Federal Prosecutions: Pillars of Consistency or Our Favorite Vehicle for Punishing Douchebags?

Reading up on the Julian Assange press conference and one paragraph stands out to me:

..prosecuting Assange for publishing the War Logs or Cablegate documents is a challenge for the government, which has nevertheless convened a grand jury to look into the matter. Countless news organizations similarly published entire WikiLeaks documents or relied on their contents for reports. So the federal government may instead try and prove that Assange worked with Manning in leaking the documents.

Why does it matter that Assange did something extra? Of course, the simple answer is that this way the government isn't logically required to also prosecute, say, the New York Times. But that begs the question: so what if they were? The government obviously engages in highly selective applications of the law all the time. Just compare the treatment of baseball players who lie before Congress or to federal investigators, to that of FBI or CIA agents who lie before Congress, or even destroy evidence sought by federal investigators. Prosecutions of Bush Administration torturers? Non-existent! And our government is now blatantly violating the War Powers Act, and not even pretending otherwise.

So, the idea that our government and its prosecutors are bound by logic and fidelity to a fair application of the law is surprisingly and exceptionally heartening in this (apparent) case, but is not all that reassuring. I think it's just as likely to come down to whether or not they think Julian Assange is an even bigger dick (somehow) than Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. (And, he just might be so he's probably fucked.)

Which is to say, if you believe the lack of connection or conspiracy between Manning and Assange is ultimately going to make the feds call off the dogs because god-forbid they treat one arrogant prick differently than other folks who did the exact same thing (gasp!) then you're simply not paying attention.

So Many Pretty Words...

"As Winston Churchill said, the '…Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.' "

-Barack Obama. Seriously. What an asshole.

"Obviously What You're doing is Absolutely-Untouchably-Blatantly LEGAL..but I Need You to Explain Why, Serf!"

What exactly makes politicians think they can ask private actors to do things and then get mad when those actors don't do the thing requested? (I mean, I realize what makes them do that generally (egomania, insecurity, people-pleasing, borderline personality disorder etc.) but what exactly makes them do that?)

And these pols never ask these folks to stop, ya know, hitting kittens with criquet paddles, or shoving old ladies into the street, it always seems to be requests to stop doing obviously legal things.

Pretty rich too that this member of Congress expects better explanations as to the legality of the activities of private citizens than he does as to the President starting wars.

Peter King Puts on a Clinic in Assclownery

What King says there is pretty obviously factually inaccurate. When even Rumsfeld, who's got as big a dog as anyone in this fight, and is an obscene liar, admits that it wasn't torture that generated the intel, then the case is closed as fuck.

But let's assume that King was not making a total assclown of himself when it comes to basic familiarity with reality. Let's assume this was an open debate on the facts. This issue is anything but an open debate as a matter of law. The US has domestic laws and ratified treaties that make torture and waterboarding and degrading and inhuman treatment illegal. No one seriously disputes this that I've heard.

So what exactly is King saying here? What is this debate that has suposedly been "re-awakened" in the aftermath of this incident? The only thing of value in this discussion is how it affects our policy going forward, and yet I don't hear anyone saying that our laws should be changed and that we should withdraw from these treaties. Funny thing, that.

Fanboy Alert!

So apparently over at Slate it was "Let a Tiger Beat writer intern with the big boys" day. What a gushing, nonsensical, completely unsubstantiated fluff piece. I was semi-literally expecting the little note about the author that usually appears at the end of articles to say something like "John Dickerson cupped the balls of several White House officials in investigating this report."

My favorite parts:

The presidency distorts the brain like perhaps no other job on Earth. In the First Noggin, there must be many compartments locked double tight, so the president doesn't show anything on his face.

Ooh "double tight!" It's true, if I don't lock things in compartments in my brain they end up being shown "on" my face. This is why I suck at chit chat, cuz my face is screaming out "fuck you, crazy lady!" People don't like that.

Sometimes he must keep secrets even from the people who work down the hall. But each box has to be accessible immediately if a decision needs to be made.

This is also a very special skill. Everyone on my hallway at the office knows how big a David Schwimmer fan I am, and is completely up to date on which of my family members is an alcoholic. Also, I know when I tell someone a secret I want them to keep, I make sure they provide me with a detailed description of their work area layout (sometimes I need a diagram). If they work on anything resembling a hallway, I just keep that shit to myself (and my hallmates). And if they work in a cubicle!? Well then fuck me!

Sometimes however I try really hard to not tell the Hall-folks my secrets, but this has drawbacks: 1) it's totally exhausting and hurts my "First Noggin" and, 2) sometimes I try to so hard not to share it that I end up forgetting the information altogether, or, in a best case scenario, it takes me hours to access the info, like a dial-up modem downloading a JPEG of a cat wearing sunglasses. People who can "immediately" access information that they've inexplicably decided to store in their brain, should probably have their own comic book and lunchbox.

On Saturday he attended the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, where he had to tell jokes and sit through a comedy routine during which everyone watched his every facial twitch for insights into his psyche.

Oh man, it must have been so lame to sit through a comedy routine, especially when it was that dumb-ass Gallagher doing is whole crush-things-with-a-mallet shtick. Oh no, wait a second, it was the head writer for SNL, who skewered all the president's opponents. But all that champagne and gourmet food probably made the situation unbearable. I don't know much about this John Dickerson guy, but he's apparently from the Midwest or maybe the South? You know, that part of the country where they say "everyone watched his every facial twitch for insights into his psyche" where you or I would "everyone got shitfaced and laughed their asses off." Regional idioms are so wacky!