Monthly Archives: September 2006

Meanwhile, Back in Reality

Reactions to P2911 from Bill Clinton (well, his spokesmen):

Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. “The Path to 9/11” flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission’s work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.

That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.

and from Richard Clarke:

As someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama, “The Path to 9-11,” I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted….

Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screen play are more than the result of dramatization and time compression. There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11.

The exact opposite is true. From the President, to all of his White House team, and NSC Principals (Lake, Berger, Albright, Tenet, Reno) there was a common fixation with terrorism, al qaeda, and bin Ladin. The President approved every counter-terrorism operation presented to him, including many that CIA proved unable or unwilling to implement. He increased counter-terrorism spending by 400% and initiated the first homeland security program in forty years. Even though the US had taken relatively few casualties from al qaeda at the time, the President repeatedly authorized the use of lethal force against bin Ladin and his deputies and personally requested the US military to develop plans for “commando operations” against
them. Even though he knew the timing of an attack aimed at killing bin Ladin would be labeled by critics as a political diversion, Clinton decided to follow the advice of his national security team and pay the price politically.

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Bush: Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath | 3 Comments

RIAA’s Latest is Not Quite as Bad As It Sounds

RIAA sues a guy claiming he’s downloading copyrighted songs without permission. Guy moves for summary judgment saying they got his name wrong, he never downloaded nuthin, doesn’t even have file sharing programs on his computer. RIAA doesn’t actually dispute any of his factual assertions via affidavit, which would be the normal response if they had a case (but can lead to sanctions if they knowingly lie). Instead, RIAA moves for expedited discovery.

Is this just a ‘shopping expedition’? You might expect me to say so. And indeed, news reports would make you think so. But I’ve had a look at the affidavit supporting RIAA’s motion, and it’s not baseless at all. Rather, RIAA says that they have third-party info that a certain IP number was used to do downloads it alleges copied material without a license. And it further has information from an ISP linking that IP number to a person it says is the defendant (he contests that).

Seems to me that the court might reasonably first order discovery on the identity issue before going whole hog. But if the defendant is in fact shown to be the person fingered by the ISP, then I think RIAA’s request for further discovery is not ridiculous. None of which means RIAA will win, or deserves to win (or lose) on the merits about which I am of course ignorant.

[corrected]

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA | 4 Comments

More on Class Cancellations

Yesterday’s post on class cancellation got interesting responses here and elsewhere; like Dr. Steven Taylor, I think the best was by former guest blogger Jon Weinberg, who wrote

I don’t think that the conflict is between teaching classes (doing my job) and attending conferences (self-centeredly blowing off my job). Attending conferences (either to present papers, or just to learn stuff that feeds into my teaching or writing) is my job, just as teaching is. Being a member of a scholarly community — including the part of that community that isn’t in Detroit — is a big part of what the university pays me to do.

I do think I need to add one clarification to what I wrote: when I ‘cancel’ a class, whether for Yom Kippur or a conference, I almost always reschedule it (one rare exception was last year, when we lost so much time due to having two hurricanes — but even there we clawed back to within 30 minutes or so), so we’re really talking about rescheduling rather than canceling classes.

I didn’t make this clear because it never occurred to me that there was another serious option. From some of the discussion that I’ve seen elsewhere, however, I gather that in some places ‘canceled’ means ‘canceled for good’. I think that’s much more problematic. And at some point, very quickly, you might even fall below the number of class hours required by the ABA.

Posted in Law School | Comments Off on More on Class Cancellations

‘The Best War Ever’ Publicity Video

The publicity video for ‘The Best War Ever’



Much more accurate than P2911.

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment

On Canceling Classes

Prof. Bobby Chesney asks if it’s ok to cancel a class for a conference. Will Baude, Yale Law student, channels Felix Frankfurter and says that it would be something akin to a violation of a ‘sacred trust’:

So I think a very strong presumption against sacrificing class even further to one’s other professional ambitions is at the very least an ideal. I would like to hope that is not too much to ask for.

It’s probably close to what I would have said when I was a student there.

Where you stand depends on where you sit. It’s easy to say that stuff when you are at a school which is on the East Coast corridor, and where most people will come to you, and where the school’s name will get faculty invited to things, published, and noticed even they don’t show up. Out here in the provinces, if we want to attract top faculty and have them participate actively at a national and international level, we have to assure them they will not become unpersons for eight months of the year.

We think, perhaps self-servingly, that it’s in the students’ interest to be taught and supervised by people who are involved in new and important things things in an active way. But when it’s a long way to that meeting, it’s not a day trip (and ever more so in these days of uncertain and encumbered air travel). So we have to compromise the ideal or pay an unacceptable price. Note also that most of us teach more hours per year than they do at Yale, so we have fewer days of the week free. Plus if you are lucky enough to be in demand, conferences sometimes book you a year in advance — well before you know your teaching schedule…

I do everything I can to avoid canceling classes, but I would guess I average about one to two days canceled a semester to give a paper at a conference or to participate in state, national, or international law reform activities. Should I have said no to the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court when he asked me to serve on a committee on privacy and court records? Even though, modesty aside, I was probably the legal academic in the state who knew the most about the computer and privacy issues? I’d have loved to avoid that chore, but it seemed like something I ought to do. Even if it meant rescheduling a class or two. Was it just “professional ambition” to accept invitations to give papers at big conferences in my field at Yale or Harvard or Stanford? No doubt in part; but I also learned a lot by going and met some great people, some of whom are still my teachers. Part of that, I hope, filters into the classroom.

I agree that too much of a good thing would be bad; and I think the event has to be pretty important before I’d cancel a class. But if Miami didn’t have a policy that gave me some flexibility, my work would be a lot poorer for it, and so too would some of my teaching.

Makeups are unpopular with students, and rightly so; and what’s acceptable could easily grow into what’s oppressive or unfair. We do have a makeup time in our schedule when no one has classes, which should make it theoretically easier. In practice there’s always someone with an internship or something, so it’s never perfect. But I think the tradeoff is far more complex than Mr. Baude suggests — especially outside New Haven, Cambridge, and at most a handful of other schools. On balance, I think I and my students benefit from the number of things that my colleagues and I do — much of which, given our geography, would not be possible if we had a more rigid rule on rescheduling classes.

I have to add that almost invariably our students are unbelievably gracious about it (at least to my face) when I explain to them what is going on and why I’m rescheduling a class. And I appreciate it.

Posted in Law School | 4 Comments

This Should Help the ‘Path to 9/11’ Libel Case

Via Daily Kos, Disney/ABC Highlighting Faked Scenes In Ads For 9/11 Terror Porn, a heads up to this You Tube version of the ‘Path to 9/11’ Trailer being shown abroad: Starting with the words “Official True Story” and containing fictional scenes (see the story board at Redstate).

It’s just a movie?” If there is libelous content in the show by the time that it’s aired, I don’t see how even a disclaimer during the show could undo the effects of this advertisement, one which promises us the shocking truth. I don’t know exactly where this ad is being shown, but if it is being shown in England or in Australia or New Zealand, it could prove to be an expensive choice.

Then again, the writer at Daily Kos speculates that ABC/Disney may edit the most libelous scenes in the ‘The Path to 9/11’ in order to obfuscate who is doing what — in other words, leave the fabrications in place so as not to upset the blame-Clinton narrative which is apparently the core of the show (“how they could have wiped bin Laden out; they didn’t, but why? …”he’s right there”; how one decision changed our world…can’t you give the order?…I don’t have that authority”), but fuzz the parts identifying people by name that might be most actionable.

ABC/Disney should wake up and pull this horror before they trash their brand. Disney is a diversified company with a market capitalization of almost $62 billion. Even so, I wonder how long before this starts affecting the stock price.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath | 4 Comments