Apparently you shouldn’t trust something posted on a website that specialises in stolen information.
The phony column was posted on a website that looks exactly like the online version of the New York Times Opinion Page — the pranksters even loaded the site with similar-looking ads and links to other (legitimate) Times webpages. But that wasn’t all. …
Shortly after the column went up, Keller’s seeming about-face on WikiLeaks made waves through the social media sphere. Web users quickly clamored to read and share it, not realizing the trickery involved. The article and its display was so convincing, in fact, that it even fooled one of Keller’s colleagues, the Times‘ lead technology writer.
As Patterico points out…
It is reminiscent of Justice Scalia’s views on stories about Supreme Court deliberations, as expressed in the video I linked last night. Justice Scalia says that one should not credit stories about internal deliberations, because if they are not a lie, they are based on the word of people who are unreliable — because they have promised not to reveal those deliberations, and then turned around and did it anyway.
Of course, it’s only a suprise if you missed his plea for asylum in a country where the president successfully sued two journalists for exposing the fact he was giving his brother government contracts.
From Patterico, a post on Justice Scalia’s dissent in the recent Guantanamo detainees case.
But here is a starting taste, along with the ending paragraph (note how Scalia conspicuously declines to write “I respectfully dissent” as is the usual custom for Justices):
“Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent, which I join, shows that the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ, and no basis exists for judicial intervention beyond what the Act allows. My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires. [emphasis here mine - S1]
I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court. Contrary to my usual practice, however, I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.
We witnessed the ridiculous sight of TV One News’ saying that this judgment meant the constitution could not be “turned off or on like a tap”. Sorry, the US constitution applies to the US and it’s citizens, it does not and never has applied to foreigners, particularly those engaged in war against it.
Can’t really go past the JammieWearingFool’s title on this one, or the video. (Sadly can’t embed here)
It’s obscene how the story has become how Gore lost due to Bush stealing the election, not how the Supreme Court stopped Gore’s attempt. That’s BDS for you – facts are not required.
Snippit from transcript.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,‘” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?'” he jokes.
I posted a link to part of this interview earlier.
Trouble with falsely painting a guy as the devil incarnate is that that is easily proven false. I bet a lot of lefties are re-examining their sources after seeing in his interview just how much of a nice guy he really is.
In her two-part profile of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia aired on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl seemed repeatedly surprised by how Scalia in person isn’t the “polarizing figure” who protesters call a “fascist,” as she conceded: “What’s interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you’re charming and fun.” In short, Scalia really does not match the left-wing characterization of him adopted by Stahl’s media colleagues.
Stahl began the second segment, on Scalia’s childhood in New York, his wife and kids and his future, by acknowledging, “In spending time with him, we found something we hadn’t expected: a person so unpretentious and down to earth, you could easily forget he sits on the Supreme Court.”