Texas Rangers and Tom DeLay face investigations
I last mentioned this story a week ago; now it seems to be snowballing. The UPI reports that a grand jury is investigating the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) destruction of records connected with its search for Texas Democratic legislators. The legislators had left the state to prevent a Congressional re-redistricting plan from being considered and passed by the Republican majority. In the course of that search, the DPS misled a federal air surveillance agency, AMICC, into believing a plane carrying some of the legislators had gone missing, in order to ascertain its location in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Travis County District Attorney has convened a grand jury to investigate:

"We are currently examining the circumstances surrounding the destruction of those records," Earle said in a statement. "The questions include what records were destroyed, under what authority, and why the records were destroyed so quickly. The DPS is cooperating."

A DPS supervisor ordered all records of the search destroyed May 14, a day before the Democrats returned after a four-day boycott.

At least one DPS supervisor testified Thursday before the grand jury, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Several other high-ranking DPS officials have been subpoenaed to appear before the jury, according to the newspaper's sources. Proceedings of a grand jury are secret.

The DPS says the records were destroyed because of a federal regulation that prohibits them from keeping intelligence information that is not related to criminal activity.

That excuse is arguably bunk, according to a variety of lawyers commenting on the case, reports Josh Marshall, who has been doggedly/gleefully pursuing the case at TalkingPoints Memo.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates AMICC, is conducting an internal investigation. Secretary Ridge would not reveal the progress of that investigation to Congressional panel, citing the possible criminal charges against DPS officials that might arise. (Link via Marshall.)

The issue has now risen to the level of the Washington Post Friday editorial page, where the tale is efficiently retold, and questions are asked:

But are Texas authorities usually this diligent about this particular civil liberties requirement? [...]

Then there's the question of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's role. Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, took a particular interest in the redistricting plan, which promised him more seats in his caucus. And he has conceded that he had a staffer pass on to the Justice Department Mr. Craddick's query as to whether federal law enforcement could help out in the search. His spokesman, Stuart Roy, says that was the extent of it -- that Mr. DeLay and his office had no further contact with either federal or state law enforcement about the search and played no role in bringing Homeland Security into the picture.

Well, it's true the FAA isn't a law enforcement agency in the conventional sense. The Houston Chronicle reports DeLay said his staff used "public information at the Federal Aviation Administration" to track the airplane. This information apparently included the "Ardmore, Oklahoma to Georgetown, Texas" phrase the Texas DPS officer used in his phone call to AMICC.*

I have trouble believing that kind of information is public; for what little it's worth, hunting around the FAA website hasn't convinced me otherwise yet. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Norm Mineta isn't sure the FAA should have helped DeLay either; the Washington Post reports he's ordered a review of whether Federal Aviation Administration officials acted appropriately, although an FAA spokesman claims "such information can routinely be made available."


=====
* One thing that isn't clear to me is how all of this eventually pinpointed the plane in Ardmore, as Texas Speaker Craddick claimed. Either DeLay, the FAA, or Craddick are wrong or lying: a plane can't be on the ground in Oklahoma and flying from Oklahoma to Texas. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:43:00 AM -- |    

 

Well, I'm sold
Nature Science Update reports that CalTech astronomer David Stevenson wants to explore the interior of the Earth by melting thousands of tons of iron, cracking the Earth's crust with a nuclear explosion, putting a probe in the molten pool of iron, and letting it all sink towards the Earth's core.

Leaving aside what the probe could report ("Still in a molten pool of iron") there's a problem:

"Frankly, I would be surprised if this really works," he admits.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:17:00 AM -- |    

 
Fidelio
A despairing prisoner, all but forgotten in his cell, cries out:

Gott, welch Dunkel hier! O grauenvolle Stille! Öd ist es um mich her, nichts, nichts lebet außer mir, o schwere Prüfung!	God, what darkness here! O terrible silence! It's dreary around me, nothing, nothing lives except me, o difficult ordeal!

Earlier this week my parents, wife, and I watched the Washington Opera performance of Fidelio, Beethoven's only opera. I came away entertained and moved by what I saw.

As I suppose I might have expected from old Ludwig Van, this opera is not your everyday costumed-boy-meets-costumed-girl musical. Leonore is desperate to find and free her husband Florestan -- the despairing inmate -- jailed by Don Pizarro for making political charges against him. Disguised as a man named Fidelio, she befriends the jail warden Rocco, who is pleased that his daughter Marzelline is smitten with Fidelio/Leonore. This helps Leonore first persuade the jailer to give the prisoners a spell in the sun, and then to let "him" accompany the jailer to her Florestan's cell -- to dig a grave for Florestan, who Pizarro intends to execute. When Pizarro enters the cell to do the deed, Leonore prevents it. Pizarro is out of time, because a reform-minded government minister's official visit -- which had spurred Pizarro's decision -- completes Florestan's liberation, and that of his fellow inmates.

The somewhat baroque plot is based on a 1798 French play by Jean-Nicolas Bouilly titled "Leonore, ou L'amour conjugal" ("Leonore, or Married Love"), possibly loosely based on events Bouilly experienced during the French Revolution and the ensuing Terror. As seems to me to often be the case in operas, the story line is unconvincing compared to the "set piece" situations the story generates: a lonely prisoner, a girl rejecting a familiar suitor for a romantic interloper, convicts hardly daring to believe they're seeing the sun for the first time in months. These scenes are so archetypal and moving that you're willing to overlook the flimsy plot that got you there, and just appreciate Beethoven's music and lyrics:

GEFANGENEN O, welche Lust! in freier Luft den Atem leicht zu heben, O, welche Lust! nur hier, nur hier ist Leben, der Kerker eine Gruft, eine Gruft! ERSTER GEFANGENE Wir wollen mit Vertrauen auf Gottes Hülfe, auf Gottes Hülfe bauen, die Hoffnung flüstert sanft mir zu, wir werden frei, wir finden Ruh, wir finden Ruh'. GEFANGENEN O Himmel Rettung, welch ein Glück, o Freiheit, o Freiheit, kehrst du zurück? ZWEITE GEFANGENE Sprecht leise, haltet euch zurück, wir sind belauscht mit Ohr und Blick. GEFANGENEN Sprecht leise, haltet euch zurück, wir sind belauscht mit Ohr und Blick.

PRISONERS O, what joy, to lightly breathe in open air, O, what joy, Only here, life is only here, the dungeon is a grave, a grave! FIRST PRISONER We will rely on God's help, build on God's help, hope whispers softly to me, we will be free, we'll find rest, we'll find rest. PRISONERS O heaven's salvation, what happiness, o freedom, o freedom will you return? SECOND PRISONER Speak softly, hold yourselves back, we're being watched and listened to.* PRISONERS Speak softly, hold yourselves back, we're being watched and listened to.

The Washington Opera production took the liberty of dressing Pizarro, his henchmen, the prison warden and guards in a mixture of Nazi- and Soviet-looking uniforms. A stark stone prison wall with narrow slit windows served as a backdrop, even for scenes at the jailer's home. Thus, the jail warden and his daughter appeared as imprisoned as the prisoners, whose presence is made inescapable by the spooky device of a phalanx of silent black and white television images of their faces. (One television screen remained blank throughout, symbolizing either Florestan or a blown fuse.) In a nice bit of staging, Florestan's cell is represented by a pit with a massive hinged wall behind it; in the final liberation scene, the wall closes over the pit, and an almost painfully green and red flower garden finally breaks the browns and grays that dominate the production to that point. Despite the challenge of the cavernous D.A.R. Constitution Hall, the orchestral and vocal performances were great; Susan B. Anthony as Leonore and Eric Halfvarson as Rocco (the most interesting character) stood out.

Beethoven's story of political oppression and liberation couldn't help but remind me and, I'm guessing, most of the audience of the events of the past months in Iraq: oppressors toppled, political prisoners freed, torments, disappearances, and "prison cleansings" ended. Self-congratulation on the order of the final scene in Fidelio isn't warranted for Americans about Iraq, at least not yet. But Beethoven's opera was a stirring reminder for one audience, for one night, that ending repression and liberating its victims is a fundamental triumph for all mankind.


=====
* Literally, "we are eavesdropped, by ear and sight." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:14:00 AM -- |    

 

Whatever must be done
The Guardian excerpts Thomas Pynchon's introduction to the new Penguin US reissue of George Orwell's 1984. Pynchon closes:

There is a photograph, taken around 1946 in Islington, of Orwell with his adopted son, Richard Horatio Blair. The little boy, who would have been around two at the time, is beaming, with unguarded delight. Orwell is holding him gently with both hands, smiling too, pleased, but not smugly so - it is more complex than that, as if he has discovered something that might be worth even more than anger - his head tilted a bit, his eyes with a careful look that might remind filmgoers of a Robert Duvall character with a backstory in which he has seen more than one perhaps would have preferred to. Winston Smith "believed that he had been born in 1944 or 1945 . . ." Richard Blair was born May 14, 1944. It is not difficult to guess that Orwell, in 1984 , was imagining a future for his son's generation, a world he was not so much wishing upon them as warning against. He was impatient with predictions of the inevitable, he remained confident in the ability of ordinary people to change anything, if they would. It is the boy's smile, in any case, that we return to, direct and radiant, proceeding out of an unhesitating faith that the world, at the end of the day, is good and that human decency, like parental love, can always be taken for granted - a faith so honourable that we can almost imagine Orwell, and perhaps even ourselves, for a moment anyway, swearing to do whatever must be done to keep it from ever being betrayed.

Pynchon argues that the "Newspeak" appendix is a hint that Big Brother and Oceania fall.

Via the newly discovered Arts & Letters Daily, which is rocketing to the top of my Internet reading list. On the other hand, the thing is so big it threatens to become my Internet reading list. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:56:00 PM -- |    

 

Good one, Jay
Jay Leno, on the "Tonight Show": "Saudi Arabia has just announced they've foiled a terrorist plot ... apparently, they cancelled a check." posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:55:00 PM -- |    

 

Locke v. Davey, contd.
More commentary around the web about the scheduled Locke v. Davey Supreme Court case I mentioned on Monday. (The names get reversed because now the state of Washington is seeking a reversal; something like that.) Via a link in a second brief Volokh post, I learned that law professor Richard Garnett, writing for the National Review, agrees with Volokh and asserts that the Washington law is vestigial anti-Catholicism. Yikes! Tellingly, Garnett (and by his account the 9th Circuit Court) frames the discussion this way:

"...Washington's apparent desire to regulate citizens' religious choices, in ways not required by the Establishment Clause, provide[s] no warrant for that state's laws that single out Joshua Davey's educational choices for special disapproval. (emphasis added)

It isn't Joshua Davey's choices that are being regulated, it's Washington state taxpayer monies. Josh can still go get himself educated.

On this point, compare, say, Aziz Poonawalla's attitude about a Florida Muslim woman's rights to wear a head-scarf at all times or obtain a driver's license in that state, and note that no one was asking Joshua Davey to seek a scholarship, change his chosen course of study, or modify his religious convictions. It would be interesting to get Professor Garnett's views on the Florida situation.

Political science professor Brett Marston, on the other hand, seems to have views similar to mine, and limns the differences between legal commentary and political commentary:

There are all sorts of other valid concerns, present in the case law and also present in the claims of founders such as Madison and Jefferson that can lead to the conclusion that state aid to religious organizations can be divisive and dangerous. [...]

It's partly the job of legal commentators to minimize the appearance of [the Supreme Court's] discretion. It's partly the job of political scientists to remind you that the legal commentators aren't telling the whole story, and that they cannot tell the whole story due to the constraints imposed by the internal norms of their profession.

Finally, the litigants' arguments for and against the appeal to the Supreme Court can be found here (State of Washington) and here (Joshua Davey), links again courtesy of Eugene Volokh and correspondents. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:47:00 PM -- |    

 
More bombings
Sad to say, I lost track, there have been so many terrorist attacks in Israel in the last week. Israeli blogger Imshin provides links to brief bios of each victim in a bus bombing in Jerusalem that left 7 dead, not counting the shithead who did it. The contrast between the apparently relatively affluent teenage engineering student bomber and the 5AM shift workers he murdered was striking. Imshin writes,

Why are the cold-blooded murders of these people seen by so many as fitting revenge of the weak? Why is this young, good looking, physically strong and economically secure kid perceived as being more desperate than a 67 year old economics lecturer making his way in the soft early morning light to his dead end job as a guard in a car park?

Gil Shterzer ("Israeli Guy") posts a devastating photo of two victims of the attack. I think one victim in the photo is Mr. Ostinsky, the car park guard.

It's hard to disagree with Imshin's (apparent) support for the security wall, or Gil Shterzer's angry call to "waste" Hamas leaders like Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi or Mahmoud Al-Zahaar in retaliation. May be easier said than done, though.

I continue to support ending the West Bank/Gaza settlements, and think the "road map" or the Nusseibeh/Ayalon agreement could be ways out of the conflict. But I read (via Imshin) that Arafat is insisting on "right of return" again, which together with non-stop suicide bombings makes either peace plan seem like it should be in your bookstore's "fantasy" section. What does Abu Mazen say? If that matters.

Meanwhile, consider helping Israeli terror victims by supporting NAVAH.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:31:00 PM -- |    

 

Vouchers for private religious schools
Eve Tushnet hasn't responded yet to my "Vouchers for madrassas?" item earlier this month. Not that she has to! But she says she will soon. Meanwhile, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh addressed the question on Monday. He thinks they're constitutionally permitted, and even constitutionally mandated if vouchers are distributed at all:

...There's no inherent conflict between the federal constitution imposing various constraints on both the federal and state governments, and a state constitution imposing still more constraints on the state government. That's part of the virtues of our federal system -- a state's citizens may enact protections against their state government beyond what the federal constitution provides. But a state may not secure supposed constitutional rights that themselves violate the rights of others. [...]

My bottom line: If the government sets up a school choice program that's open to private secular schools, then I think it's unconstitutional for it to exclude private religious schools based on their religiosity. I'm not sure whether courts will ultimately rule that way, but I think that there are good precedential and normative reasons for them to do so. (Note that this doesn't make it unconstitutional for the government to fund only government-run schools -- there, the classification is based on whether the school is run by the government, not based on whether it's run by a private religious entity or a private secular secular entity.)

If so, that's one of the strongest arguments against voucher programs.* I continue to see no reason why Americans should fork over money to help other Americans acquire religious beliefs of any sort. Also, government funds will presumably entail government responsibilities and controls over all issues great and small of school administration. If you think the federal (or state or local) governments should be in the business of "vetting" private religious schools for unconstitutional behavior, then you're on board with the new world order, I guess.

There's an actual news peg to the debate now; Volokh writes that the Supreme Court will be considering the issue in its next session:

The case in which the Court granted certiorari is the Washington state case, Davey v. Locke, where the Ninth Circuit held that excluding theology programs from the generally available voucher programs was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, Volokh predicts that the Supreme Court will narrowly uphold the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, with Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens dissenting. So at least it may be a tough call for today's Supreme Court. Meaning, I think, it ought to be a slam-dunk "no." But that's another story.


=====
* It's also an example of a species of "slippery slope." During my gun-control posting spree, I learned Professor Volokh has written about "slippery slopes" in detail. I've been intrigued by the idea of vouchers per se, but I have a problem with vouchers for private religious schools; if the general case necessitates the specific problem, I say dump vouchers. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:27:00 AM -- |