Learn from the mistakes of others

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...

the truth is definitely out there. in every sense of the words 'out' and 'there'.

the us doj, in answer to questions from both sides of politics on the house judiciary committee (something like our house of reps standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs) regarding the legality of the nsa's warrantless wiretapping responded "of course they're legal. even if they breach client legal privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, they're legal and it's all admissible in court. coz we said so. oh, and we don;t have to answer any more of your questions, coz of national security. nyah!"

meanwhile, a us federal magistrate told the bush administration that it cannot stop lawyers from seeing their clients at guantanamo bay. the us executive have been playing the same kind of games our government plays with it's own (immigration) detainees. but hey, they're being detained legitimately, right, so why should they be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detention? *facepalm*

justice scalia, meanwhile, had made his bias against guantanamo detainees pretty clear in a recent speech at a university in switzerland. i wonder if he'll excuse himself from hearing a relevant case this time ...

[JURIST] The Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] Friday proposed new rules [draft text, PDF] that would require federal political candidates to pay for internet advertisements out of funds regulated by federal campaign laws, but would otherwise leave most online political activity free from government regulation. Recently, a federal appeals court ordered [opinion text, PDF] the six-member FEC to create regulations that extend campaign finance and spending limits regulations online, saying that the previous definition of “public communication” impermissibly excluded all internet communications. The new definition includes only advertising on another person’s website. The FEC stated that the rules:

are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections.

AP has more.

[JURIST] The Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] Friday proposed new rules [draft text, PDF] that would require federal political candidates to pay for internet advertisements out of funds regulated by federal campaign laws, but would otherwise leave most online political activity free from government regulation. Recently, a federal appeals court ordered [opinion text, PDF] the six-member FEC to create regulations that extend campaign finance and spending limits regulations online, saying that the previous definition of “public communication” impermissibly excluded all internet communications. The new definition includes only advertising on another person’s website. The FEC stated that the rules:

are intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections.

AP has more.

[JURIST] The last meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights [official website] took place in Geneva Monday, as its replacement prepares to hold its first session on June 19. The UN Human Rights Council [JURIST news archive; UN backgrounder] was brought into being by a General Assembly resolution [text] earlier this month after five months of negotiations following the UN World Summit. The Commission, created in 1946, had been sharply criticized for allowing countries with continued human rights violations to win seats and protect each other from inquiries.

While originally inspired by the United States, the new Council faced objections [JURIST report] from the United States [official statement], Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau for not taking enough measures to prevent abusive countries from becoming members. US Ambassador Kevin Moley told the Associated Press, "The good news is that the commission is over. The bad news is that what replaces it isn't much better." The US has not announced whether it will seek election to the council.

AP has more.

unless and until everyone recognises that the club isn't really going to criticise itself too much, everyone is going to feel dissatisfied with any human rights body the club creates. especially when the club creates a body that it (a) refuses to fund properly, preventing it from actually doing much, and (b) refuses to give sufficient powers to, so it cannot do much unless 'invited' to intervene.

also, one wonders where the usa gets off whinging about the 'ineffectiveness' of any body that it proposes on the one hand, then objects too when it is formed. leads to suspicions of sensitivities to the possibility that the body might say things the usa does not like to hear ...

[also, are not the marshall islands a protectorate of the usa, or have i missed something?]

[JURIST] The last meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights [official website] took place in Geneva Monday, as its replacement prepares to hold its first session on June 19. The UN Human Rights Council [JURIST news archive; UN backgrounder] was brought into being by a General Assembly resolution [text] earlier this month after five months of negotiations following the UN World Summit. The Commission, created in 1946, had been sharply criticized for allowing countries with continued human rights violations to win seats and protect each other from inquiries.

While originally inspired by the United States, the new Council faced objections [JURIST report] from the United States [official statement], Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau for not taking enough measures to prevent abusive countries from becoming members. US Ambassador Kevin Moley told the Associated Press, "The good news is that the commission is over. The bad news is that what replaces it isn't much better." The US has not announced whether it will seek election to the council.

AP has more.

unless and until everyone recognises that the club isn't really going to criticise itself too much, everyone is going to feel dissatisfied with any human rights body the club creates. especially when the club creates a body that it (a) refuses to fund properly, preventing it from actually doing much, and (b) refuses to give sufficient powers to, so it cannot do much unless 'invited' to intervene.

also, one wonders where the usa gets off whinging about the 'ineffectiveness' of any body that it proposes on the one hand, then objects too when it is formed. leads to suspicions of sensitivities to the possibility that the body might say things the usa does not like to hear ...

[also, are not the marshall islands a protectorate of the usa, or have i missed something?]

Today you might have an expense that relates to your children, Steven. They could need some new clothes, a computer, or other items. As a parent, you are very protective of your children. Just don't indulge them too much! You don't want to spoil them. If you don't have kids now, look around for a loved one who is in need. You might want to step in and buy groceries for someone. Don't be afraid to assist.

Today you might have an expense that relates to your children, Steven. They could need some new clothes, a computer, or other items. As a parent, you are very protective of your children. Just don't indulge them too much! You don't want to spoil them. If you don't have kids now, look around for a loved one who is in need. You might want to step in and buy groceries for someone. Don't be afraid to assist.