And that is why civil liberties are so utterly vital.

Does anyone remember the anthrax attacks that happened in the weeks following the  attacks of September 11, 2001?  I sure as hell do, because literally everyone in my line of work (clinical laboratory sciences) got looked at very closely. We will not soon be forgetting how quickly we became suspect after our decades of service to the public and, in many, many cases, service in the military in the Medical Officer Corps.  

The government really dropped the ball on that one and still haven’t caught the culprit(s).  They did manage to ruin the life and career of one academic, though.    Now they have settled with him, to the tune of $5.8 million dollars.

From MSNBC:

The Justice Department on Friday agreed to pay more than $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, the former government scientist once branded by the Justice Department a person of interest in the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001. The legal settlement to Hatfill, in cash and an annual payments, signals the end of a civil lawsuit Hatfill brought against the Justice Department and FBI, accusing them of violating his privacy rights by improperly leaking sensitive information about the anthrax investigation to reporters.

“I think it’s a gratifying end to a very sad chapter in [Hatfill’s] life and that of the FBI and DOJ,” said Hatfill’s lawyer, Thomas Connolly, of the Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis law firm in Washington, D.C. “I’m hopeful that the settlement is punitive enough that they will learn their lesson” regarding the treatment of future suspects in high-profile criminal cases, he told NBC News.

The settlement language tries to give the government a figleaf by stating that it “should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of  the FBI or Justice Department” but only an idiot will believe it.  Lots of us remember the attorney general naming former Army scientist Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax attacks, we remember that the FBI agents and Justice Department officials leaked key details about the case to willing reporters, according to depositions provided in Hatfill’s civil suit. The FBI kept the pressure on Hatfill by conspicuously tailing him in public, with one agent in an unmarked car once running over his foot.  We also remember the resulting media trial as the first anniversary of September 11 drew near.    

Hatfill deserves at least as much compensation as he received.  And the government officials who leaked the information should face federal civil rights charges.  And I would be saying that even if I didn’t take Mr. Hatfill’s experience so very personally on so very many levels.

And the fact that the government, spurred on by a 24-hour news cycle that encourages speculation and false accusations, gets it so spectacularly wrong so freakin’ often (Richard Jewell, anyone?) is exactly why it is so important to jealously safeguard our remaining liberties.  

Happy Birthday, Dyan!!

Since I posted a piece of Olivo lit a couple of weeks ago, and since I have a pile of political literature that the world needs to see, I’ll post one each week in our Friday morning open thread.

This week: Rachel Storch.

What is on your mind?  

Yesterday afternoon I participated in an Obama campaign conference call briefing for media. Campaign manager David Plouffe spoke at length about “where the campaign stands” and their “path to victory in November”. Understandably Missouri fits prominently into their electoral equation and strategy. Plouffe stated that the campaign will not be relying on just one electoral scenario. They believe that they are competitive in all of the comprehensive list of states he mentioned.

At the end of his remarks he took a number of questions. Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch got in the last one:

Voice: We’ve got time for one more question.

Operator: Thank you. And now for our last question. Caller, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Reporter: Yes, Joe Mannies, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Is there anything particular about Missouri that makes you feel optimistic about Missouri? As you know Bush carried Missouri in ’04 by, by about two hundred thousand votes. Gore lost it by about eighty thousand. Is there something particular about Missouri that is giving Obama confidence?

David Plouffe: Well Jo, we think first of all that if you look at voters in Missouri, very unhappy about the direction of the economy. Very unhappy about the direction in the way Washington works. And so we think sort of foundationaly people in Missouri are looking for change. And, if you, in the rural areas and the smaller town areas, real economic hardship. And so we think we have an opportunity to perform well with these voters. Secondly, we do think that in terms of turnout, we think we can really, in Missouri create an optimal turnout scenario. We were able to do that in the primary where we won narrowly, but it’s important in a state like Missouri that is so competitive to make sure that every single voter that is supportive of Senator Obama is registered and turns out. And so we’re obviously going to have to do a very good job of maximizing the Democratic base in Missouri. And we think we’re gonna do that. We have a terrific organization there. It’s one of our strongest organizations, on February 5th. Senator McCaskill is obviously helped to guide our strategy there and, and understands the state as well as anyone. So, you know, we think that it’s gonna be close. We think it’ll be a lot closer than it was in two thousand four. And we think it’s highly competitive. And so, you know, we’re sending some of our best field operatives to Missouri to try and build a terrific grassroots organization. And we spend quite a bit of time there, Senator Obama has in the last couple of months, and will continue to do so because we thinks it’s an area of opportunity. You know, we, we have real strength throughout the Midwest. I mentioned the upper Midwest, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Again. it’s early, but we start out with strength there. Indiana and Missouri. Both, we think, are prime opportunities and, and big states, eleven electoral votes in each. So we’re gonna mount, as campaign as we can in the State of Missouri…

Johnson County Democratic Central Committee Chair Delbert Bodenhamer (right) and Secretary Oleta Cone (left).

All politics is local.

The Johnson County Democratic Central Committee gathered for its monthly meeting at the Johnson County Justice Center in downtown Warrensburg this evening. Yes, summer has started, but there’s a primary and a general election on the horizon.

The committee met to ratify the choice for a downtown headquarters which it will occupy on July 1st. It’s a useful space smack dab in the middle of the business district on Holden Street, with excellent visibility. In fact, it’s the same location the local Democratic Party had for the 2004 election.

Other business included finalizing arrangements for a fundraising dinner at the Johnson County Fairgrounds on July 15th. The first annual Jimmy Kirkpatrick Heritage Celebration Dinner will honor former Governor Roger Wilson.

Congressman Ike Skelton’s campaign will have a “barbecue and bluegrass rally” at the Johnson County Fairgrounds just west of Warrensburg on Highway 50 on Wednesday, August 6th.

The chair of the Central Committee asks for volunteers to help with the various logistics challenges of these events, and on occasion utilizes the power of his position to assign tasks. It’s how the necessary business gets done.

Central Committee members and Kevin Stamps (right), representing the Missouri Democratic Party.

Keven Stamps, a state party field organizer assigned to our area reported on several programs already in place. He took a few minutes away from an ongoing phone bank just down the street to solicit additional volunteers and to introduce himself to the few people on the committee who had not yet met him. We’re all going to get to know Kevin quite well through to the beginning of November.

All politics is local.

SurveyUSA released a 543 sample poll of “Likely voters” taken in Missouri June 20th through the 22nd which was released on June 26th. The poll runs a head to head match up between McSame and Obama. The margin of error is 4.3%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KSDK in St. Louis.

If there were an election for President of the United States today, would you vote for Republican John McCain? Or Democrat Barack Obama?

All

McCain – 50%

Obama – 43%

Undecided – 7%

These numbers, while different, have remained essentially unchanged (within the margin of error) since the May SurveyUSA poll.

The crosstabulations by party identification are always interesting:

Party Affiliation

Democrats [44% of sample]

McCain – 16%

Obama – 76%

Undecided – 8%

republicans [33% of sample]

McCain – 89%

Obama – 8%

Undecided – 3%

Independents [21% of sample]

McCain – 57%

Obama – 31%

Undecided – 11%

The numbers among republicans remain unchanged. Obama shows some improvement among Democrats, though there appears to be serious erosion among Independents.

Gender

Male [46% of sample]

McCain – 60%

Obama – 36%

Undecided – 5%

Female [54% of sample]

McCain – 41%

Obama – 50%

Undecided – 9%

Yep, there’s definitely a gender gap here. Those numbers among males just might explain these words on FISA. “National Security” is going to be an issue in that group. The republicans will make it so – you can count on it.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that our Republican legislature couldn’t be bothered to require that Missouri plan to get 15% of its electricity from renewable sources of energy? Maybe I could understand it if they were looking at accomplishing that in just a year or two, but no. They’re not interested in it in the next eternity. They did nothing. Nada. They’re so blind that private citizens had to gather signatures for a ballot initiative requiring AmerenUE, Aquila, KCP&L, and Empire to acquire a measley 15% of their power from renewable sources by 2021. 2021? That’s thirteen years to come up with a piddling 15 percent!

I mean, can you imagine anyone voting against that? But some of the nutballs, you know I ain’t lyin’, will organize to prevent this “travesty” from becoming law. They figure that if we’re going to create jobs building a new energy infrastructure, let’s put those jobs in the nuclear plant industry. (Heh, we’ll figure out what to do with the waste when we come to that bridge. Meanwhile, let’s bury it on a flood plain, right above the intake pipes for a major American city.) Why would we want to create jobs building windmills, which have no attendant problems?

Here’s my question: Why are some people so perversely stupid?

Anyway, I know you’ll vote for the Clean Energy Initiative this fall. In the meantime, though, maybe you’d like to add your name to the list of its supporters. It won’t take you a minute.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6304 )

Vote Number: 158 Vote Date: June 25, 2008, 06:25 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 80

NAYs 15

Not Voting 5

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea

Alexander (R-TN), Yea

Allard (R-CO), Yea

Barrasso (R-WY), Yea

Baucus (D-MT), Yea

Bayh (D-IN), Yea

Bennett (R-UT), Yea

Biden (D-DE), Nay

Bingaman (D-NM), Yea

Bond (R-MO), Yea

Boxer (D-CA), Nay

Brown (D-OH), Nay

Brownback (R-KS), Yea

Bunning (R-KY), Yea

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting

Cantwell (D-WA), Nay

Cardin (D-MD), Yea

Carper (D-DE), Yea

Casey (D-PA), Yea

Chambliss (R-GA), Yea

Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting

Coburn (R-OK), Yea

Cochran (R-MS), Yea

Coleman (R-MN), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea

Conrad (D-ND), Yea

Corker (R-TN), Yea

Cornyn (R-TX), Yea

Craig (R-ID), Yea

Crapo (R-ID), Yea

DeMint (R-SC), Yea

Dodd (D-CT), Nay

Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea

Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Durbin (D-IL), Nay

Ensign (R-NV), Yea

Enzi (R-WY), Yea

Feingold (D-WI), Nay

Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Graham (R-SC), Yea

Grassley (R-IA), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Yea

Hagel (R-NE), Yea

Harkin (D-IA), Nay

Hatch (R-UT), Yea

Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

Inhofe (R-OK), Yea

Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Isakson (R-GA), Yea

Johnson (D-SD), Yea

Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting

Kerry (D-MA), Nay

Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Kyl (R-AZ), Yea

Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay

Leahy (D-VT), Nay

Levin (D-MI), Yea

Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Martinez (R-FL), Yea

McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Yea

Menendez (D-NJ), Nay

Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

Murray (D-WA), Yea

Nelson (D-FL), Yea

Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Obama (D-IL), Not Voting

Pryor (D-AR), Yea

Reed (D-RI), Yea

Reid (D-NV), Yea

Roberts (R-KS), Yea

Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Salazar (D-CO), Yea

Sanders (I-VT), Nay

Schumer (D-NY), Nay

Sessions (R-AL), Yea

Shelby (R-AL), Yea

Smith (R-OR), Yea

Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Specter (R-PA), Yea

Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Stevens (R-AK), Yea

Sununu (R-NH), Yea

Tester (D-MT), Yea

Thune (R-SD), Yea

Vitter (R-LA), Yea

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Warner (R-VA), Yea

Webb (D-VA), Yea

Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

Wicker (R-MS), Yea

Wyden (D-OR), Nay