Does telecom immunity make any sense at all?

Bush's latest comedic foray into "working with Congress" involves yet another tired stab at the do-it-my-way-or-piss-off approach. The only way to preserve the security of the United States of America, to secure our borders and protect us from terror (pronounced terr-uh), Bush believes, is to confer retroactive immunity for big telecommunications corporations that conspired with the gov't to illegally tap our phones and eavesdrop on law abiding Americans. Put another way, we are so vulnerable as a nation, that American citizens who have been the victims of criminal activity by big telecoms should not be entitled to hold these corporations accountable for violating the law. Nor should they be entitled to hold them accountable for conspiring with our own federal gov't (i.e. by the people, for the people, and of the people) for violating the constitutionally protected privacy rights that you and I are supposed to be entitled to have, to hold, and to enforce. Perhaps I'm just being a bit persnickety. I have some vague recollection of my country going to war to protect our way of life and spread democracy and freedom across the globe. You know, the way of life that involves us having certain inalienable rights such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Like for example, by requiring law enforcement officials to get a warrant before eavesdropping, just as the law demands. Like also, for example, by requiring the gov't to actually obey and respect the rule of law -- the law of the land. Then again, maybe it's just me nitpicking. Compliance with the law is optional, right? I'll bet Scooter Libby thinks so. Ask yourself, if these companies didn't break any laws, then why would they need immunity? Immunity from what -- obeying the law? If they didn't break any law, what could they conceivably be held liable for? Does anyone really think that our notoriously business-friendly U.S. Supreme Court would permit a corporation to be held liable for NOT breaking the law? Does that make any sense to you? The answer is obvious. The only reason to grant immunity is if Bush knows for a fact that these telecommunications corporations broke the law, and he wants them to get away with it. He wants to eliminate the negative consequences other corporate criminals are burdened with when they get caught. This way, next time he asks these corporations to break the law for him, they'll be perfectly willing to do it again.

Kwame, Kwame, Kwame (while shaking head)

A kind reader asked for my take on the City of Detroit's appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court concerning Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's attempt to keep secret certain whistleblower lawsuit documents (which was settled at enormous expense to taxpayers). I was going to keep my big mouth shut on this, if for no other reason that I know some of the players involved, and I do not wish to offend. But, since you asked, and since these are all big boys and girls who made these decisions with their eyes wide open (while no doubt billing a pretty penny), I'll go ahead and throw my opinion into the mix. Though I am frequently skeptical of what I read in the paper and see on the evening news (having been misquoted myself more times than I care to count), it appears that there are two main reasons Mayor Kilpatrick and his legal team cite in favor of keeping some documents secret. One is because some contain private information. The other is to "maintain the sanctity of the mediation process." Before I pick these apart, I should mention that there are a gazillion reasons for legitimately wanting to keep documents used in litigation secret. They can contain medical information, allegations that are entirely unproven, trade secrets or intellectual property. There are good reasons to keep some secrets. That said, I can't think of a single legitimate reason to keep whatever documents are involved in this case a secret. The first reason, i.e. to protect private information, is total and complete bullshit. Personal information can be redacted. You make a copy of the record, get out the trusty black Sharpie permanent marker, and redact away. Once the redacting is done, you make another copy of the redacted document so none of the text shows through. It's easy, it's cheap, and it's done all the time by private litigants, public litigants, and by the government in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Click here to see what a top secret CIA document looks like when it is redacted for de-classification and release to the public. The release of redacted documents proves that the document(s) existed, that they are what you say they are, and usually establishes that the reason for redaction is to protect private information or legitimate secrets. Things like social security numbers, home addresses, cell phone numbers, private medical information, etc. can all be appropriately blacked out, and the document can still be produced. Anybody interested in transparency in government can do this. It isn't hard, and it's done all the time. The second reason, to "protect the sanctity of the mediation process" is also total and complete bullshit. Being in a business where my cases are filed in court and consequently are matters of public record (like the whistleblower case against Detroit), I can guarantee you that we never, ever put important, secret information in briefs or other pleadings and then hand them out to our opponents, third parties (like mediators or other participants in alternative dispute resolution) or file them with courts. We know that if we do so, they are not likely to remain secret, if for no other reason that humans are fallible and can inadvertently disclose things they don't mean to. It's that simple. If secret information absolutely has to be disclosed in written form, then it is usually done pursuant to a protective order stipulated to by the parties and agreed to by the court, wherein the parties maintain control of the documents. The reason an order is entered is that everyone knows its provisions and can rely on its provisions, such as returning the documents once they have been used for the purposes intended, or destroying them. I have seen no indication or suggestion that there was a duly entered protective order in this case. The only reason I can come up with to justify failing to agree to such an order is to conceal their contents from the court, from the Detroit City Council (which is now trying to get them, too), or from the public. Concealment from the court is not, in my view, a legitimate undertaking, and those who attempt it, do so at their peril. Kind of like in this case. The Detroit Free Press reported a Mayor's legal representative as saying: "This is a decision standing on a legal principal, not a political decision," city Law Department director John E. Johnson Jr. said in a statement. "We have a duty to protect the rights of all the people of Detroit who may at some point be involved in mediation" -- the confidential process of trying to settle a case before trial. "If the current decision is allowed to stand, the confidentiality protections that are critical to the mediation process will be eliminated," Johnson added. "That, in turn will make it much more difficult to resolve lawsuits, since the personal information of all people involved in litigation will be subject to disclosure in the general public." Make no mistake. This isn't about the rights of Detroiters who may at some point have to sue the City of Detroit. This is about concealing documents damaging to a mayor who appears to have settled a case with taxpayer money to prevent a political disaster, potential removal from office and possibly jail. I must admit, however, that I can't blame him for trying. Last time somebody with a similar name (Kirkpatrick) tried to keep a big secret around here, the Michigan Supreme Court let him. Maybe they will let Mayor Kilpatrick keep whatever is left of his. By the way, one of the guys who let Kirkpatrick keep his secret back in 2006, Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, is up for re-election later this year. Feel free to vote for someone else -- we will all be better served if you do. What it boils down to, in my estimation, is the considerable difference between private litigants invoking their right to access our courts to resolve a dispute involving legitimate secrets vs. an attempt by a public official to conceal sexual misconduct with a subordinate and possibly perjury at public expense. While the former is entitled to keep some secrets out of the public domain, with the court's permission, the latter is duty bound to operate transparently and comply with FOIA. To attempt to conceal documents at this point under the auspices of a duty to the public is little more than a perverse abuse of power and, in my view, a fraud. UPDATE: The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the documents are public and subject to FOIA. Barring the unforeseen, they may be released today (2/27/08).

Ypsi American Legion Hall destroyed in fire

I awoke today to a sad, Monday morning shocker: Ypsi's own American Legion Hall on Huron Street burned last night. Here's a pic of the former hall from its website: It appears that the cause is currently unknown. Thankfully, nobody was injured. The Ann Arbor News has coverage, with some pictures of the unfortunate fire.

Romney: The terrorists made me do it

Did you catch why Mitt Romney said he bowed out of the race? It wasn't because he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It wasn't because he didn't want to continue to spend his money on his campaign. It wasn't because his family asked him to stop. It wasn't because there was some secret bombshell about his past that was about to be released. And it wasn't because he was anti-endorsed by for flip-flopping all over the place, including by newspapers nary a stone's throw from where he was governor. It was because the terrorists made him do it: If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. What the heck kind of irrational justification is that? It would seem that if the terrorists overseas are making a wealthy former governor of Massachusetts bow out the race, then control over the GOP's destiny has already been handed over to them. I can just hear the slogan now: "Vote McCain -- the terrorists didn't make him quit." And, out of curiosity, does this mean that Huckabee is "aiding a surrender to terror" by staying in the race? I, for one, look forward to witnessing millions of Americans exercise control over which of the two Democratic candidates should become the next President of the United States.

Small gov't Republicans use big gov't bureaucracy against LEGAL aliens

The party of small government is using its own big government bureaucracy to discriminate against non-citizen legal residents of Michigan. In a suprise move by one of our top bureaucrats, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, has issued a moratorium on approving drivers' licenses for LEGAL resident aliens who do not have permanent residency status. Her lame excuse is her own half-baked interpretation of a formal AG opinion by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a fellow Republican, which she says prohibits her from issuing drivers' licenses to all non-citizens who do not have permanent residency, even if they are here legally, and even if they can prove it. Cox, on the other hand, says Land is stretching his opinion, and that's not what he meant. Who is this dispute hurting? It's hurting Michigan's business community, which has been trying to compete against businesses in other states and abroad. Some Michigan businesses have set up programs to employ highly skilled workers from outside the country who do not intend to permanently relocate here. To thank them for their effort, now that they are here, SOS Land wants them to feel free to walk or ride their bikes everywhere they need to be, unless of course they had the foresight to get an International Drivers' License (which Michigan is required to honor) before they came here. And for those that have one, goodness help them if it expires. It's also hurting Iraq war refugees who are here on refugee visas with no expiration date. Since their visas don't expire, they are technically here as long as they need to be (like maybe permanently?), yet they cannot qualify. For refugees, this state action is all the more daunting, as Land has been quoted saying she won't accept foreign birth certificates, only passports. So if the refugee didn't have time to obtain official, proper documentation from the government he/she was fleeing, or if the particular refugee didn't have the foresight to get a passport in anticipation of becoming a refugee ('cause that's how it normally works, right?), they are out of luck. And, lest it be left unsaid, having successfully fled the tyranny of their home country, no doubt our elected officials feel that they should be grateful we give them a road to walk upon and the prospect of a job to walk to. It's also of course hurting exchange students who have come here to pay money into our economy for the purpose of learning for a semester or two. And what are we teaching them? That Michigan's elected leaders are bigots, and that we don't really want them here -- a fine message for them to take back to their home country to share with their fellow countrymen. It's also wasting the time of our elected officials, who now have to spend it fixing something that wasn't really broken in the first place. While they do this, working on the economy and tax reform and all the other things we need done will have to wait. Land, who is speculated to be interested in running for Governor Granholm's job in a couple of years (as is Cox), even had the nerve to promote herself on her website by stating: "Secretary Land promotes border, document security." Too bad her misguided efforts do neither, instead treating those here legally as second rate visitors subject to a punitive bureaucracy instead of treating them like the guests they really are.

Who needs Wireless Washtenaw . . . .

. . . .when we have our own hometown, mad scientists working to make Ypsi wireless with state-of-the-art technology, free of charge to the public? If this doesn't prove that Ypsi, with the proper effort, coordination and management, can blaze many trails, I don't know what would. More on the project from the Ypsilanti Courier here. UPDATE: The A2 News is covering this, too. Special thanks to Amy for the tip.