More depressing evidence that this administration's first response to anything that looks bad is to lie about it.
- Administration Misled US About Number of Terrorist Attacks in 2003 [Washington Post story]
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Comments
- Brooks Fudenberg on I Voted
- Jermaine Chad Ingram on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
- C.E. Petit on I Voted
- Jane Moscowitz on I Voted
- Ally Figueroa on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 52 other subscribers
A Bush version of the old military adage: “If it moves, salute it; if it doesn’t move, pick it up; and if you can’t pick it up, paint it.”
goes like this:
“If it’s true, dispute it; if it’s good for re-election, own it; when in doubt, lie about it.”
Michael, thanks so much for the link to my post. I appreciate it. I am so glad I came across your utterly engrossing analysis of the Torture Memo because it lead me to your site, which has incredible content and participation. Discourse Net has become my new must read every day.
http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/
Orwell is rolling in his grave once more. The latest in government doublethink:
Based on a recent AP story, a Florida election official arguing against CNN’s quest via lawsuit for full access to the felon election rolls list apparently thinks it’s OK for the state to quietly and perhaps carelessly purge voter roles, depriving innocents of their voting rights by inaccurately labeling them felons (which, we already know, happened to thousands of Floridians in the 2000 election). The official’s reasoning: Were CNN or another news organization to go through the purge list looking for errors, those same voters would be deprived of their rights. Never minding, of course, that the list might already have accomplished that.
Indeed, the official is quoted as arguing that the very fact the list is likely inaccurate is all the more reason to limit public access to it. His attempt at logic as best I can make sense of it goes thusly: If the government made a mistake and a non-felon appears on the list, then that person’s privacy would be violated if the state were to let the press report the fact. Uh-oh. Okay. If you say so.
On the other hand, felons are to be treated like public individuals and naming them is just fine. Then, however, by the state’s own logic, if the list is okay, reporters shouldn’t think twice about publishing every name on the list. But if the list isn’t perfect, then the press can’t publish any of it. But, by using as a defense the possibility that the list is tainted, the state proves CNN’s case for it.
Or to put the state’s argument another way: Rooting out injustice can’t be permitted, for it would bring injustice upon we the unjust, who should be allowed to go ahead under cover of darkness and screw the just. Just cause? Nope, just ridiculous.