YouTube has taken down the videos [of Colbert's performance], citing copyright infringement.

This could be an important moment. A large segment of the Internet viewing public wants access to Colbert's video. Its owned by CSPAN. CSPAN videos are not in the public domain. This is something that most people don't understand and aren't prepared to hear. Now a large number of people are hearing it, and it will be interesting to see how they react.

The bottom line is that this stuff is organized this way because it affords control. If this content was in the public domain it would be recontextualized all over the place. The government is afraid of sampling. This is why the Supreme Court doesn't allow recordings of cases to get out. They don't want to be sound bitten by the press, which is notoriously bad at dumbing down Supreme Court decisions to the point where the explanations have no relationship to what actually happened.

For example, look up news stories about the Hamdi decision, which the Administration clearly won. Bush got the right to detain enemy combatents indefinately without trial, as long as some internal process exists for determining whether the right people are being held, at a standard of "guilty until proven innocent." The press coverage called it a rebuke for the Administration and gushes about a fine day for individual rights. It would be positively orwellian if it was the product of malice rather then simple failure to grasp what was going on.

Now, thats the objective press. Put this same content in the hands of someone with an agenda to push and you get, well, the right wing's ridiculous exaggeration of Kelo V. New London.

Both sides to this debate have legitimate perspectives. The people feel like they ought to own the recordings of the proceedings of their government. The government doesn't want to be beat down for every verbal misstep they make on the floor. Over time I think you're going to see the people push on this more and more, and eventually the government will be forced to acquiesce or evolve in some way that makes their process more suited to an age of free information.

Boing Boing: Why was Colbert press corps video removed from YouTube?

It has taken almost three years—by some counts, more than 6 years—but ICANN’s domain name policy making organization has finally taken a stand on Whois and privacy. And the results were a decisive defeat for the copyright and trademark interests and the US government, and a stunning victory for advocates of the rights of individual domain name registrants.

In Historic Vote on WHOIS Purpose, Reformers Win by 2/3 Majority

The man sued the City of Chicago and the police for coercing false testimony and hiding that fact. In this appeal, the lawyers for the police tried to argue that the result of the trial 30 years ago was binding on the wrongfully convicted man under collateral estoppel principles, which Judge Evans rightly dismisses as “an absurd argument, for any number of reasons.” The lawyers then tried to argue that the wrongfully convicted man had waived his claim by not bringing it 30 years ago, a claim that Judge Evans describes as ”too ridiculous to merit comment.”

Think we never convict innocent people? Read this.

OrinKerr.com » Judge Evans to Lawyers for Police: Argument “Too Ridiculous to Merit Comment”

A self-taught British "computer nerd" who brought a vital US naval base to its knees could be subjected to torture and detained indefinitely if a "vengeful" US Government extradite him, a court has heard.

This is obviously not going to happen, but at the same time, its interesting to hear this arguement made. Its not impossible for this to occur, due to the stupid system they've setup for dealing enemy combatents. If its not impossible this court has to consider it.

There is, however, some reality to the idea that the U.S. is seeking "administrative revenge" against this person for demonstrating that their security is weak. He apparently found that they had 5000 machines sitting out on the internet with no administrative passwords. He rifled through them but he didn't break them. Unfortunately, the computer fraud laws in the US are designed to enable "administrative revenge" by putting people like this in a position where they may face decades in prison. That really doesn't make any sense.

UK suspect argues against extradition to the US on torture grounds.

Francis Fukuyama writes:

In our ever-more-polarized political debate, it appears that it is now wrong to ever change your mind, even if empirical evidence from the real world suggests you ought to.

I find this a strange and disturbing conclusion.

Enjoy this clip of Jon Stewart on Larry King, from March 2006.

Why shouldn't I change my mind?

That Padilla’’s claims raise fundamental issues respecting the separation of powers, including consideration of the role and function of the courts, also counsels against addressing those claims when the course of legal proceedings has made them, at least for now, hypothetical...

In the course of its supervision over Padilla’’s custody and trial the District Court will be obliged to afford him the protection, including the right to a speedy trial, guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants. See, e.g., U. S. Const., Amdt. 6; 18 U. S. C. §3161. Were the Government to seek to change the status or conditions of Padilla’’s custody, that court would be in a position to rule quickly on any responsive filings submitted by Padilla.

!?#@$ Are these people fucking high? It wasn't hypothetical when they tossed it back the first time and they sure as hell didn't act quickly then. Apparently the government CAN hold YOU without charges for several YEARS as long as they can convince these guys to drag their feet on it! Thats an incorrect result, and this decision is a cop-out. This incident will come back to haunt us.

OrinKerr.com » Cert Denial in Padilla

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Critics point to Colorado, one of the first states to pass term limits in 1990. Diane Rees, a lobbyist for the past 30 years in Denver, said term limits there have resulted in a near total loss of institutional memory and an increase in power of staff and bureaucrats.

(channelling W for this one) "I don't think anyone predicted this." Actually, I think everyone opposed to limits expected exactly this

This is an interesting issue, althought I think there may be better coverage elsewhere. Unfortunately the tone of some of these advocacy sites clearly indicates that this has moved past the reasonable dialog about the issues phase and firmly into the irrational partisan vitriol phase.

RE: Impact of Term Limits in Nebraska Feared - Yahoo! News

We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

NPR : O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts

Why I have an "irrational hatred" of George Bush.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of [The Reauthorized Patriot Act] that call for furnishing information to [Congress], such as sections 106A and 119, [which require the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to audit the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of access to business records and national security letters,] in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

In other words, "Checks and balances? We don't need no stinking checks and balances!"

The Volokh Conspiracy - Patriot Act Audits and Article II Powers:

Recently retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan believes that there will be a major independent candidate for president from the nation's political center, according to a published report.

Report: Greenspan predicts indie presidential candidate - Mar. 10, 2006