Wired News is running a piece this week pointing out what most web folks have been irritated by for years: New York Times article links expire, which makes them particularly inappropriate for web usage. We here at Heathen actively try not to link to NYT stories, since we know that in a few weeks, (a) the link will expire and (b) motivated searchers will discover that online access to that same article will cost them $3, or 300% of the cost of the daily edition.

This curious policy — charge for archives, give away the daily news for free, and above all have the links break — means that folks looking for information on current events via Google will find virtually no reference to the Times. The Wired piece considers what this means for the “paper of record” — and how they got to this odd position.

They’re refusing to mount a billboard in Times Square purchased by an antiwar group. While a variant of the original design (at right) with a dove instead of the bomb is still being evaluated, CC stated:

[…] the decision to reject the ad was made independently by the Spectacolor division. But he said the company generally does not run copy that would be unsuitable for children or cause them to ask difficult questions, nor does it run political attacks that could be considered “personally offensive. SFGate.com coverage

Yeah, we gotta avoid those hard questions. I mean, that could lead to THOUGHT and ANALYSIS, and that’s only for people who hate freedom, right?

Via jwz.

Ian Spiers went to take pictures of a local landmark as part of his photography class. The cops decided he was up to no good despite the fact that countless others at the location were also taking pictures.

Law enforcement must not be allowed to continue to coopt 9/11 as an excuse to harrass people they don’t like, or that don’t look like them. They work for us. Their job is to keep us safe, not bully student photographers.

According to the LA Times, the Pentagon now plans to hold some detainees in secret to prevent them from being subject to legal scrutiny under the recent SCOTUS rulings.

We’re pretty sure that’s just plain evil.

Lawgeek discusses a recent preliminary injunction granted to a tape drive manufacturer seeking to use the controversial anti-cirumvention provisions to prevent repair services from working on legally sold drives for legitimate customers. If this ruling stands, it could be illegal in the future to have your car serviced by anyone other than the dealer, for example. Does this sound right to you?

In other copyright news, the INDUCE act — which makes the DMCA look almost benign — is creating quite a storm of protest. Hatch’s law would render illegal any device or technology that “induces” copyright violation, meaning that, essentially, copyright holders would have a say in what technology would be legal. The INDUCE act could be used to attack, among other things, VCRs, iPods, and even general-purpose computing equipment. I think we know by now not to trust anyone who says “well, sure, it COULD do that, but trust us, we won’t use it that way.” Right. Read more.

The Pentagon announced this week that it “accidentally” destroyed the exact records of GWB’s military service that would have proved he was never AWOL. What, exactly, are the odds? I mean, we’re sure he’s innocent, but now he has to live with the stigma of guilt because of this ever-so-unfortunate turn of events.

Yeah, right. Kos has more to say on the subject, and pretty much nails it. Ask a lawyer what destroying evidence means in criminal procedings, too; if we follow those rules, we should assume not that the records were exculpatory, but that they were as damning as possible.

Then again, it’s also simpler to believe the world is flat. The Guardian covers the career and influence of Laurie Mylroie, someone best described as “nutbird Saddam conspiracy theorist.” Mylroie believes, among other things, that Saddam was behind every major act of terrorism against the US in the last 10 years, including the Oklahoma City bombing; she’s also sure they pulled of TWA 800 despite the NTSB’s findings that its tragic end was accidental.

Notwithstanding all this, she was nevertheless hired as a terrorism consultant by the Pentagon; Richard Perle thinks she’s fabulous, natch, and Wolfowitz apparently drank the Kool-Aid as well. Of course, that these guys were already looking for a reason to invade Iraq just made the path easier.

Starting with a theory and then working to publicize only the evidence that supports it isn’t exactly a quest for truth; it reminds us a bit of this piece on distinguishing pseudoscience from the real deal.

The House, which had momentarily grown a pair as opponents of the PATRIOT Act — from both parties — sought to curb portions of the far-reaching “anti-terror” law, has backed down in the face of a veto threat. The Feds will remain free to peruse our reading habits. Oh joy.

Critics of the Patriot Act argued that without it, investigators can still obtain book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants. Those traditional investigative tools are harder to get from grand juries or courts than the orders issued under the Patriot Act, which do not require authorities to show probable cause. [Emph. added.]

Once a government GETS powers, they are generally loathe to give them up. Those who give up liberty in the pursuit of security would do well to realize that, and that (furthermore) this kind of “safety” actually puts us in MORE danger from an overpowerful government. Bruce says so, and he knows what he’s talking about.

We’re trying very hard not to consider pronouncements like this simple scaremongering in an effort to pump up the incumbent. I mean, how much more vague can you get?

Congress overturns Bush’s new Cuba restrictions.

Check out what NEC wants to do with their batteries. If they have their way, it’ll be illegal to bypass their “protection” and make batteries compatible with NEC devices, allowing NEC to charge whatever they want with no fear of competitive pressure. Look for the same thing to happen with any consumable, like ink cartridges (where this stuff is already happening), toner cartridges, and even garage door openers (though there’s been some case law there already).

The one that cost half again more than Congress was told? The one where an actuary knew this, but said he’d been threatened with dismissal if he told Congress the real figure?

An internal HHS investigation confirmed that the top Medicare guy, Thomas A. Scully, did indeed threaten to fire the chief actuary if he told the truth. Scully has since resigned to take a job as a — wait for it — lobbyist for drug companies (who will benefit from the law, natch). This is good for Scully, since the investigation found that if he were still a Federal employee, he might be subject to sanction; as is, he broke no laws, so he’ll suffer no consequences. (NYT link; use nogators/nogators)

Norwegian couple has sex on stage during a concert by — and we are not making this up — a band called The Cumshots.

Ellingsen, age 28, and Leona Johansson, age 21, are members of the environmental organization “Fuck for Forest.” They have sex in public in order to put focus on the rainforest.

We got yer rain forest right here. Heh heh. Heh heh. GG Allin would be proud, we’re sure.

There’s something a little fishy about the news coverage of Saddam’s hearing. Press corps? What press corps?

Over at Balkinization, there’s a lovely summary of the recent jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas:

Putting together Justice Thomas’ opinion in Hamdi with his vote in ACLU v. Ashcroft, we may infer that the President can throw any citizen in a military prison indefinitely, but that the citizen has the right to view pornography while there.

Heh.

A judge has ruled that the state must release the list to the media; it’s a cinch the state will appeal, however, this is a step in the right direction. What possible reason is there to keep the list secret?

On Monday, the Supremes ruled that not only did Yaser Hamdi — an American captured in Afghanistan — have most of the rights afforded accused criminals, but that the Gitmo detainees must also be afforded the opportunity to challenge their status. (The Jose Padilla case, in which an American citizen was arrested in the US on suspician of working on a dirty bomb plot, was handed back down on a technicality, but it seems clear from their Hamdi ruling that Padilla would enjoy at least the rights afforded Hamdi.)

No one was more surprised than I that the Court was willing to slap the Executive so hard; this is an astoundingly good thing for our Republic. As Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, said:

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the NationÕs citizens. […] Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. […] Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions. […] Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. [emph. added] Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process. Because we conclude that due process demands some system for a citizen detainee to refute his classification, the proposed “some evidence” standard is inadequate. Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, elipses denotes elided citation

The Court makes it very, very clear that what the Executive has done — detain people on their say-so and refuse to allow any sort of judicial review or access to counsel — is wholly inappropriate and definitely unconstitutional. Thank God someone’s paying attention; even a Bush-friendly court couldn’t give ’em a pass on this bullshit.

Ashcroft, apparently unfamiliar with or contemptuous of the portions of the Constitution inconvenient to him, has had a predictable reaction, insisting that the Court has “given more rights to terrorists.” We submit that the only rights being withdrawn or granted here are those enshrined in our most basic law, and the only granting happening here is a restoration of rights illegally abrogated by an overzealous Executive. The Court says you may not imprison people indefinitely with no counsel or right of judicial review; it has NOT said you may not investigate and arrest terrorists. (That the Court had to even rule on this is a bit shocking, and is emblematic of the sort of power grab apparently acceptble to the ruling party; Ashcroft’s reaction makes it clear that HE thinks he ought to be able to lock anybody up he wants with no review, and I think that’s more than a bit scary.) Recall that none of these people have had any opportunity to challenge their status, not even U.S. citizens Padilla and Hamdi.

Some will insist that our Constitution ought not apply to “terrorists,” though we wonder how we can tell the terrorists from the rest without some judicial review. Simply trusting the executive branch doesn’t seem like a terribly wise move; there’s a reason we have three branches of government, and if you wondered why before, perhaps this sequence of events will remind you.