Extraordinary Rendition–Convictions

It’s been awhile since extraordinary rendition has been in the news, but the Italians have done something that is both unexpected and not surprising.  It’s unexpected because it isn’t often that CIA agents are convicted of anything anywhere, and it’s not surprising because they were tried in absentia.

The convictions involve 23 CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped a very influential Italian Imam–Abu Omar–off the streets of Milan, and then sneaked him off somewhere, where he was then allegedly tortured.  The Italians have, from time to time, thought of having the agents extradited from the United States, but nothing ever came of that (mainly because the Secretary of State would never authorize the extradition, and it would cause diplomatic friction, so Italian authorities never pursued the matter).  In lieu of that, then, the Italians opted to try the agents in absentia and now they have been convicted.  (Link)  It really doesn’t mean a whole lot from a practical perspective other than that the agents are pretty much barred from going to Europe now.

“Politically Charged” iPhone App Denied?

It appears, according to the App’s developer, that the App known as “iSinglePayer” has been denied by Apple for being “politically charged.  (Lambdajive via Daring Fireball via Engadget)  I’m not sure what to make of it, as the purported developer (I think it’s Floatopia?) has a website, floatopia.org, and the App doesn’t show up there.  But whatever, the story goes like this: iSinglePayer purports to show Americans what we pay in health costs versus other countries, and provides a location-aware Congressional contact mechanism.  And that appears to be just about it.

LRADs in Pittsburgh

Looking at Gizmodo yesterday, I saw that the LRAD (Long Range Acoustical Device) was deployed on the protesters of the G-20 summit.  Most of the news reports say that it’s the first time the device has been deployed against US civilians (it’s been used against the Somali pirates and elsewhere).  I could have sworn they were actually used in New York during the 2004 RNC, but I could be mistaken.  No matter, it’s been used, and it’s making headlines.

The LRAD–like tasers, various chemicals, and directed energy weapons–are supposedly nonlethal.  But–like tasers, various chemicals, and directed energy weapons–nonlethal weapons can often end up killing civilians.  (See this Alternet article on tasers, and this NY Times article on the Russian use of fentayl), though I suppose that the LRAD–which can incite nausea, disrupted vision, and hearing damage–is the least lethal of these so-called nonlethal weapons.

The military acknowledges that nonlethal doesn’t actually mean nonlethal.  In a 2003 MTTP for the tactical employment of nonlethal weapons, the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate notes:

The term “nonlethal” does not mean zero mortality or nonpermanent damage; these are goals and not guarantees of these weapons. NLW can add flexibility to combat operations and enhance force protection by providing an environment in which friendly troops can engage threatening targets with reduced risk of noncombatant casualties and collateral damage.

According to a report cited in an article by the Federation of American Scientists, a non-lethal chemical weapon is one that incapacitates 98% of the target population while causing fewer than 0.5% fatalities.  Klotz, Lynn et al., Beware the Siren’s Song: Why Non-Lethal Incapacitating Chemical Agents are Lethal, March 2003 at 6, citing Kenny, J. M., The human effects of non-lethal weapons. Human Effects Advisory Panel presentation to to the  committee for an Assessment of of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology, April 30, 2001. Viewgraphs. ONR-NLW.239. National Academy of Sciences.

Sen. Franken and the Fourth Amendment

The Washington Independent is reporting that Senator Al Franken read the text of the Fourth Amendment to Assistant Attorney General (National Security Division) David Kris.   Apparently, at some point of the proceedings, Mr. Kris muttered that the line of questioning was “surreal.”

Seeing is Believing

Last week’s revelations that the “President’s Surveillance Program” was–no surprise–a whole hell of a lot larger than anyone admitted (AP via ABCNews) have stoked a little flame under Congressional Democrats, and even under Attorney General Eric Holder:

A senior Justice Department official close to Holder stressed anew yesterday that the attorney general had reluctantly come to lean toward naming a criminal prosecutor from inside the department, after months of reading classified material including a still-secret 2004 CIA inspector general report.  (Washington Post)

And, as noted, it appears the Dems want to get in on the party.

Ms. Feinstein, a Democrat of California, said on “Fox News Sunday” that Mr. Panetta had told senators last month about Mr. Cheney ordering that the program not be disclosed to Congress.

If Congress were kept in the dark, she said on Fox News Sunday, “that’s something that should never, ever happen again.”

Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, said that “absolutely” warranted an investigation.

“The executive branch cannot create programs like this one and keep Congress in the dark,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “To give the president unbridled authority goes way beyond the United States Constitution.” (New York Times)

But, like most things involving the amazingly Teflon-coated Bush, anything approaching an investigation resulting in anything that might be beneficial to the country will have to be seen to be believed.

Spoonerisms

I suppose this isn’t a true spoonerism, such as thinking that Jimi Hendrix was saying “’scuze me while I kiss this guy,” rather than saying “’scuze me while I kiss the sky,” but I found this headline somewhat amusing:

“Swearing Makes Pain More Tolerable.”

I initially thought it said “Swearing Makes Palin More Tolerable.”  And I thought, you know, that’s actually kinda true.

But then I read the article and discovered I was wrong about what was being said, though, in truth, it’s an interesting read nonetheless.

Changing Antitrust Landscape

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division has signaled a change in how the federal government will be looking at anticompetitive behavior.  According to a press release issued today, “the Department is withdrawing, effective immediately, a report relating to monopolization offenses under the antitrust laws that was issued in September 2008. As of today, the Section 2 report will no longer be Department of Justice policy. Consumers, businesses, courts and antitrust practitioners should not rely on it as Department of Justice antitrust enforcement policy.”

Behind this shift in policy appears to be recognition that “recent developments in the marketplace should make it clear that we can no longer rely upon the marketplace alone to ensure that competition and consumers will be protected.”  

The New York Times has a little more information about the shift, including Assistant Attorney General Varney’s speech.  We are apparently about to see the return of late-90s enforcement policies, which led to suits against Intel and Microsoft.  Additionally, Google may be under the microscope, though Bloomberg states that Ms. Varney has declined to name the tech behemoth individually; speculation has been rampant as of late, however.  (See Ars Technica, TechCrunch, and others…)

Norman Hsu Pleads Guilty

Remember Norman Hsu?  His name was everywhere during the early portions of the Democratic primary season, primarily because he helped Hillary Clinton get beaucoup bucks.  (Obama, Biden, and Bill Richardson also received funds from Mr. Hsu.)  Once he got indicted, though, and after all the candidates had distanced themselves as much as possible, he largely disappeared from mainstream view.

Today, he’s back in the spotlight as, according to Bloomberg and others, he pleaded guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud in the Southern District of New York.  When he was indicted in 2007, he was charged with six counts each of mail and wire fraud, and three counts of campaign finance fraud.  What isn’t immediately clear is what will happen with the remaining counts.

Update:  Okay, there is an updated Bloomberg article now.  Looks like there was no plea deal, which is unsurprising as it would be rather surprising given that Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty to ten counts.  Also, it looks like he will continue to trial on the campaign finance fraud charges.