Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

/var/www/vhosts/legalinsurrection.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/bridge-child/readFeeds.incFALSE

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 06, 2014 21 Comments
The NY Times ran an editorial on June 5, The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Bergdahl, excoriating Republicans for hypocrisy as to condemnation of the exchange of 5 top Taliban Gitmo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. There are many all-too-typical Times sleights of hand, such as referring to Bergdahl as:
... a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
In condemning a rush to judgment as to Bergdahl by critics, The Times Editors rush to an alternative judgment. More important, the centerpiece of the Editorial, with which it begins, is a quote from John McCain (emphasis added):
Four months ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange of five hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. “I would support,” he told CNN. “Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
NY Times Rush to Demonize Sgt Bergdahl 6-6-2014 9 30 am I've underlined the words "Obviously I’d have to know the details" because those words were not in the original versions of the Editorial.  Rather, it was a late correction which significantly scales back the notion that McCain previously supported this exchange deal. I've tracked the changes in the Editorial through a very useful service, NewsDiff.  The NewsDiff archive history page for the Times Editorial reflects that the Editorial originally had a less aggressive title, and also did not include the part of McCain's quote I've highlighted.  In omitting that language from the quote, the Times made it seem as if McCain supported the same deal that Obama struck.  That supposed support was the foundation for the Editorial, but when the foundation shifted, the Times made like nothing changed. Here's the edit history of the intro paragraph via NewsDiff:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 06, 2014 10 Comments
Australia has announced that it no longer will refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied" territory. This is an enormous and important contribution to Middle East peace, as it corrects the false narrative that Israel's recapturing of territory illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 is not justifiably part of Israel. For the historical and legal background of why Israel's recapture of East Jerusalem and other territories is not illegal under international law, see Prof. Eugene Kontorovich's recent article at Commentary Magazine, Crimea, International Law, and the West Bank, as well as his lecture, The Legal Case for Israel. The Times of Israel reports, Australia drops ‘occupied’ label from East Jerusalem:
The Australian government will not refer to East Jerusalem as “occupied, territory” the government said in a statement on Thursday, in what one legislator called a “massive shift” in foreign policy Attorney General George Brandis explained Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s position that using the word “occupied” was judgmental and does not contribute to the dialogue about the contested area, the Australian Associated Press reported.
The move came, in part, as an Australian reaction to the verbal abuse Palestinians heap on anyone who supports Israel (been to a campus lately?):
Australia’s decision to stop referring to East Jerusalem as “occupied” territory and to adopt additional similar steps that will likely please Israel and anger the Palestinians came as a retaliatory measure against Palestinian officials who in recent months repeatedly and ferociously attacked Canberra’s Middle East policies in public, The Times of Israel has learned “The Australian government is irritated by how the Palestinians have chosen to pursue their disagreements with us in public,” a senior Australian source told The Times of Israel Thursday. “This is the kind of behavior you’d expect from the leaders of a student union but not from a government-in-waiting.”
As expected, the Palestinians heaped even more abuse on the Australians:

Posted by Adam Kissel on June 06, 2014 13 Comments
In the name of “a socialist transformation of society,” intolerant students at University College London (UCL) have violated the rules of their student union by banning a group calling itself the Nietzsche Club, after German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The official resolution speaks for itself and might even violate British law. According to Union Policy UP1343, passed earlier this year and available at the Union’s website, the UCL Union (basically the student government) officially believes that the Nietzsche Club “is aimed at promoting a far-right, fascist ideology” and must be stopped at all costs. In case there was any question, UCLU adds that “there is no meaningful distinction to be made between a far-right and a fascist ideology” and that “fascism is directly threatening to the safety of the UCL student body.” What is so threatening? Fearsome posters on campus—which “advertise a study of the philosophers Nietzsche, de Benoist [no friend of capitalism], Heidegger and Evola.” The horror! Posters inviting students to study philosophers and their ideas! What a direct threat to safety! UCLU officially believes that these people “are on the extreme-right, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, homophobic, anti-Marxist, anti-worker and have had connections, direct or indirect, with Italian fascism and German Nazism.” Then the socialism comes in:
“fascism is used by the ruling class to divide workers and students … to split them and thus weaken their effectiveness as a force and undermine their resistance to … consequences of the crisis of the capitalist system.”
Then the intolerance comes in:
“any attempts by fascists or the far-right to organise on campus must be met with unconditional resistance.” Unconditional! Thus the Union has resolved to “ban and otherwise prevent the installation of any further publicity of this group … prevent any attempts by this group to hold meetings and organise events on campus … [and] reject any attempts by this group to seek affiliation and official recognition.”
Then the socialism comes back:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 05, 2014 13 Comments
I continue to hope that there will be a complete and total resolution of who did what and who did or did not coordinate it, as to the taping of Thad Cochran's wife in a nursing home. As of this writing, there is no publicly available information that the campaign of Chris McDaniel was involved. Because the Cochran campaign deliberately delayed going to authorities for weeks, the issue was not completely put to bed by the time of the June 3 primary. That uncertainty -- even if completely speculative -- continues to fuel pro-Cochran messaging, suggesting concern that there may be a shoe to drop after the runoff. In that regard, when am I going to get an answer to my question, asked repeatedly since the taping scandal broke, What did the @NRSC know, and when did it know it?. (Please ReTweet) I may have to escalate my Twitter campaign to get an answer if none is forthcoming soon. Yesterday a "scandal" broke that a McDaniel campaign coordinator and two others were locked in the courthouse after hours on election night (actually after midnight) where the ballots were counted.   This led to all sorts of accusations by Haley Barbour and the Cochran campaign supporters that there was criminal activity.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on June 05, 2014 4 Comments
Lawmakers in the Senate reached a deal Thursday on the framework of a bill intended to address some of the recently uncovered issues related to the Department of Veterans Affairs. From the Associated Press:
Senior senators reached agreement Thursday on the framework for a bipartisan bill expanding veterans' ability to get health care outside the government's scandal-beset Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. The bill would allow veterans who experience waits of 30 days or more for VA appointments or who live at least 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic to use private doctors enrolled as providers for Medicare, military TRICARE or other government health care programs. It would let the VA immediately fire as many as 450 senior regional executives and hospital administrators for poor performance. The bill resembles a measure passed last month by the House, but includes a 28-day appeal process omitted by the House legislation. "Right now we have a crisis on our hands and it's imperative that we deal with that crisis," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. The legislation is a response to a building national uproar over veterans' health care following allegations that surfaced in April that as many as 40 veterans may have died while waiting an average 115 days for appointments at the Phoenix VA hospital or its walk-in clinics. Since then, investigators have found long wait times and falsified records covering them up at other VA facilities nationwide.
The agreement was announced Thursday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Meanwhile, Acting Veterans Affairs Secretary Sloan Gibson arrived for a visit at the Phoenix VA Health Care System Thursday.  He was expected to provide updates on what his office is doing to address the situation in which numerous veterans were intentionally left off of a wait list. Gibson indicated that most of those veterans have since been contacted to schedule appointments.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Students Claim Required English Course at Texas A&M San Antonio Ties Standard English to ‘Oppression’

AAUP Backs Anti-ICE Campaign on College Campuses

California High School Drops Punishment of Student for Pro-ICE Flyers After Inquiry From FIRE

CUNY LGBTQ Center to Host Podcast Discussion About the ‘Trans Politics of Looting’

Northeastern University Students Anxious After String of Crimes Near Campus

Kansas State Suspends Coach for Using the N-Word While Telling Students Not to Use It

SEE MORE

Posted by New Neo on June 05, 2014 35 Comments
Nothing about the Bergdahl/Taliban affair should have been surprising to people who have studied Obama over the years. Not Obama's audacity, nor his disregard of prior bipartisan warnings in Congress or from the intelligence community, nor his aides' attempts to discredit those from Bergdahl's unit who are calling Bergdahl a deserter or worse, nor Obama's refusal to offer any apologies whatsoever for his actions in this affair, nor his lies and broken promises, nor the fact that quite a few Democrats are lining up to defend him like the good party hacks that they are. An intellectual reaction is one thing. But there's still an emotional reaction---what Peter Wehner referred to as a visceral reaction---which is to be stunned, disgusted, outraged, and full of trepidation about both the long-term effects of this move and what Obama will be doing for a series of encores. I've been wanting to know what the American electorate thinks of it all. Today I read that the results of a Fox News poll showed Americans evenly split on the subject, and that news surprised me, too, although it probably shouldn't have.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 05, 2014 12 Comments
The investigators in the "John Doe" proceeding against conservative activists in Wisconsin are appealing the federal District Court's injunction shutting down the investigation, as we previously detailed in numerous posts. That injunction is part of a lawsuit by Eric O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth also seeking damages and other relief directly against the investigators, who are also local prosecutors, for violating the activists' constitutional rights. A separate lawsuit has been filed in state court against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. As part of the appeal in the federal case, yesterday the investigators filed a redacted copy of the original Petition for Commencement of John Doe Proceeding (full embed at bottom of post), detailing the reasons why the investigators sound the sweeping secrecy provisions of Wisconsin's John Doe procedure. Among the reasons was a cryptic and redacted reference to the targets of the probe having "well placed" ties to the blogoshpere (transcription via Wisconsin State Journal):
“I believe it is reasonable to expect that any public filing about the existence of this investigation will generate substantial publicity, both from traditional (e.g., print and broadcast journalism) and non-traditional (e.g. Internet blog) information sources. This is because the individuals involved in this investigation are well-placed,” it reads. The rest of that sentence was blacked out and was not visible in public court records.
Here's the relevant portion of the Petition (highlighting added, redaction in original):

Wisconsin Petition for Commencement of John Doe Proceeding re blogosphere highlighted

I think new media has arrived when the government is more afraid of the blogosphere than the blogosphere is of the government.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 05, 2014 7 Comments
Who among us is surprised by this report by Alana Goodman at The Washington Free Beacon about Team Billary trying to impress upon the NY Times the importance of LEAVE HILLARY ALONE! Hillary to New York Times: Back Off:
Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper. During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Even CNN mocked control freak Billary (via IJR Review):

Posted by New Neo on June 05, 2014 26 Comments
There's a growing sense that, at least for now, the Bergdahl/Taliban exchange and its fallout has the left spooked. Maybe Obama will wriggle out of this mess, too, either by way of the same tricks that have extricated him from so-called "scandals" such as Benghazi, or by distracting us in some new and horrific way. Or maybe there will be a hurricane somewhere that can provide a serendipitous photo-op to impress those Americans who have political attention-deficit disorder. But at the moment this story, probably more than any other incident of Obama's presidency, is one that makes him look bad. It appears to simultaneously expose his disregard for the safety of America and Americans, his sympathy for fundamentalist Islamist governments, his failure to do his homework, his drive towards greater executive power, his disregard for Congress (including some members of both parties) and the law itself, his mendacity, and the stupidity and collaboration of his advisors in all of the above. I may have left something out, but you get the idea. The military men and women who served with Bergdahl and on whom Obama counted to keep their mouths shut are (unlike the diplomats in Benghazi) speaking up and telling what they know. The NY Times and Time and other organs that normally can be counted on to carry Obama's water are spilling it all over the place. That leaves lonely folk such as TNR's Brian Beutler and Esquire's Charles P. Pierce doing their level best to convince the world that it's only vile Republicans complaining about the swap, and that their carping is motivated by petty politics and a cold attitude towards the suffering of prisoners of war.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on June 04, 2014 43 Comments
The U.S. military indicates it will conduct a new review into the circumstances of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's disappearance and captivity. From USA Today:
The U.S. Army said Tuesday it will launch a new review into the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl leaving his post and subsequent capture by the Taliban now that he has been released and can be interviewed. The new investigation comes amid mounting allegations by fellow soldiers and politicians that Bergdahl deserted his post and the search for him put additional troops at risk. The review "will include speaking with Sgt. Bergdhal to better learn from him the circumstances of his disappearance and captivity," Army Secretary John McHugh said in a statement. The Army had already completed an earlier review that involved speaking with soldiers in his unit. Separately, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a Facebook posting that Army leaders would "not look away from misconduct if it occurred" in connection with the capture of Bergdahl.
A statement posted Wednesday at the Dept. of Defense website from Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno also promised a "thorough, transparent and complete review of the circumstances surrounding [Bergdahl's] capture." Fellow soldiers who claim to have served with Bergdahl have been speaking out in recent days, many of them critical of the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance and of the possible impact of subsequent search efforts. Some say the deaths of other soldiers could have been indirectly related to those search efforts.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 04, 2014 11 Comments
David Horovitz, the editor of the Times of Israel has written a scathing critique of the Obama administration's treatment of Israel. In the aftermath of the administration's acceptance of the Fatah/Hamas unity government in defiance of the letter of American law, Horovitz wrote yesterday,  12 ways the US administration has failed its ally Israel. Horovitz's criticisms can be broken down into three categories: mistakes in proceeding with the peace process, primarily blaming Israel for the failure of the peace process and other breaches of faith with Israel regarding Israel's enemies in the Middle East. In that last category (the last three of Horovitz's examples) he observes that rather than keeping quiet about reported Israeli air strikes against Syrian arm shipments to Hezbollah, the administration attributed the strikes to Israel risking possible Syrian retaliation against Israel and blasts the administration for "rushing to support Islamic extremists ... when they come to power in a neighboring state," referring to the Muslim Brotherhood's brief stint as rulers of Egypt. But he's harshest in his criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of Iran arguing that "[t]he central goal of US policy in this regard should not be merely denying Iran nuclear weapons but denying Iran the capacity to build nuclear weapons." Regarding the peace process Horovitz faults the administration for looking to solve the conflict in just nine months instead of just working on trying to build a climate of trust:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 04, 2014 4 Comments
I've covered many campaigns over the past several years here at Legal Insurrection. The campaign of Martha Robertson, challenging incumbent Republican Tom Reed, is one of the most bizarre so far. They are completely non-responsive. Even when I write to them or call seeking a statement so I can present their side of a story, there's silence. Even before I exposed problems with the campaign's communications and positions, they were non-responsive. It's just plain weird. Robertson also is hard to find on the campaign trail. If not for her stop at Cornell, I don't think I ever would have been able to get any response from her or her campaign on the issue of the campaign's false claim that GOP operatives hacked her website during a key fundraising period. Even then, her response was non-responsive. Maybe it's me? Maybe I've offended them by asking questions and trying to find out the campaign's position on important issues, like her support for Obamacare as a stepping stone to single payer and her complete misunderstanding of the Veterans Administration scandal. No, it's not just me, as this campaign ad just released by Congressman Tom Reed demonstrates: Reed's campaign issued the following statement, via Communications Director Kathering Pudwill:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on June 04, 2014 4 Comments
When I voted in California's June primary, I chuckled when I turned to the "Secretary of State" race and found a familiar name: Leland Yee. Yee  did not make it to the general election (under California's rules, the top two regardless of party compete in the general election). But it's a sad commentary on the quality of California politics that Yee managed to pull nearly 10 percent of the vote! California Secretary of State Primary results 6-3-2014 Legal Insurrection fans may recall that Yee is California's former state senator who was recently charged in a federal gun-trafficking case. As I mentioned that Mexican authorities were reported to be giving former US Marine Andrew Tahmooressi the legal treatment reserved for gun-runners, I thought it was time to check up on what was happening to a potentially real one. The federal judge handling the case issued a gag order on the evidence:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 04, 2014 1 Comment
We previously wrote about a partial victory at the Modern Language Association House of Delegates during the annual meeting in January.  An anti-Israel resolution regarding alleged travel restrictions on academics was significantly watered down, and another resolution defending the American Studies Association's academic boycott of Israel was rejected. The Executive Council of MLA decided to send the travel resolution to the membership for an online vote.  The final travel resolution read:

Resolution 2014-1

Whereas Israel has denied academics of Palestinian ethnicity entry into the West Bank; Whereas these restrictions violate international conventions on an occupying power’s obligation to protect the right to education; Whereas the United States Department of State acknowledges on its Web site that Israel restricts the movements of American citizens of Palestinian descent; Whereas the denials have disrupted instruction, research, and planning at Palestinian universities; Whereas the denials have restricted the academic freedom of scholars and teachers who are United States citizens; Be it resolved that the MLA urge the United States Department of State to contest Israel’s denials of entry to the West Bank by United States academics who have been invited to teach, confer, or do research at Palestinian universities.
There were complaints that the MLA leadership was not evenhanded in distributing materials to the membership, to the prejudice of pro-Israel members. Also, an online chat forum was disclosed in which gross anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic statements were made by MLA members. The results of the vote were just posted, and it failed to pass because less than 10% of the 30,000+ members voted.   Any resolution must be ratified by a majority vote in which the number of those voting for ratification equals at least ten percent of the association’s membership, which was 2,390 votes this year. There were 1,560 votes in favor of ratification and 1,063 votes against ratification. This is, in many ways, even more devastating than a simple loss.  It shows that the anti-Israel agenda of some radical academics simply isn't of much interest to the broader academic community.  The lack of interest by the overall membership is most telling of all. Prof. Cary Nelson of the University of Illinois issued the following statement on behalf of MLA Members for Scholars' Rights, a group opposing the resolution:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on June 04, 2014 10 Comments
Despite the fact that when half-Asian Elliot Rodger went on his murder spree, he knifed three of his victims to death, the response of progressives has been primarily focused on two topics: "White Male Privilege" and "Gun Control". Legislation to outlaw either being white or male cannot be proposed...yet.  However, one of the most progressively activist of all of California's elected representatives offers a new set of gun control rules: The "Pause for Safety Act". Fascinating, I think, that "gun" does not appear in the title of Senator Barbara Boxer's latest masterpiece. Her proposed rules would do the following:
• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. • Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others. • Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.
According to Boxer: “We have a function here not to allow someone who is unstable or violent to get a weapon." So, how would this legislation have prevented Rodger from gaining access to knives? And, by the logic that produced this chestnut, perhaps we should regulate the distribution of hot coffee?:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH