August 19, 2008
Cape Alava 2008
Just got back from another backpacking trip to Cape Alava. As always, it was perfect, even when it rained. The trip in was uneventful, a three mile march with heavy pack, and we settled in with friends at the perfect campsite: two rope swings, and miles and miles of beach for exploring. 
The kids (and the adults) spent hours searching for 'treasures.' The beach glass is plentiful, and once collected, becomes a sort of currency, with everyone trading red for blue, blue for turquoise, etc. Evan and his friend Alex, both budding zoologists, were in search of seal, otter, deer, and bird carcasses. Evan found a full otter skeleton, and both found plenty of seal bones, some with the fur and sinew still clinging to the bones. But the prize of the week was in the whales. Two gray whales had washed up on the beach, one about a half mile from the campsite and the second about a mile further. The skin on the first had bloated, stretched, and was now starting to disintegrate. It was on the rocks, and by climbing upwind, you could get upwind and avoid the putrid smell. It made for an interesting photo. 
The second one was still in the water- it was not pretty. Some of its vertebrea had separated from the spine and were rolling on the beach in the surf. I pulled one out for a closer look and my hands smelled for a long time after.
With both whales, the baleen was separated from the rest of the carcass and was in a perfect place to touch. It was rubbery. Carlyn kept telling the boys not to touch it, but I kept 'overruling.' 'How many times in your life do you ever get to feel what baleen feels like' I kept asking.
The petroglyphs at wedding rocks are another draw at the cape. I like the orcas myself. 
But the real draw is the time with family,
sitting by a campfire,
drinking a glass of wine,
no phone,
no television,
no internet,
no contact with the outside world,
and watching the sun slowly set. 
Posted by r.johnson at 4:39 PM | Comments (0)
August 7, 2008
Hamdan Convicted
I am taking a break from my self imposed sabbatical (read: too busy to blog lately) to briefly comment on the conviction of Salim Hamdan. Hamdan was charged with multiple "war crimes" and acquitted of the more serious ones. Today, the military panel sentenced him to 5 1/2 years.
No real time to comment, but consider:
Hamdan was 'given credit for time served.' Sort of. He was captured in Pakistan in 2001. Lets see, its now 2008, so he has spent the last 6 plus years in prison, only to be sentenced to a 5 1/2 year term, but he is 'not eligible for parole' for another five months?
And has he really been sentenced to 51/2 years, when the government still maintains it has the right to detain him indefinitely? Is this sentence just for show?
And how about the 'crimes' he was convicted of? As Balkinization notes, Hamdans actions did not constitute a 'crime' until Congress amended the 'so called patriot act' in 2004. Hmmm. Can you say legal challenge?
Posted by r.johnson at 1:47 PM | Comments (0)
July 11, 2008
Democrats: Who Needs Them.
The new FISA act is now signed into law, with democrats crumbling under pressure from a lame duck administration, worried that they will be portrayed as soft on terror if they did not capitulate to the wishes of an authoritarian regime. Newsflash: republicans will criticize you whatever you do, so maybe you should worry less about how republicans will paint you and more about what is right and wrong. Some people will never learn.
Amidst it all, Jack Balkin made an excellent point for those who mistakenly believe that 'things will be different' when a democrat is elected president.
But the larger point is that both major political parties are committed to the build up of surveillance programs and technologies for purposes of security and the delivery of government services. We are going to get some form of National Surveillance State. The only question is what kind of state we will get. As of right now, it looks like we will get one that is far less protective of civil liberties than we could have gotten. Some of the new features of the surveillance bill have sunset provisions, and others may be altered through amendment if and when the Democrats take the White House. Still the fact that Barack Obama ended up supporting this bill is not particularly good news.What was it Montesquieu said about 'when democracies break down'? Now I remember. It leads to despotic governments.
Posted by r.johnson at 2:32 PM | Comments (0)
June 25, 2008
Convergence Zone
As any constitutional lawyer knows, there are several legal 'doctrines' that the courts have used in years past to avoid making a decision on a controversial case involving the various branches of government. In some circumstances, the courts will say that they should not interfere with a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch of government, labeling the matter a 'political question.' The case then is never decided upon the merits, in the legal arena, with both branches of government left wrestling over how to resolve the conflict.
The dispute over Harriet Miers' and Joshua Bolton's violation of a subpoena to appear before Congress and answer questions is shaping up to be a case where the doctrine will again be used. You may recall that Congress subpoenaed Miers and Bolton to answer questions about the White House role in dismissing members of the DOJ (US attorneys) in 2006. Bush has claimed that the two aides are shielded from testifying by his edict of executive privilege. In response, Congress sued to enforce the subpoenas. The US District Judge hearing the case has squirmed in his seat, commenting in such a way that leads me to believe that he may take the easy way out and claim the case presents a political question.
Then again, I would not be surprised if this case ends up being decided on the merits. Don't get me wrong, this case screams for an application of the doctrine, and under certain circumstances, I have every reason to believe that it would be invoked, but at the present time, I am not sure that it can be without severely damaging the judicial branch of government, or conservative judicial philosophy. Here's why.
The case is being heard at the very time that the DOJ is under fire for violating the law on its hiring practices. Hiring and firing was based on political reasons. The DOJ. The same DOJ who, in this case, is accused of firing US attorneys for political reasons. The political environment is not favorable for dismissing this claim right now.
Think back to that time in your early education, and recall the 'noble theory' of having three branches of government: Congress makes the laws; the Judiciary interprets the laws; and the Executive Branch enforces the laws. The order of the description may change but what happens when the Executive Branch does not enforce the law, but breaks it instead? That question is what gave rise to the special prosecutor statutes. Here, the stated justification for the subpoena is not to investigate 'law breaking activities', which is one reason I see this as being labeled a political question, but to find out what happened. Regardless, I do not think the Courts would let the Executive Branch off if this is perceived as an investigation into a possible violation of law.
Balancing all of this is the conservative 'battle cry' for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Judge John Bates, who is hearing this case, is a Bush appointee, and while I know nothing of Judge Bates' views on Constitutional interpretation, I am guessing he is on the conservative side. Hmmm, wonder where he will find a legal foundation for the political question doctrine if he uses it, because it sure isn't in the Constitution or in any statute.
All of this suggests a very interesting convergence of ideologies, and a very amusing story to keep an eye on.
Posted by r.johnson at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)
Backbone
Finally, someone in the democratic party steps up and shows some backbone. Senators Feingold and Dodd are planning on filibustering the domestic spy law.
Posted by r.johnson at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2008
Roll Down Like Waters
Are you kidding me? A US State Department Official testified at the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights' hearing on torture and said that over 100 prisoners have been killed in US custody, with at least 25 of those deaths classified as murders?
Not to make this sound passé, but the sad truth is that this information has been known for some time, as it dates back to 2001. I wrote about it just over 3 years ago.
The Old Testament speaks of a time when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. I look forward to that day.
Posted by r.johnson at 2:04 PM | Comments (1)
Nader is Right
Proof positive that democrats are no different than republicans, especially when it comes to protecting civil liberties trampling on civil liberties and holding those accountable for illegal searches authorizing warrantless spying on US citizens.
Posted by r.johnson at 1:08 PM | Comments (0)
