markpkessinger
markpkessinger's JournalJudge Orders The Secret Service to Release Their File on Aaron Swartz
[font size=2 color="gray"]Abby Ohlheiser[/font]
We might be about to learn a lot more about the Secret Service investigation into Aaron Swartz, the political and internet activist who committed suicide earlier this year. That's because a federal judge, in response to a FOIA lawsuit, has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (the parent organization of the Secret Service) to start releasing thousands of pages of documents, ASAP.
That request comes from Wired's Kevin Poulsen, who sought documents relating to the Secret Service's 2011 investigation into the activist's downloading of JSTOR articles in bulk. Those downloads were central to the mounting legal troubles the Swartz faced just before his death, after Massachusetts Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann refused to offer Swartz a plea deal without jail time. Here's what Poulsen says about the request:
That criminal case was formally dismissed after Swartz’s death. Yet in February, the Secret Service denied in full my request for any files it held on Swartz, citing a FOIA exemption that covers sensitive law enforcement records that are part of an ongoing proceeding. Other requestors reported receiving the same response.
After enlisting the help of FOIA litigator David Sobel, who helped him file suit, it looks like Poulsen may get even more than what he asked for. It turns out that the government has "several thousand" additional pages of documents related to Sobel's request than they initially thought. Of course, the last-minute revelation allowed the U.S. to request even more time in delivering them, indicating that the new trove may also help to drag out the process even further. On the other hand, Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order requires the immediate release of all documents already processed by the government, and sets a deadline for their release timetable for August 5.
In light of the pre-trial, pre-conviction treatment of Bradley Manning . . .
. . . I find it absolutely appalling that anyone would suggest that Snowden should submit to the same. And that would hold whether or not I agreed with either or both of them.
Teachers with guns law backfires in Kansas, insurance companies refuse to renew coverage for schools
Gotta love it!
[font size=2 color="gray]July 7, 2013[/font]
[font size=2]By Anomaly[/font]
The new law in Kansas which allows gun owners to carry weapons in public buildings, including schools, puts the school’s insurance at risk, including a major company that insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts. Insurance companies think that it’s too much of a risk, and say that someone qualified and uniformed should carry the weapons. The NRA fully backed this law regardless of the obvious safety and business concerns.
The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It’s not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.
“We’ve been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers,” said Mick Lovell, EMC’s vice president for business development. “Our guidelines have not recently changed.
The Kansas Legislature passed the law after the fatal shootings of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Conn., in December.
< . . . >
< . . . . >
NY Times: "Is a house ever worth more than a life?"
In the wake of the tragic deaths of 19 firefighters in Arizona, Timothy Egan, writing in the Times' "Opinionator" column, asks a very long overdue question.
[font size=2 color="gray"]By [font color="black"]Timothy Egan[/font][/font]
< . . . >
Sunday’s fatal toll from the Yarnell Hill fire in Arizona was the greatest loss of firefighter lives in the United States since Sept. 11. But those who died in New York that terrible day were not rushing into a building in order to protect property — they were trying to save lives.
You can’t blame people for living amid the chaparral and piñon pine in the sweep of Arizona where the land rises up from the ceaseless heat of the valley to the cooler air of the plateau. It’s stunning country, even with the menace of monsoon winds in summer. Nor can you blame people in Colorado for living with the sweet fragrance of a forest at 9,000 feet. In the last two decades, by one estimate, almost 40 percent of the new homes built in the West are smack dab in the middle of fire country — a habitat of high risk.
But these homeowners should not expect good people to die protecting those houses. And so in Arizona this week, among the grieving, we heard variations of a theme that always comes up after these tragedies: a structure is replaceable, a life is not.
That sentiment, which is supposed to be the guiding philosophy of fighting wildfires, too often gets tossed aside. In a panic, homeowners rage and scream: do something! They rage and scream at their member of Congress, often an anti-government zealot, who then rages and screams at the federal agencies: do something!
< . . . .?
Wishing every one a . . .
(Yeah, I know it's corny -- what can I say, I was a music nerd in a former life!)
So, along with character assassination and guilt by association, we can now add . . .
. . . seizing upon an alleged inaccuracy in a secondary detail of a story -- a detail not ultimately germane to the story itself -- in an effort to discredit the main thrust of a story.
I am speaking, of course, of the discussion of whether France or Italy or Portugal did or did not deny Morales' plane permission to fly through their airspace, or whether or not the plane w as refused permission to land in those countries for refueling. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The significant part of the story is what happened on the ground in Vienna -- which is not in dispute -- when a sovereign head of state's plane was denied permission to depart for something like 10 hours, until that head of state finally agreed to permit his plane to be searched (a search to which he did not voluntarily consent and which the Austrian government had no legal right to demand).
Nice try, though.
On the Eve of Independence Day, I am astounded to read these words . . .
. . . written concerning Morales' plane, on a primarily American, let alone Democratic(!), site:
If he had nothing to hide , why not let the plane be inspected ; it would make him look good if nothing suspicious is found '
I've not provided a link to the post because it isn't my intention to single someone out like that. I am posting it merely as an example of the naked, unvarnished authoritarianism we have been seeing of late. Truly appalling.
On this business of "trusting" the government . . .
A lesson I learned a long time ago about 'trust' is that the people in my life who are most worthy of my trust are those who, for the most part, would never dream of testing it. I think it's a lesson that applies to governments as well.
I would also say, to those who would call me and those who feel as I do a Republican, a teabagger or whatever, that refusing to extend blind trust to a government is not at all the same as being anti-government. And in this entire NSA mess, it is precisely BLIND trust we are being asked to extend. And that is completely, categorically inappropriate.
Yesterday's online edition of Der Spiegel contains 17 screens of outraged quotes by European leaders
...over the NSA spying on our allies. This is a big deal, folks, and the administration had best stop worrying about Snowden and the leaks, and start worrying about how it is going to re-establish trust with long-standing allies.
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/quote-gallery-europe-reacts-to-nsa-spying-fotostrecke-98595.html
Frequently told lies about Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald has responded to six frequently told lies concerning his background, his politics, etc. Many of these are repeated on a nearly daily basis here on DU. From his response:
There are a series of common lies frequently told about me which I'm addressing here. During the Bush years, when I was criticizing George Bush and the GOP in my daily writing and books, there was a set of lies about me personally that came from the hardest-core Bush followers that I finally addressed. The new set comes largely from the hardest-core Obama followers.
I've ignored these for awhile, mostly because they have never appeared in any consequential venue, but rather are circulated only by anonymous commenters or obscure, hackish blogs. That is still the case, but they've become sufficiently circulated that it's now worthwhile to address and debunk them. Anyone wishing to do so can judge the facts for themselves. The following lies are addressed here:
1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute
2. I'm a right-wing libertarian
3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage
5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics
6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice
< . . . >
Read full response at: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,401
