Slashdot Mirror
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."
He picked their favorite senator as a running mate.
Badass Resumes
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
I'm popping a big bowl of Orville's best right now.
/.
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
Then why do you engage in it?
Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.
Obama wants to change the system. But in order to do that, he needs insiders, clinton retreads, lobbyists, and big corporate stooges that know how to get shit done. Once he's surrounded by them, he'll be able to change the system.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
It could be, that like most lawyers, he doesn't actually believe in the RIAA cause and just wants their money. Murderers and rapists need lawyers that just have to be advocates in court and not true believers in their client's innocence. That being said, when you set your expectations higher than the gutter (especially in politics) there is a chance you'll be disappointed.
Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post
Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post
Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.
I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment. I hope that Obama will appoint other, anti-RIAA people to help balance things out. I don't follow politics enough to know all the ins and outs, so I can't provide any real insight in this decision. Hopefully some fellow /.ers will give some useful insight other than the typically "Politics as usual", "Democrats suck", "Both parties are the same", etc that goes on every time something political comes up. Maybe something new and useful, like an analysis of his other advisors and appointments to see if there are other pro-RIAA as well as anti-RIAA people.
Wow, that was some of the driest humor I've EVER read on Slashdot. Impressive.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.
Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?
Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.
Congratulations on electing a politician. Please enjoy the next 8 years of corporate whoring.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
On what basis do you abhor this appointment?
I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.
A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.
I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.
And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".
You mad
but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.
I don't. The bait and switch was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.
And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.
His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It deeply saddens me that you have chosen to appoint Tom Perrelli to be the third in command at the Justice Department.
This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.
And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.
The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.
Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign
I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.
constant media misdirection away from Louisiana government's gross incompetence about Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
There - fixed that for you.
Hey, this is change I can believe in... I'd be shocked if he picked the head EFF attorney instead.
Number two is David Ogden, according to the article. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...
But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun (actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase), but I already had my concealed carry permit.
I spent most of the first 2 years out of college working in politics -- Palin was the only one of the candidates I haven't met. I voted for Obama anyway, while having an RNC card in my wallet, because I figured that he would list a little more to the right later one, average out, and would probably be quite alright. I wasn't about the hype, I just want someone sane and relatively moderate (slightly leftish is alright) after all the bullshit we've all had to deal with the last few years.
If only it was productive to laugh when people realize their savior is similar to their enemy. I hate politicians.
Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.
The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.
Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.
I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I wouldn't say that being a POW makes one worthy of respect. Sympathy, yes, because its a horrible situation, but they didn't have to do anything special or principled to be captured. What makes McCain worthy of respect is that he refused preferential release. Even if it was following the letter of the military code of conduct, its still a helluva thing to put up with that kind of torture when given a way out.
Don't be so paranoid.
I'm more paranoid about Albany than I am about Washington. The State Senate just got taken over by the Democrats. The State Assembly regularly passes more gun control laws but they were always dead on arrival in the Republican State Senate. Now they will be rubber-stamped and the NYC'ers will seek to impose their gun control regime on the rest of the state.
The worst part is I actually like what Governor Paterson is trying to do to fix our budgetary woes. Problem is that he'll sign any gun control legislation that the Legislature passes and I suspect he's going to screw over Upstate and appoint Kennedy to Clinton's seat when she gets confirmed. I really hope that I'm wrong about the latter but I know I'm right about the former....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I still respect the guy for being a POW, no amount of partisanship can take that away from him.
McCain was a traitor and a coward more than he was a P.O.W. You should dive deeper into his personal story and then you find out:
* He was a crappy soldier who didn't follow orders
* He crashed 3 airplanes - anyone else would have been drummed out long before him
* His family's power and influence kept him in the military
* When he was shot down, he wasn't following the rules which led to his crash
* The injuries he suffered that many claim was the result of "torture" was not torture but injuries from the crash
* He lasted TWO DAYS.... TWO DAYS IN CAPTIVITY before he coughed up the fact that his father was the commander of the Pacific Naval Fleet
* He then became a traitor to America and recorded VC propaganda messages that were broadcast to his own troops in Vietnam
He claims torture doesn't work, but then he claims he was tortured and "broken", then he claimed torture does work and supported Bush's torture of Guantanamo detanees. In addition to being a liar, by his own admission he committed treason. He's a traitor and calling him a "hero" is an insult to virtually every other Vietnam vet who served more honorably and didn't sell out their country.
Easy. When Bush requested the legally required permission for federal troops and assistance to cross into Louisiana from the Louisiana Governor, She said no. What was he supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that she felt was unnecessary? I would go to bed too, knowing that I may have to declare a national emergency tomorrow to pull some ignoramus' butt out of the fire because she felt she didn't need federal help. Get a good night's sleep, or try to, to better be able to deal with the shit-storm coming my way.
Out of curiosity who said Obama would solve all our problems? I keep hearing this drivel from sore republicans looking to blame Obama for the failures that Bush Jr already caused.
No one I know at least seriously thinks Obama can solve the majority of the problems that Bush has plagued us with, we all saw it coming as reckless spending always results in this outcome.
Most people I've talked to voted for Obama because they believe he will at least put the country on a path that the majority of us can agree is better for the majority of us. The recession will not end anytime soon, Obama taking office will result in a stock market spike because history puts a good economy at the helm of democrats traditionally at least over the last 60 years.
Like the ole saying goes, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, no one is expecting miracles because creating everything we lost will take some serious time and a lot of serious effort from people in both parties. One of Obama's biggest strengths was that he wasn't afraid to work with people that disagreed with him unlike Bush. We all like a reasoned debate and this country is in dire need of it.
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Uh, I don't think Obama's appointments to the DOJ have anything to do with Bush's legacy... It's not Bush's fault we said "Wow, Obama's a technology literate candidate! Let's vote for change!" and then watched as he handed our collective asses to the RIAA.
Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.
The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.
I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.
What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
This choice may be horrendous, but I'm still waiting for some sort of reaction somewhere. Posting angry comments on /. won't change a thing. If you're really THAT deceived, do something about it?
Was I American, I'd be very tempted to do so. Ugh, I was hoping this time the promises weren't empty...
I don't know what you're suggesting, other than that you like to gripe.
Who should you have voted for instead? Hillary? She's a hardcore DLCer, working tirelessly to pull the Democratic Party to the right (not to mention her bog-standard low-road campaigning). McCain? Please.
No one ever said Obama was perfect or the Second Coming (except in Republican attack ads). I was a Kucinich man, till he dropped out, then for Edwards for the five minutes it took before he dropped out. Only then did I back Obama.
Obama was by no means my first choice, but, in the end, was by far the best choice.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
You've gotta hand it to Obama -- the guy's really good! It normally takes a few years to achieve this much scandal but he's not even in office and he has corruption (Blogo's relationship to Chief-of-staff Emmanuael, Bill Richardson, David Rubin), controversial chairmanship appointments (such as this one) AND backpedaling on stated policy (withdraw from Iraq), etc.
That's at least one term's worth of scandal squeezed into a month.
Pass the popcorn, this is going to be entertaining in a can't-look-away-from-the-car-crash sort of way.
Those sentiments are no less true for being repeatedly stated. We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.
The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).
Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.
It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.
I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...
(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
I am not stubborn. I am right!
Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!
Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush. Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.
I am not a racist and I supported Obama.
But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything.
It will if "problem" is a code-word for a very large furnace.
John
It is the attorney's that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself. And, there's no need to defend a lawyer. Get real.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The dude came right out and said "I can't provide any real insight in this decision. "
Yes, that was the insightfull part.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Keep in mind that a lot of Bush supporters supported Bush, but not his decisions. "Bush is a good man" or "A good Christian" and sometimes just got bad advice. A leader is his decisions, by and large. This doesn't mean Obama sucks, but it's something to put on the scales.
2nd worst is NOT best.
See how politics works now?
All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.
It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.
I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.
I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.
I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Never mind the fact that they were major entry ports into this country
Are you sure that isn't a perl program that generates the lawyer's name?
If he really wanted to change the system, he'd leave most of the "do nothing" cabinet positions empty, including the whole departments under those positions, and then apply the trillions of dollars saved to payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.
By the year 2016 Obama could claim to be the third president (and third Democrat) to operate the government with absolutely no debt.
THAT would be impress me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm not really a Messiah kind of guy I'm more of a realist though, and I've realized the following.
I'm not thrilled by this appointment, but it doesn't really surprise me. IP, whether you believe in it or not, is one of the few things the US produces domestically which anyone else actually wants to buy. For better or worse, protecting the value of IP is important to the survival of the US economy.
There was never any chance that any president was going to eliminate copyright, and there is still a chance(though slim) that, despite this appointment, Obama will work to rationalize the process. I doubt it, but on the grounds that no one else(no one sane at least) was going to do it either, it's not the end of the world.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,"
he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep. And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Were they employed as counsel?
Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?
A lawyer as a duty to represent their client, irrespective of the lawyer's personal beliefs. I would expect any reasonably ethical lawyer to be able to separate those two interests. Whether they do in fact is a matter of examining the actions of any particular lawyer.
Whether Bush & Cheney were able to separate their duty to the corporations by which they were formerly employed, and their duty to the American people is similarly a matter of examining their particular actions. It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.
Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Hmm, it was an interesting situation
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.
The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.
As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.
To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.
But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.
So Bush's advisers clearly thought Blanco was incompetent and discussed using the Insurrection Act to send Federal troops and decided against it. This was in 2005. In 2006 they modified the Insurrection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Differences_between_old_and_new_wording
Differences between old and new wording
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy
The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of
natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition
and only if
domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Funny, they did exactly like that with Iraq, which isn't even the same country.
c++;
It is the attorney's (sic) that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself (sic).
Again, the lawyer has a duty to represent their client's interest zealously, irrespective of the lawyer's personal opinions. The only questions regarding their tactics are 1. are they permissible within the rules of the game and 2. are they reasonably competent, inasasmuch as they are likely to secure an outcome favourable to their client. If you do attack the lawyer personally on the basis of their tactics, (other than for a breach of the two considerations), you are a simpleton. I guess you hate actors for the parts they played in their last movie too.
And, there's no need to defend a lawyer.
This topic and you post clearly demonstrate otherwise.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Yea! New York and California are shining examples of successful economies working without the need of government handouts!
Money is the root of all evil?
I saw this a lot with our fairly recent election in australia and im seeing it here now on slashdot.
The people that vote for 'the messiah' aren't necessarily convinced they are voting for a solution to every problem they ever had..they might just be voting for a guy who finally seems to agree with their way of thinking and might do some good things with the country. Its ok to get excited about that isnt it? I was when we were getting rid of our ultra conservative party in favor of the sortve liberal one here. Obamas probably pretty busy, give him some time to sort out his shit.
dont you people have any faith in anything at all?
You assume too much. We could elect a different politician in as few as 4 years, and enjoy only 4 years of corporate whoring followed by 4 years of corporate whoring.
I think alot of people are forgetting that lawyers are lawyers. They are paid to represent and fight whatever battle if someone throws enough money at them, regardless of their personal views on the case, much like mercenaries. I think Obama knows this being a Law Professor, so I'm personally not too worried about this appointment and don't see what the big deal is.
I shouldn't feed the trolls but I do think this is an example worth pointing out.
The confederacy was right about states' rights. They were wrong about slavery. I think that a war to end slavery was justified, but it really sucks that "limited government" was killed along with it.
And any Lawyer that nearly gets sanctions for getting caught lying to courts...
I have no problem with someone who's willing to represent Hitler in Hitler v. Cute Puppies, or anyone, we do have a right to representation. But that's going too far.
Disprove the first sentence and my objections to him go away.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Cry me a river. Idle bureaucrats employed by the government are a waste of our tax dollars.
The government's purpose is to effectively serve the public; not employ those that can't hold a regular job in the private sector.
Insightful? Sounds to me like cynical flamebait
When did anyone ever say that the job of a politician is to make everyone happy? Of course politicians aren't going to please all of their supporters all of the time, that's not how it works.
Obama didn't run on a platform of anti-corporatism. He ran on a platform of more government control of corporations, and more public transparency of the government.
We currently have had a vice president for the past 8 years who was the CEO of a major defense contractor. On the other hand, one of the many people that Obama selected for a DOJ position worked for a law firm that represented a company that many of us don't like, and people flip out over that?
Sure, he is going to make some moves that don't fully satisfy the tech sector, but the sky is hardly falling, and I personally don't think the tech sector has had it this good in a long time.
> The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of
> the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind
> of morals they have.
Someone should add this tidbit, with linked evidence, to the guy's Wikipedia article, no? His article reads like a press release right now.
I have to disagree with you- while it is clearly a lawyer's duty to act zealously in his clients' interests, that obligation cannot be reasonably construed to allow him to act unethically or illegally. Please don't pretend that the ethical deficiencies of the client excuse the courtroom behavior of their counsel- the ABA doesn't.
And a President's first responsibility is to the US Constitution. But that didn't stop Obama from voting yes on the FISA Reform Bill.
Does it surprise anyone that a politician willing to put politics above the constitution would choose as a DoJ appointee a lawyer who puts client above the court?
I'm still cautiously hopeful for the Obama presidency, but I do not have high expectations. I have yet to see a high level politician put the good of the people above the good of the government. I hope he surprises me, but I don't expect him to.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
this is posted by kdawson. You really expected it to be impartial? The guy only posts anti-copyright anti-content producer, pro-piracy bullshit.
Its like digg, but pretending to be for grown-ups.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Oh, and Cheney: 1) Have job that pays millions 2) Give it up to earn $200K as VP, be vilified as Darth Vader 3) Profit???
Actually, quite a bit of profit.
Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton as well as having stock options which have mysteriously risen in value by 3,281% in just one of the past years.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You are correct. I worked for the FAA and half the people sat-around doing nothing all day except surfing the web. Another quarter worked half the day and surfed the net the other half the day. Only around 25% actually worked all day long without goofing off.
Therefore you could easily lay off 75% of the FAA's "surf the web" workforce, same as a corporation operates during tight times, and not notice a significant falloff in productivity.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I believe the State of Louisiana spoke as to who was actually responsible for the Katrina & Rita mess when it didn't even give Kathleen Blanco a chance to run for re-election...
As true as that might be the fact remains that POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the World. It seems inexcusable to me that he opted not to use that bully pulpit when Americans were suffering and dying. I got modded into oblivion for pointing this out but really, what happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
Would Reagan have been content to let Americans die because of incompetent state government? Would FDR? Eisenhower? It just seems like a really piss poor excuse, IMHO.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
think that a war to end slavery was justified
The war wasn't launched to end slavery. The war was launched to bring the southern states back into the union. Lincoln actually went out of his way to say that ending slavery wasn't the goal during the beginning. Ending slavery become the goal later for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which was keeping France and England out of the war.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
While I agree that this is the situation we're in, I ask why it has to be that way. Why do we only get the choice between hanging and shooting, why can't we get a politician that we don't see as the lesser evil, but one that we actually want to win?
A) Because those people generally don't run for high political offices.
B) A great many people in this country (so many that I have to wonder if the distribution is still normal, or if the mean is far too stupid) DO want either the cocksucker or the jerkoff to win. Usually based on one insipid bullet point. "The cocksucker will make the 10 Commandments into law and talks to Jesus! He MUST win!" "The jerkoff wants to make sure people have enough food to eat, and can get it just by making sure that no one gets TOO much to eat! HE must win!"
I seriously doubt, even after the clusterfuck of the last eight years, that Americans will ever understand the gravity of the choices they make (if they bother to make one) every other November.
Instead, they seem to think "Woah, Cool. It's like Bud Bowl, but with real people!"
In courts of law there is guilt by association, and it is
clear through some of the tactics of the RIAA they have
broke the law.
Some ppl were innocent and brought to financial ruin,
and others were bullied and terrorized into accepting
plea agreements even thou they were innocent simply
because they could not afford a lengthy and expensive
blizzard of paperwork that would ruin them even if they
were found innocent.
Those who participated and assisted in their circumvention
of the law can be held guilty as accessories to the crime,
if the court can find the evidence.
Unfortunately the government is largely paid off by lobbyists
and we are well and goodly screwed.
THAT is why some ppl abhor this appointment amigo.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
3% of the country pulled off the revolution at its founding.
Some ppl from Ohio have a message for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew_9GeuGA4
I am not part of their movement or any movement, but I am
watching and waiting for the time to get out of the cities.
I am not fighting, I am hiding, and they will be looking
for ppl like you not me, so good luck to you with your
insults to the Paultards as you call them.
The hour is late and the bell tolls for thee.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
If you'd watch the video you'd know I meant it for all of the US.
Not just for him, and the only reason I say it "might" not be
me is I have already planned to run and hide.
If you read "all" of what I wrote you will see that I am
not a fighter but someone that plans to hide.
Yes, I will be well armed, but I know that no man is an island
and I do not plan on being apart of what is coming in ANY way.
If you have one shred of intelligence you will take all of my
sentences apart instead of just the ones that offend you.
And most of all watch the video and think about it.
You got a warning, its more than most will get.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
I think Obama is falling short on his "hope" message. There is a serious lack of magical pink unicorns that we all expected.
In fact, it looks just like the perfect intersection of Clinton and Bush II.
Could have used those unicorns... I hear they fart rainbows and glitter.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Detestable? What evidence do you have that this man *set* RIAA policy, rather than carrying it out? Last I checked, Copyright is still a cherished law of the land outside of Slashdot, and the RIAA had the right to sue people for infringement. Now, it was a stubbornly stupid move (step 1, kill your customers, step 2, ???, step 3, profit!), but why would specific attorneys be painted with the brush for enacting the policy? As an example, David Boies [wikipedia.org] was lauded for defending Napster, representing the DOJ vs. Microsoft on Antitrust, yet was retained by the SCO group in recent years. Does that make him detestable?
You miss the whole point of my involvement in these cases. I have no problem with recording companies enforcing their sound recording copyright laws. It is the way in which their lawyers have gone about it that I find detestable:
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.
Any lawyer who signs on for this type of brutality is not a lawyer in my book.
Any lawyer who led this type of brutality is bad news... because he has no conscience.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And this guy's client is whom exactly?
Sorry, but for my taste, given his background he has too much experience representing the interests of the scum of the earth. His motives are suspect from the get-go, so of course the reason for his appointment is suspect.
A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.
Do you know any lawyers like this? I'm not going to stick up for a guy who's behavior I find to be inexcusable, but let's not set the bar (aha ha) too high here.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Why do you think they are idle?
Why do you think can't 'hold' a 'regular' job in the private sector?
I was in the private sector for over 20 years, not I am a government employee. I work very hard, and with the most dedicated and knowledgeable people I have ever worked with.
I suggest you study up on the numbers.
1) most government work is done ontime and at or under budget.
2) In the private sector there is about 1 success for every 100 projects, in the government there is about 1 failure for every 1000 projects.
The issue is that in the private sector, the companies get to tout success and bury failure, in the public sector the media specifically touts the failures.
All this is document in fiscal reports.
Another issue is that in the government, if you like your job you don't have pressure to move 'up or out'. I work with people that have had the same job for 10+ years. The tools have changes, but it's the same thing. These people have a vast set of knowledge about the way things work. Very valuable.
Before anyone says anything. I come in at 6, take my lunch between 10 and 11.
I leave between 5-6.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I voted for obama too, but....
Really, what the fuck did you expect?
In a campaign financed with big money from actors, musicians, movie studios, producers, and so on, nobody has any RIGHT to think anything but this would happen. THE MAN HAD BIG NAME MUSICIANS ON STAGE PERFORMING BEFORE HIS SPEECHES. They weren't doing it solely out of the kindness of their hearts. And if you think they were, PLEASE STOP VOTING BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
Seriously. Anybody who expected an "information wants to be free" pro-copyright-reform president is way out of their fucking skull and shouldn't be voting.
He's got to do this, and copyright enforcement is going to be a very big priority for the incoming administration, just like anti-porn enforcement is for the outgoing administration. They have to pay off their constituencies. That's how the game is played. The game didn't change, no matter what the slogan was.
So why'd I vote for him? Same reason I ever vote, lesser of two evils. They would have done the exact same things economically (none of which will work) and spent the exact same amounts of money causing the exact same amounts of debt, pulled us out of our foreign expeditions at the exact same time. McCain would have put pro-life creationists on the Supreme Court, and Obama won't. That's the only difference worth voting on.
Really, why is this so difficult to understand. Obama is a human, worse, he's a human who is not me. The only way I am going to get a president whom I totally agree with is if I manage to land the job myself. This is one decision on one, fairly low level, appointment. I disagree with it, but I was pretty sure when I voted for the guy that he would make decisions I would disagree with. Remarkably, through the whole election process, no candidate made any promises to run all his or her decisions by me personally.
You're about the 10th person to post some variation on 'See, look, he did something you disagree with, you shouldn't have voted for him'. I absolutely guarantee that whoever I voted for they would have done thing I disagree with. I didn't vote for the man expecting perfect conformation to my ever whim, I voted for the guy whose policies most closely match what I thought was needed for the country to succeed. I had two choices (maybe 6 if we step outside of the two main parties, but regardless a very small number of choices), I picked the one I though most appropriate. He's not God, and he's not me. He's pretty damned unlikely to make all choices I agree with.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court.
Yeah. Mostly against children, students, grandparents, stroke victims, the homeless, the deceased, welfare mothers, people on Social Security Disability, home health aides, etc. His track record against parties who can afford lawyers is nothing to write home about.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful