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 February 03, 2014 33 Comments
Ross Douthat, a columnist for the NY Times, is not someone people usually refer to as part of the Republican "base." Stephen Colbert describes him as the "conservative columnist at the NY Times, which also qualifies him to be the liberal columnist for the NY Post." But he's with the base when it comes to Republican immigration "principles" released on Friday:
THE debate over immigration reform, rekindled last week by House Republican leaders, bears a superficial resemblance to last fall’s debate over the government shutdown. Again, you have establishment Republicans transparently eager to cut a deal with the White House and a populist wing that doesn’t want to let them do it. Again, you have Republican business groups and donors wringing their hands over the intransigence of the base, while talk-radio hosts and right-wing bloggers warn against an imminent inside-the-Beltway sellout. Again, you have a bill that could pass the House tomorrow — but only if John Boehner was willing to live with having mostly Democrats voting for it. Except there’s one big difference: This time, the populists are right. They’re right about the policy, which remains a mess in every new compromise that’s floated — offering “solutions” that are unlikely to be permanent, enforcement provisions that probably won’t take effect, and favoring special interests, right and left, over the interests of the citizenry at large.
Among the many problems, any form of legalization prior to enforcement is folly. And therein lies the problem. Obama will not sign a meaningful "enforcement first" bill, so either Republicans repeat the mistakes of the past, or the "principles" go nowhere while disrupting Republicans focus for 2014. Greg Sargent of WaPo, reliable conduit of Democratic thinking, notes that Republicans don't trust Obama to enforce the law, so will impose preconditions that will be unacceptable to Obama:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by David Gerstman on February 03, 2014 4 Comments
Thirty two years ago yesterday, February 2, 1982, Syrian President Bashar Assad's father, Hafez, began an assault on the city of Hama to put down a Muslim Brotherhood revolt against his regime. Two years ago NPR recounted:
The facts of that event are well-known, but the photographic evidence has been scant. Then, Syria's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood led an uprising centered in Hama, a central city of around 400,000. In response, President Hafez Assad, the father of the current president, ordered 12,000 troops to besiege the city. That force was led by Hafez Assad's brother Rifaat. He supervised the shelling that reduced parts of Hama to rubble. Those not killed in the tank and air assault were rounded up. Those not executed were jailed for years. To this day, the death toll is in dispute and is at best an estimate. Human rights groups, which were not present during the slaughter, have put the toll at around 10,000 dead or more. The Muslim Brotherhood claims 40,000 died in Hama, with 100,000 expelled and 15,000 who disappeared. The number of missing has never been acknowledged by the Syrian leadership.
As we know the lessons of the father have been well learned by the son. Kill enough people and no one will make you pay a price. Somehow the UN and Secretary of State John Kerry thought that they could get some sort of agreement to stop the killing in Syria. The latest round of talks ended on Friday, apparently in failure.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia raised expectations in January at a joint news conference in Paris that a way would be found to open humanitarian aid corridors and possibly establish local cease-fires in Aleppo and other cities and towns. But to the dismay of the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations, even those basic steps proved elusive.

Posted by A.F. Branco on February 03, 2014 8 Comments

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 02, 2014 5 Comments
Anyone who has read this blog the past months knows that I take the international boycott threat against Israel very seriously. It is a venomous movement conceived by propagandists that has had some success in Europe, but few victories in the U.S. Israel has lived all of its existence under boycott. The current boycott movement is a shadow of the Arab League boycott that started even before Israel was a nation and grew with great force as Arab oil wealth grew in the 1970s. Yet somehow Israel's economy survived and prospered nonetheless, helped in great part by U.S. anti-boycott legislation that mostly kept the boycott disease from our shores. The Israeli economy is more diverse, high tech, and privatized than it was in the 1970s. Israel also is less dependent on Europe, and a sought-after participant in the global economy, most of which wants no part of the boycott movement.  The leverage of Europeans who capitulate to anti-Israel groups is much less than in the past. The U.S. Congress also could significantly deflate the boycott movement once again by extending current legislation to cover the new form of boycott movement.  Congress should do so now, and in so doing will aid the peace process by letting the Palestinians know that they cannot achieve more through international boycotts than through negotiations. While it seems invincible because largely unchallenged, the boycott movement is susceptible not only to legislation, but the type of pushback academic boycotters in the U.S. are receiving. The boycott movement, while it should be taken seriously and combatted, should not be allowed to dictate Israel's strategic security needs as part of peace negotiations. Doing business with a few extra European banks will be a hollow achievement if the West Bank is turned into another Gaza-style Iranian missile base. Don't let the boycott tail wag the security dog. Yet John Kerry is playing the boycott card to pressure Israel, running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 02, 2014 15 Comments
Japan and India don't necessarily have the warmest relationship with their neighbor, China. China hasn't exactly lessened tensions by enforcing a no-fly zone over Japanese islands. And its rapidly expanding military efforts haven't brought comfort to India's government, especially with a long history of border tensions. Since it has become apparent that the Obama Administration is unreliable in handling complex international policy dynamics, what can Japan and India do? Go the tradition route: Form a strategic regional alliance. China downplays Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's visit to India
China on Monday downplayed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to India as a bilateral issue, even as the state-media termed the trip as a failure for not succeeding in pinning down Beijing. "The visit you mentioned is an issue between India and Japan," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a media briefing while responding to a question on Abe's just-concluded visit to India. The visit evoked considerable media attention in view of the China-Japan diplomatic stand off over the disputed islands in East China Sea.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Construction Workers Uncover Century-Old Human Remains at U. Oklahoma

Socialist and Anti-Israel Groups Lead ‘No War on Iran’ Protest at Arizona State U

U. Idaho Prof Wins $10 Million Defamation Lawsuit After False Murder Accusations

Secret Service Seizes Retired Prof's Gun After He Expressed Wish to 'Shoot the President'

Anti-Israel Protesters Who Took Over Building at U. Washington Face Charges

Cal State Bakersfield Men’s Basketball Coach Allegedly Moonlighted as a Pimp

SEE MORE

Posted by New Neo on February 02, 2014 20 Comments
Remember Tom Perkins? The guy who wrote a letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal comparing the war on the 1% not to Kristallnacht, but to the beginnings of a pattern that could possibly lead to something like Kristallnacht further down the road? If you don't remember, here's a refresher on the relevant part of Perkins' letter:
From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent...This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?
Perkins' missive may just be "the most-read letter to the editor in the history of The Wall Street Journal." And now he's been forced to eat a little crow:
Amid the ongoing media furor and an ungallant rebuke from Kleiner Perkins, Mr. Perkins has apologized for the [Nazi era] comparison, without rebuking the larger argument.
It's no surprise that Perkins was made to walk back his Kristallnacht reference---a fact that doesn't take away from his point. Predictably, when a person invokes a Nazi comparison people scoff, and Perkins compounded his scoffability quotient by invoking the Nazi comparison while defending the very rich, who were already not everybody's favorite people for whom to feel sorry. Nevertheless, what Perkins said isn’t even really all that controversial.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on February 02, 2014 8 Comments
I can't remember a year when I've seen so many Super Bowl ads released online in advance of the big day. You've likely seen many of them by now - the car commercials, the Doritos ads, and we've of course seen the Cheerios and SodaStream ads in the midst of other stories. Some of the ads will air before the kickoff, some during, and there are many floating around that won't necessarily air during the game but are getting plenty of attention.  I thought for a change of pace I'd grab a few of the more heartwarming or inspiring ads for a post today, with links to some more complete lists at the end. The first, from Budweiser, is probably my favorite.  It also comes with this short documentary on how the ad came to be, and the campaign utilizes a hashtag - #salute.  Budweiser says, "It's also a thank you to all of our veterans and active duty troops."  As for the ad itself, its title sets it up for you: Budweiser Super Bowl XLVIII Commercial -- "A Hero's Welcome"

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 02, 2014 9 Comments
Throwing reporters in jail is worrisome, even if they are from Al-Jazeera.  Did they commit actual crimes, or is it simply an attempt to silence reporting? Egypt to put 20 journalists on trial on terrorism-related charges
Egypt said 20 Al-Jazeera journalists, including both Egyptians and foreigners, will face trial on terrorism-related charges. Among them are three journalists employed by Al-Jazeera English, the Qatari-based international news channel. Award-winning Australian correspondent Peter Greste, Canadian-Egyptian producer Mohammed Fadel Fahmy, and Egyptian producer Baher Mohammed were arrested on Dec. 29 in a raid on a Cairo hotel room, which the network was using as a temporary bureau. The Egyptian government alleges that 12 of the Al-Jazeera journalists remain at large, while eight are in state custody, including Greste, Fahmy and Baher. Authorities have not set a date for the trial or released the full list of the defendants' names. However, in a statement released by the General Prosecutor's office, the Egyptian defendants have been charged with “crimes of belonging to terrorist organizations violating the law, calling for disrupting the law and preventing state institutions from conducting their affairs, assault on personal liberties of citizens and damaging national unity and social peace.”
The report went on to say: Egypt has become among the most dangerous and difficult places to work for journalists. This cannot be news...especially to CBS reporter Lara Logan. Since the ouster of former President Mohammed Morsi, Field Marshal Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has become extremely popular among his countrymen for his aggressive handling of the Muslim Brotherhood. A video report from CCTV Africa offers some intriguing background:

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 02, 2014 18 Comments
Readers of Legal Insurrection will have noted our ongoing coverage of the Florida “loud music” trial, in which the defendant Michael Dunn is charged with 1st degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. The general narrative of events at the scene of the killing is that both men (Davis accompanied by three friends, Dunn by his fiancé) were fueling their cars at a local gas station. Davis’ vehicle was playing music at a sound unpleasant to Dunn—and indeed, forensics photos show a massive set of speakers mounted in the rear of Davis’ SUV—and he asked them to turn the music down. The youths declined, and an escalating and increasingly hostile verbal confrontation began. Here the prosecution and defense narratives differ. The State essentially argues that Dunn was so enraged by the music that he drew his licensed pistol and shot Davis and his friends, Davis mortally. The defense argues that Davis and his friends were making explicit deadly threats against him, and he only shot at them when he reasonably perceived what appeared to be a weapon. (No weapon was actually recovered from the vehicle, although this fact is of course not dispositive in a self-defense case, so long as Dunn’s perception of a weapon was reasonable even if mistaken). [caption id="attachment_77488" align="alignnone" width="450"]Michael Dunn on trial on charges of 1st Degree murder for the shooting death of Jordan Davis Michael Dunn on trial on charges of 1st Degree murder for the shooting death of Jordan Davis[/caption]

Presiding Judge Russell Healey Becomes Center of Focus for Media Coverage of Trial

Much of the news about the trial, however, has had little to do with either the State’s case against Dunn or Dunn’s defense against the charges. Instead, rather unusually, much of the last several week’s attention has focused primarily on the Judge overseeing the case, Judge Russell Healey. One might wonder, then, who is Russell Healey in terms of judicial background, experience, and temperament?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 02, 2014 7 Comments
We have reported about legislation making its way through both the NY State Assembly and Senate seeking to stop state funds being used by state higher educational institutions to support groups that engage in academic boycotts. The bills, though they have different language, are a reaction to the anti-Israel academic boycott passed by the American Studies Association. As I have stated before, I hope the legislature will review the language of the bills very carefully, since there certainly will be challenges. Not surprisingly, claims are being made that the legislation violates the academic freedom of the boycotters. It's the challenge free societies face, that those who seek to destroy what we hold precious get to invoke our laws to protect their destructive actions. So people who seek to destroy the academic freedom of everyone through academic boycotts based on national origin cry that their own academic freedom is violated when good people try to stop the destruction. Already a threat of a constitutional challenge was made in a January 30, 2014 letter to the legislature from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has a working group devoted to supporting the anti-Israel BDS movement. The letter is embedded at the bottom of this post. The gist of the letter is that this is an unlawful attempt to silence unpopular speech. The letter also misrepresents that the ASA boycott only targets institutions. That is false, as I described in my IRS challenge. ASA adopted the full scope of the BDS boycott, but issued non-binding guidelines that purport to scale it back. Even so, the boycott is directed at Israelis based on national origin, which already is unlawful under the NY State Human Rights law. Jewish Voice for Peace, a group which uses the title "Jewish" to give credibility to its anti-Israeli views, is a big supporter and organizer of the SodaStream boycott. JVP has issued an urgent call to try to stop the NY legislation:

Posted by Mandy Nagy on February 01, 2014 10 Comments

Last summer, we posted about the Guardian’s revelation that authorities with the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) weeks earlier had entered the outlet’s building and overseen the destruction of hard drives containing documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In a new video released Friday...

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 01, 2014 11 Comments
The ongoing drama in the Michael Dunn “loud music” murder trial over whether jailhouse phone recordings should be released to the media has taken yet another turn. Yesterday the 1st District Court of Appeals once again felt compelled to step in--now for the third time--to reverse the Healey’s Wednesday ruling tossing the matter to civil court, and to demand an emergency hearing of all parties. (I haven’t yet seen yesterday’s 1st DCA ruling, so I don’t know if it literally says, “Get in our courtroom, NOW!” but I wouldn’t be the least surprised.) In addition, they’ve ordered that Healey’s immediate superior, Chief Judge Donald Mora, appoint yet another judge to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the State’s estimated cost (~$6,300) for redaction of the recordings is reasonable, taking the matter out of Healey’s hands. (A kind interpretation of this last would be that they recognize Healey will be busy with jury selection for the start of the Dunn trial on Monday.) Some brief history of this discovery drama may provide useful context. Keep in mind, the existence of the phone recordings was known to all parties as long ago as October 2013, and the media has been demanding access to them since that time. [caption id="attachment_77430" align="alignnone" width="450"]Michael Dunn interviewed by police following "loud music" shooting of Jordan Davis Michael Dunn interviewed by police following "loud music" shooting of Jordan Davis[/caption] As we noted in our blog January 8 post on the case:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 01, 2014 21 Comments
She stood up to the BDS bullies. She likely will come under increasing attack and boycotts directed at her. She deserves our support. Someone started a Facebook support page called I support Scarlett Johannson against the haters.  It would be good to increase the number of "Likes" and for people to share the page. Brendan O'Neill at The Telegraph has a brilliant take on the situation, Three cheers for Scarlett Johansson's stand against the ugly, illiberal Boycott Israel movement:
Ever since she was signed up as the face of SodaStream, Ms Johansson has had a tsunami of flak from campaigners who think that buying Israeli stuff, working with Israeli academics or attending Israeli theatre performances is the very worst thing a human being could ever do. You know the kind: they stand outside Marks & Spencer’s on Oxford Street warning all whom enter that this evil shop sells blood-stained products (ie, stuff made in Israel), and they screech and wail, these philistines for Palestine, when an Israeli violinist starts playing at the Proms. I mean, can you imagine it – a musician from Israel inside the Royal Albert Hall? *Shudder*. .... And then, brilliantly, totally stealing Oxfam’s puffed-up thunder, Ms Johansson’s people issued a statement saying: “Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years.” Sassy Actress 1, Self-Important Moaners About Israel 0....

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 31, 2014 10 Comments
NY-23, my home district, is a focus for both parties for 2014 because it is one of only a few competitive districts. The district is geographically enormous, a mostly rural area running along the Southern Tier of upstate New York. Once you leave Ithaca, it's a whole other country. Which is why incumbent Republican Tom Reed should be okay by a few percentage points. 2nd Amendment rights, and opposition to the NY SAFE Act, are big issues. Tompkins County, which includes Ithaca, is the exception. Tompkins County is one of only two upstate counties which has not passed a Resolution opposing the SAFE Act. County Opposition to SAFE Act ao January 2014 Guess who was the Democratic Chair of the Tompkins County legislature: Martha Robertson, the Emily's List-backed challenger to Reed. The SAFE Act is in play in the race because of Robertson's confusing voting record, where she appears to have both voted for and against the SAFE Act. WETM 18 reports:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH