Political Animal says the indictment is a result of fairly crass local politics, and thus suggests it isn't serious stuff.
But you can decide for yourself, as I've just been sent a copy of the indictment. I haven't had a chance to read it myself; comments very welcome.
It seems that a South Texas grand jury has indicted Messers Cheney and Gonzales.
CNN, Cheney, Gonzales indicted for alleged prisoner abuse: Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on separate charges related to alleged prisoner abuse in federal detention centers, Willacy County, Texas, District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra told CNN Tuesday.
The indictment stems from Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group — an investment management company that reportedly has interests in the prison companies in charge of the detention centers, according to The Associated Press. It also charges Gonzales halted an investigation into abuse at the detention centers while he was attorney general.
You might think there are some federalism issues here. And there are. You might think there are some qualified/absolute immunity issues here, and there are. (Cf. In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) (creating federal officer immunity defense.)) But what you might not know is that there's a federal removal statute that deals with state criminal prosecutions, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1):
§ 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
So step one will be a removal to the federal District Court.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of criminal removal jurisdiction in Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (1880), and discussed the modern statute in Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989), where the court concluded that “Federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) must be predicated upon averment of a federal defense.” (In other words, the defendant must be prepared to argue that acts underlying the charges were performed pursuant to his federal authority.)
Note that if the case is removed, state law continues to govern the substantive rules pertaining to the offense — but federal law supplies the procedural rules.
Once again, I have to ask, Is Mapstats Dead?
The widget in the right column hasn't updated in over a week. Do I take it down again?
Milwaukee Magazine : Feature Story : Secrets of Talk Radio
This is why it might actually be a good idea to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
The right-wing is hyperventillating about the prospect of the Fairness Doctrine's revival because (1) it would be very effective at curbing the main source of right-wing ability to whip up troops into (often misinformed) frenzy; (2) it's what they would do if the positions were reversed.
But there's no chance the Obama administration will do it. None. I wish I thought that their decision was due to the Constitutional dubiousness of the FD. But in fact, it's due to a vision of how to govern that amounts to a high-stakes gamble: love your enemies and you will tame them. I don't see that working on Rush Limbaugh, but then I didn't just get elected President either…
The Adobe AIR license agreement contains a number of onerous and non-standard terms.
I was going to give MiniTask a spin (”a light-weight task manager with a surprising number of features”), but having read these I don't think I'll bother.
3.1 Adobe Runtime Restrictions. You will not use any Adobe Runtime on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use an Adobe Runtime on any (a) mobile device, set top box (STB), handheld, phone, web pad, tablet and Tablet PC (other than with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and its successors), game console, TV, DVD player, media center (other than with Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboard or other digital signage, Internet appliance or other Internet-connected device, PDA, medical device, ATM, telematic device, gaming machine, home automation system, kiosk, remote control device, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television system or (c) other closed system device. For information on licensing Adobe Runtimes for use on such systems please visit http://www.adobe.com/go/licensing .
3.2 Adobe Reader Restrictions. Adobe Reader is licensed and distributed by Adobe for viewing, distributing and sharing PDF files.
3.2.1 Conversion Restrictions. You will not integrate or use Adobe Reader with any other software, plug-in or enhancement that uses or relies upon Adobe Reader when converting or transforming PDF files into a different format (e.g., a PDF file into a TIFF, JPEG, or SVG file).
3.2.2 Plug-in Restrictions. You will not integrate or use Adobe Reader with any plug-in software not developed in accordance with the Adobe Integration Key License Agreement.
3.2.3 Disabled Features. Adobe Reader may contain features or functionalities that are hidden or appear disabled or “grayed out” (the “Disabled Features”). Disabled Features will activate only when opening a PDF document that was created using enabling technology available only from Adobe. You will not access, or attempt to access, any Disabled Features other than through the use of such enabling technologies, nor will you rely on Adobe Reader to create a feature substantially similar to any Disabled Feature or otherwise circumvent the technology that controls activation of any such feature. For more information on disabled features, please refer to http://www.adobe.com/go/readerextensions .…
6.1 Use of PDF Files. When you use the Software to open a PDF file that has been enabled to display ads through registration with the Ads for Adobe PDF service, your computer may connect to a website operated by Adobe, an advertiser, or other third party. Your Internet Protocol (IP) address is sent when this happens. The party hosting the site may use technology to send (or “serve”) advertising or other electronic content that appears in or near the opened file. The website operator may also use JavaScript, web beacons (also known as action tags or single-pixel gifs), and other technologies to increase and measure the effectiveness of advertisements and to personalize advertising content. Your communication with Adobe websites is governed by the Adobe Online Privacy Policy found at http://www.adobe.com/go/privacy . Adobe may not have access to or control over features that a third party may use, and the information practices of third party websites are not covered by the Adobe Online Privacy Policy.
…
8.3 Acknowledgement. You agree that (a) a digital certificate may have been revoked prior to the time of verification, making the digital signature or certificate appear valid when in fact it is not, (b) the security or integrity of a digital certificate may be compromised due to an act or omission by the signer of the document, the applicable Certificate Authority, or any other third party and (c) a certificate may be a self-signed certificate not provided by a Certificate Authority. YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO RELY ON A CERTIFICATE. UNLESS A SEPARATE WRITTEN WARRANTY IS PROVIDED TO YOU BY A CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY, YOU USE DIGITAL CERTIFICATES AT YOUR SOLE RISK.
8.4 Third Party Beneficiaries. You agree that any Certificate Authority you rely upon is a third party beneficiary of this agreement and shall have the right to enforce this agreement in its own name as if it were Adobe.
8.5 Indemnity. You agree to hold Adobe and any applicable Certificate Authority (except as expressly provided in its terms and conditions) harmless from any and all liabilities, losses, actions, damages, or claims (including all reasonable expenses, costs, and attorneys fees) arising out of or relating to any use of, or reliance on, any service of such authority, including, without limitation (a) reliance on an expired or revoked certificate, (b) improper verification of a certificate, (c) use of a certificate other than as permitted by any applicable terms and conditions, this agreement or applicable law; (d) failure to exercise reasonable judgment under the circumstances in relying on issuer services or certificates or (e) failure to perform any of the obligations as required in the terms and conditions related to the services.
I was particularly struck by the attempts to block use on anything other than PC, the attempt to block interoperability with other software, and the claim that a certificate offered by a CA is a worthless piece of paper (something I was predicting and complaining about way back in 1996, see The Essential Role of Trusted Third Parties in Electronic Commerce, 75 Ore. L. Rev. 49 (1996).
[Note: headline corrected, thanks to Tom Parmenter]
Here's a serious question: Iceland has long been a strong ally and a NATO member, despite having no armed forces. As we all know, the Icelandic economy is suffering from a virulent case toxic shock.
Iceland's economy is not, by US standards, particularly big, clocking in at about US $12bn GDP. A bailout would, I presume, take only a fraction of that? And their troubles are really not their fault:
So how did Iceland get in so much trouble? That’s the odd part of the story: it isn’t because its banks gambled on the worthless subprime securities that helped undo Bear Stearns and so many others. Iceland’s banks prudently avoided the subprime market, even as they embarked on a lending boom at home and expanded abroad. What got Iceland in trouble was something more subtle: its banks got their money primarily from international investors, making the Icelandic miracle heavily dependent on foreign capital.
In normal times, this might not have mattered, given the country’s solid economic fundamentals. But these aren’t normal times. The subprime crisis, in which investors realized that they had greatly underestimated the risks of lending to people with bad credit, has spawned a wider credit crunch: investors now suspect disaster behind every door, and even seemingly solid borrowers find credit much harder to come by. The subprime crisis was an earthquake that caused a tsunami: the quake has done plenty of damage on its own, but the tsunami looks set to do even more.
Iceland has been swamped by that tsunami because it trusted in the availability of global credit in time for that credit to evaporate.
So why not bail them out? There is of course no legal duty to do so; I'll even stipulate that there is no moral duty to do so. It's just a way, quite cheap in the grand scheme of things, to make friends abroad and mitigate a global crisis. The Icelandic people would, I would think, be grateful for a generation. And other people around the world might see in this willingness to help out a sign of hope, which might help combat some the psychological aspects of the current crisis.
So, how much would we have to make available as a special loan facility to bail out Iceland? Any arguments against this other than it might invite other governments to ask for bailouts too and we can't afford them all?
Jotwell Blenderlaw