am not fond of him as a person, he wrote an article that
met the scholarly standards of the YLJ.  Not publishing it will
not prevent him from attaining success, it will likely just embitter him.  I am convinced that smart conservatives who unrepentantly cause controversy in their youth grow up to become Dinesh D’Souza.

**

Oh, and now for something gruesome: there are rings of criminal
bodysnatchers operating out there.  And no one is safe, not even
the BBC’s dearly departed Alistair Cooke.

Little Brother

8

“Big Brother” is one of the reoccuring themes of this site, but perhaps
“Little Brother,” the concept of individuals watching and sharing
information about each other, poses the bigger threat.  Inexpensive
technology has made increasingly easy for people to surveil public
spaces and each other.  National governments are alarmed and mostly powerless against the information disseminated through Google Earth, and the tagging of photos through Riya’s facial recognition technology
decreases the control that one has over the distribution and location
of one’s own image.  Jennifer Granick offered a frightening take on the application.  Edit:  Seoul’s Dog Poop girl is the perfect example of Little Brother exacting vengeance, in cyber-mob form.

Evil K met with either Riya, or the pre-cursor of
Riya, in 2001, during his banking days.  His description of the
technology gave me the heebie jeebies back then, and that was before
the Web 2.0 days.  Now, Riya combined with Web 2.0 can create
infinite permutations for misuse (for instance, AG and I joked about a parody of del.icio.us called mal.icio.us, but this joke could easily become creepy reality).

When questioned about why I am so open on the web, I always thought
that “being boring” was the best
defense against “Little Brother,” but I’m not sure that suffices now,
or will suffice in the future.  I’ve already moved towards making this site
more closed in a subtle way, and I’ve shifted to a whitelist on my
other site, so perhaps a trend towards a closed network will continue
as cheap, accessable technology makes us more vulnerable.

**

Oh, and on another Geeky Chic thread, as a federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled, Science: 1, Intellgent Design: 0.  I’ve got to go hunt down the 139-page decision.

War of the Nondenominational Worlds

2

I haven’t paid attention to this year’s diversionary and invented “war” against Christmas, but I found this protest
of Walmart’s use of “Home for the Holidays,” instead of “Merry
Christmas” amusing for two reasons: (1) The Christian group involved is protesting against private action, not
governmental action for once (i.e. ban of prayer in schools, removal of
creches in front of the town halls, etc., etc.); and (2) I find the
hyped-up consumerism aspect of Christmas to be the least Christlike
aspect of Christmas.  Non-Christians haven’t hollowed Christmas
out, but blatant, American-style materialism has taken away the spirit
of the holiday.  I don’t think Jesus would would approve of people
trampling each other for $29 DVD players the day after Thanksgiving.

(Link via SSRD).

**

Edit: Time Magazine’s Persons of the Year: Bono?! Bill and Melinda Gates?!  Looks like the rest of U2 won’t be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon.

Mallrats

1

I ventured into a mall this weekend.  Not an upscale shopping
center with a Needless Mark-up or Nordie’s, but one of those
horrific, exurb-style circular malls
(perhaps, I am incorrect in affiliating them with the exurbs.  I
don’t know the status of the SF Port project, but the city did turn
over the port to the Mills Corp
Does anyone know the status of the Port project?  Edit: Found the answer: unless they brainwash voters, no Mills mall in SF.).  Before this
weekend, I had only visited them twice, once in Maryland, and once in
Tennesee, and those experiences felt akin to cattle being herded around
in a circle.  But yes, to
characterize the place, it was the first time I heard a person use the
term “Whatevs.”  I’ve heard people complain about the shortened
form of “Whatever” before, but I never actually heard it used until
this weekend (Yes, I’ve been holed up in 1954 for a while).

**

Also, now I can say, is that 15
minutes inside of K.B. Toys the last weekend before Christmas forced me
to question why anyone would want children.  Then again, I’m
convinced that mine would write letters to Christopher Walken, not to Santa (funny, I think that I saw the Deer Hunter when I was 4 or 5).

**

Speaking of mall fixtures, Spike Jonze brings us this Gap ad (via Slate).

**

For some, Heavenly beds are not so heavenly.

Next Project

2

I hope that my grandmother still recalls her Pearl Harbor day story at the art deco LA Federal building.  I think that I’m going to record it for the StoryCorps  if she does.

**

Hm, it has come to light in the Times that the President secretly authorized electronic eavesdropping (wire tapping and email monitoring) without a warrant. This article is part of the reason why the Patriot Act renewal is stalled at the moment, taking away the President’s ability to authorize such warrantless eavesdropping
after these provisions expire on the December 31st:

Several senators held up copies of The New York Times, which reported
today that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security
Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to
search for evidence of terrorist activity, but without court-approved
warrants ordinarily required for such surveillance. 

This is the
best news that I heard in a while.  As they used to say at the EFF, “Let the sun set on the Patriot Act.”

**

And do you realize that if I ever become a public interest attorney, I
will turn into one self- righteous mofo?  I’m worried that I’ll
pick up the “Dude, I took a pay cut to defend your rights” mentality among the cashmere clad set.

Year in Ideas

2

It’s time for my favorite theme-issue of the NY Times Magazine, the Year in Ideas.  My personal favorites are the modern chastity belt and Australia’s solution to drunken dialing. (Edit: Another cellular telephony app from the UK, self-destructing text messages).

**

“That’s what you find, just us.”  R.I.P, Mr. Pryor.

Questing

ø

I usually commemerate Pearl Harbor Day in some way every year, but
missed it yesterday.  I’m making up for it today, by linking to
this lovely piece that I heard on NPR about an 84-year-old WWII vet,
who is working to identify the unidentified bodies of soldiers killed
by that attack.  I find his story somewhat inspiring, to have a
quest in old age to honor the dead, and to return them to their
families.  Such solemn and solitary work.

**

Oh, and today marks the 25th-anniversary of the shooting of John Lennon.  Slate has posted an early Beatles photoset.

Echo chamber

2

I’m bouncing this post back at SSRD.  She pointed out this chilling article on Slate that reported how Alito* would condone the CIA’s recent admission
(another link from SSRD) that it mistakenly kidnapped Khaled Masri, a
German citizen of Lebanese decent, and then secretly detained him for
five months before realizing its mistake:

In one memo, Alito signed off on an FBI plan to collect
fingerprint cards of Iranian and Afghan refugees living in Canada. He
suggested that the program was constitutional because these refugees
were nonresident immigrants of another country, thus freeing the FBI
from abiding by court decisions that barred the agency from spreading
“stigmatizing” information about U.S. citizens. Alito simply feels
that nonresident immigrants of other countries have no due process
rights under the Constitution. The Washington Post last week
quoted Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern
University Law School, arguing that Alito’s logic would likely support
the Bush administration’s current policy of CIA interrogations in
secret European prisons as well.

This is especially frightening in light of the fact that as WaPo
reported, the CIA has tried (and for the most part suceeded), in
getting the German government to remain quiet about its disclosures to
it:

While the CIA admitted to Germany’s then-Interior Minister Otto Schily
that it had made a mistake, it has labored to keep the specifics of
Masri’s case from becoming public. As a German prosecutor works to
verify or debunk Masri’s claims of kidnapping and torture, the part of
the German government that was informed of his ordeal has remained
publicly silent.

While Alito may not believe that Masri has any rights, he’s suing the US of A for torturing him during his wrongful imprisonment:

He claims he was beaten and injected with drugs before being
taken to Afghanistanand held for five months.

Mr Masri says that once there, he was subjected to
“coercive” interrogation under inhumane conditions.

*Alito is starting to scare me more than Scalia,
so I am ditching the Scalito nickname.  If I continued it’s use,
however, I think that “Scary” is more appropriate, than “Scalia” as the
reference for the first two letters.

Garner Follow Up

2

Slate got to the Alito-Garner memo story
on Friday night, pointing out that Alito didn’t believe that shooting
an unarmed fleeing suspect posed any constitutional issue:

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled in favor of Edward Garner’s
father. “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they
escape,” Justice Byron White wrote for the majority. Alito had argued
that the court shouldn’t set a constitutional standard for police
shootings of fleeing suspects, questioning whether the shooting of
Garner counted as a “seizure” as defined by the Fourth Amendment. White
dismissed both ideas. “Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a
person to walk away, he has seized that person,” White wrote. “There
can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a
seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.”

The Harvard-Yale Dance

14

It’s repeated ad infinitum and it goes like this:

HLS alum: Where’d you go to law school?
Yale Law alum: In Connecticut, what about you?
HLS alum: Near Boston.

Five minutes later…

HLS alum: By Connecticut, do you mean Yale?
Yale Law alum: Yeah.

Five minutes later…

Yale Law alum: Do you know so-and-so from BC?
HLS alum: Naw, I went to Harvard.

Why do we engage is this awkward little dance?

**

Oh, and to you gumshoes out there, one of the Yale Law alums with whom
I’ve had this conversation is looking through some public documents
that relate to Alito’s position on this 1985 case, Tennessee v. Garner,
which held that police may not use deadly force in stopping a fleeing
felon unless there is reason to believe that the individual threatens
the life of officers and the others.  Alito drafted a memo for the
Soliciter General’s office, urging them to file an amicus brief on
behalf of Tenneesee, that advocated the use of deadly force even if the
officer had no reason to believe that the individual posed any danger
to others.  The pre-Garner rule was a bit troubling, because
officers tended to shoot at black and white fleeing suspects at equal
percentages when they had a reasonable belief of danger to their lives
or to the lives of others, but when they had no reason to believe the
fleeing suspect was dangerous, they shot 12 black suspects or every 1
white suspect.  I haven’t seen this story in the news yet, and I
think that Alito’s memo would make a very good non-Roe story. (I can
hear Reverend Sharpton’s soundbite now, “Alito said it’s okay for the
police to shoot unarmed Black people.”)

Edit: Also, I remember the discussion of Garner in my Crim law class.  Professor Randall Kennedy
asked, “If you’re a Black man in America, and you haven’t done anything
wrong, and you see a cop, isn’t running away a pretty logical response?”

Here’s an older Scalito post.

Log in