Thank God the elections are finally heading to the courts — and legal commentators.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has sued Democratic opponent Al Franken for defamation over Franken’s television ads claiming that Coleman is the fourth most corrupt senator in Washington. This would actually make for an interesting case.
At issue is the statement that Coleman is the “fourth most corrupt senator in Washington” and that he lives “almost rent-free” in a Washington apartment. Normally, such claims are outside the scope of defamation because they are opinion and made as part of a political campaign. Coleman is a pubic official under New York Times v. Sullivan and must, therefore satisfy the high standard of showing actual knowledge of the falsity or a reckless disregard on the part of Franken.
In this case, Franken is relying on a specific report from the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CREW published a list of the 20 “most corrupt” members of Congress earlier this year. Notably, Coleman was not on the list, though he is part of Crew’s “most corrupt members” listing. Instead, he was one of four members to receive a “dishonorable mention” by the organization. While this is hardly a point of pride for any politician, there does seem a considerable difference between being one of the four most corrupt members cited and being on the “wannabe” list of corruption.
What makes this one so interesting on a legal level is that the statement is made as a fact based on a report that does not support it. It was a poorly crafted ad since Franken had a very good basis for challenging Coleman on ethics, particularly over his rental of a basement apartment at a radically reduced rate in political telemarketer Jeff Larson’s Washington home.
Rather than correct the ad, the Franken campaign is reasserting it as a true factual representation. Franken spokeswoman Colleen Murray insists that “[o]ur ads are factual and true, even if Norm Coleman doesn’t like being held accountable for his conduct.” The campaign also notes that Coleman has previously filed lawsuit during tough campaigns.
I do not have a horse in this race. I wanted to see Noble prize winner Peter Agre run and I believe that this would not be a close race if he was nominated by the Democratic party in Minnesota.
However, this is one lawsuit that could produce a substantive addition to the law in the area. Campaigns are not exempted from defamation rules, though statements made in the heat of a campaign are given considerable space for free expression. If Franken had simply accused Coleman of being corrupt, there would be no legitimate basis for a lawsuit in my view. The use of a specific “top four” fact and reference to this report creates a more difficult question. It does seem that factually this statement is not true if it is based on the CREW report. I agree with Franken’s campaign that Coleman should be chastised on the apartment deal. Indeed, Crew previously filed a complaint over the issue. He was recently the subject of another lawsuit alleging improper campaign donations from his wife’s firm, which the campaign also labeled as defamatory. However, while Coleman is not viewed as a particularly effective Senator, he is not viewed as one of the most corrupt by most observers– an intense competition with his colleagues.
I also agree that this lawsuit seems politically driven — as was the ad that led to its filing. Yet, it is not without a viable basis in defamation law.
I think he is doing the right thing. If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending the Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
>Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of >Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and >Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes >across his desk from them.
This is one of the BIG reasons I’m voting FOR Obama. This poster is using the latest GOP line– promoting, urging, indeed begging for people to vote for Republicans so they can bring back GRIDLOCK. Now that’s funny!!
>There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats >pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster->proof, which means they will have a monopoly.
My heart swells with this very hope!!
Rcampbell,
Great job! There have been no checks on President Bush for 8 years, and McCain has pledged his support of the Bush regime. Secondly, GlenM, since when is it illegal or improper for celebrities to voice their opinion on who is running for office? What makes their choice “biased” as opposed to the choice of other people and other stars? Get a life and get some facts. Acorn is under “investigation” only because the Mukasey led Justice department is just as corrupt and politicized as it was under Alberto Gonzalez.
As to Prof. Turley’s issue of the lawsuit by Norm Coleman, I understand your points, but Norm Coleman has a history of filing lawsuits ust before the election day and then he withdraws them. I read the CREW corrupt listing as being a close call. The list named 3 senators who were corrupt and one(Coleman) as an honorable mention. They were the only 4 Senators listed out of 100 so even though CREW did not label him as one of the 4 most corrupt the math provides the opportunity to label him as corrupt. I don’t think a court would see a huge difference between the labels. Coleman is merely trying to put Franken on the defensive and control the news cycle before Tuesday.
I’d like to remind Rcampbell that not only has Bush and the GOP had a free ride the last eight years, but that the tactics they used to game the system were devised by a man who is on record as stating that the intention was to establish a PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY. That’d be Rove in case you don’t have your playbook handy.
You do know that one of the first thing Hitler did once he and his brown shirts seized majority power was to ban or marginalize competing political parties. In effect, creating a PERMANENT NAZI MAJORITY. By definition, a permanent majority isn’t democracy. It’s authoritarianism. You remember authoritarianism, right? One of the key elements of fascism? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, a wink’s a good as a goose step to a blind bat, eh? Eh?
No, the difference here is if the Democrats have a lock on Congress and the White House, it’s because the criminals in the RNC weren’t able to lie as well as they thought. If we had a non-politicized DOJ, there would be worse than losing an election. A lot of the administration would be wearing prison orange and not as a Halloween costume. Something I still hope to see and will see if justice prevails.
They are being voted out (assuming the election is fair this time). The DNC isn’t stealing control of the government nor do they have a stated mission of assuming permanent control like the fascists who stole the GOP from the classical conservatives. They are being handed control on a silver platter by the Bush administrations criminality and the Republicans in Congress. Specifically the RNC obstructionists in the Senate, who acted as Bush’s enabler and co-conspirators, all have been found out as the vile treasonous criminals that they are – a group of men and women who co-opted our military from legitimate business to make profits for Halliburton and Exxon. Don’t mind the STABLE country they destroyed in the process or the damage done to our military, our legitimate military interests, economy, the rule of law and international standing. All in the name of profit.
ACORN is a threat to the fabric of democracy? The ACORN complaint is propaganda and spin control to make you take your eye off the real threat to democracy: The Neocon GOP.
WHERE IS THE ACLU? WHERE IS JONATHAN TURLEY TO THE RESCUE????
State employee says she was ordered to check out Joe the Plumber
Friday, October 31, 2008 10:21 PM
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland and Jones-Kelley, both supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, have denied political motives in checking on Wurzelbacher. The Toledo-area resident later endorsed McCain. State officials say any information on “Joe” is confidential and was not released.
Today, Strickland press secretary Keith Dailey said neither the governor’s office nor Job and Family Services officials could comment due to an ongoing investigation by Ohio’s inspector general.
Republican legislators have called the checks suspicious and Jones-Kelley’s reason for them flimsy. They are demanding to know whether state computers were accessed in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wurzelbacher.
Jones-Kelley has revealed that her agency also checked to see if Wurzelbacher was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes. “Joe the Plumber” has said he is not involved in a child-support case.
About 3 p.m. on Oct. 16, Niekamp said Carrie Brown, assistant deputy director for child support, asked her to run Wurzelbacher through the computer. Citing privacy laws, Niekamp would not say what, if anything, was found on “Joe.”
On Oct. 23, Niekamp said Doug Thompson, deputy director for child support, told her she had checked on “Joe the Plumber.” Thompson “literally demanded” that she write an e-mail to the agency’s chief privacy officer stating she checked the case for child-support purposes, she said.
Thompson told her that Jones-Kelley said Wurzelbacher might buy a plumbing business and could owe support. Thompson said he replied that he “would check him out.”
Niekamp, 38, a senior child-support manager, said she never heard any discussion of politics amid what her supervisors told her about the checks on Wurzelbacher.
Worried about her $69,000-a-year job and potential criminal charges, the 15-year state employee said she went to Inspector General Thomas P. Charles on Oct. 24. She has seen employees fired, and dismissed one herself, for illegally accessing personal information in support cases.
The e-mail that Niekamp said she wrote was not among records provided today to The Dispatch in response to a public-records request. Nor did the agency, as required by state law, say it withheld any records.
Strickland spokesman Dailey later said one e-mail was withheld from The Dispatch because its release is prohibited by federal or state laws that forbid the release of information on the state’s child-support system. Daily said he was neither confirming nor denying the existence of a case on Wurzelbacher.
AP REVEALS: OBAMA AUNT LIVING IN U.S. ILLEGALLY…
Boston Housing Authority ‘flabbergastered’ Zeituni Onyango living in Southie…
Obama Aunt says made $260 donation to Obama subjecting her to immediate deportation if in America illegally…
Kenyan Government orders Obama’s family in Kenya to stop media interviews…
Obama’s brother STILL living in 9 by 9 hut on $12 per year…
ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama’s lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all…
THE BIG PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE…
Suicide jumper left ‘note for Obama’…
State employee says she was ordered to check out ‘Joe the Plumber’…ACLU ignores violations…
out Aunti Zeituni Onyango, one of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s many relatives made famous in his memoir, is an illegal alien. And not just a run-of-the-mill illegal alien on welfare.
Aunti’s story:
Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.
Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as “Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday.
Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
Just you watch: After sitting silent as Joe The Plumber’s records were rummaged by Ohio government employees, the fairweather privacy rights crowd will wake up and start making noise over this.
QUESTION: Will the Obama campaign return the many donations from this illegal alien?
ANSWER: Not bloody likely.
Federal Election Commission records show that Onyango donated at least five times to her nephew’s campaign in July and September. Three of the donations were for $5 each, and two of the donations were for $25. Records compiled by The Huffington Post show she gave a total of $260 to the campaign.
The law:
It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office; or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.
2 U.S.C. § 441e.
QUESTION II, from commenter tony4951: “So let me get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesn’t use his wealth to help his poor illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama wanting to raise my taxes to ’spread the wealth around’ I’m the selfish one?”
Saturday Night Live is doing a skit on out of control-wacko-lefty Keith Olbermann with Ben Afleck playing the part of the overweight Countdown host living with his mother.
Rashid Khalid is playing the part of Olbermann’s trusty sidekick and “constitutional law expert” Jonathan Turley.
The man has to be investigated as he’s obviously a socialist, commie terrorist. I think the standard line from the righties has been that if he has nothing to hide, the government can look all they want, tap his phones, invade his privacy, check on his library usage, require his Internet Service Provider to give records, etc. Funny how you just started to worrying now. No sympathy here.
I notice a number of posts by what I can only assume to be Republicans. They all exhibit the goose-step rantings of talking points dittoheads, who are much more comfortable from taking their orders from above, than acting as truly free thinking Americans. to dignify your rants with point by point refutations is not worth the time or energy, because you are truly incapable of non-directed thought. I will posit this though.
1. you have fully supported a President who lied to get us into an unneeded war that has killed and maimed more than 40,000 of our troops.
2. You have approved as this same President destroyed the economy of our nation by cutting taxes (95% benefiting the wealthy and corporations) and waging war at the same time. Something that no nation in history has done without disasterous consequences.
3. You have supported a President who has denied the Geneva Convention, thus putting our troops in harm’s way and has completely broken with an American sentiment first expounded by George Washington that Americans do not torture.
4. You have supported a President who has single-handedly done more harm to our Constitution by ignoring its’ provisions and illegally spied upon all of us. This doesn’t even speak to his ignoring habeas corpus, one of the prime principles of our law.
5. You are supporting a man who despite his claims has done nothing proactive in his career to display leadership. Everything in his life was handed to him either through his father’s influence or his adultery.
6. The man you support supposedly had his moment of glory as a prisoner in North Viet Nam. Considering though that his father was at the time the commander of our Pacific fleet, he disgraced himself by selling out to his Viet Cong captors and produce anit-American propaganda for them. Many other US prisoners held out against the torture at the same time, but this man disgraced his father and his family’s military heritage
This is just a sample of the outrages that people of your ilk and those you support have afflicted upon this country. Rather than being the real American’s that you think you are, in fact you are ignorant mannequins dancing to the tune of your un-American masters and the elite that controls them.
I’m thinking the public figure exception will weigh heavily in this case.
To add a line or two to Mike Spindell’s thought’s, it is fair to note that none of us who support Barack Obama need nor will accept any advise or lame pronouncements (as above) from those who supported Bush or the clone running to replace him.
rcampbell and mike spindell,
Amen! The recent discovery of Obama’s aunt who is the half sister of his late father is another red herring by the McCain camp. He has met this woman a few times in his life and has no control of her situation. Maybe it is time to talk about Cindy McCain’s theft of drugs when she had her addiction problem. At least that is how the Rovian Republicans would handle the situation.
Saturday Night Live has Ben Afleck playing the part of overweight wacko lefty Keith Olbermann who just stopped living with his mother.
Rashid Khalid is playing the part of Jonathan Turley, Olbermann’s trusty sidekick and “Constitutional Law Expert” on Countdown.
Mike,
I’m with you all the way except for 5 and 6 on your list. I just can’t morally assent to those propositions. McCain has made his own accomplishments. I think it’s right to criticize these accomplishments. No one who breaks under torture is dishonorable.
Jill
Jill,
I can agree with you as to #6 on Mike’s listing, but number 5 is a legitimate comment. I don’t agree that he sold out his country as a POW. Just to survive those horrible conditions was an achievment.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Associated Press
BREAKING; MASSIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS AT OBAMA CAMPAIGN…..CENTERED ON CREDIT CARD OPERATIONS.
Amid criticism for failing to identify the hundreds of thousands of low-dollar donors who have boosted his $600 million presidential campaign, Barack Obama has responded that it “would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process.”
But there is much widely used and inexpensive technology that allows Republican and Democratic campaigns to sort and identify millions of donors and to highlight or exclude overseas contributors. The technology is offered by companies that complete credit card transactions, by banks that provide credit cards to customers, by telecommunications companies that maintain digital networks, and by a variety of smaller firms that track Internet activity.
Over the past week, the lack of information regarding Obama’s online donations has been highlighted by prominent media outlets, including the Washington Post, Slate and ABC news anchor Charles Gibson. On Oct. 24, NationalJournal.com reported that Obama’s campaign computers do not verify the addresses claimed by online donors.
The lack of a computerized address-verification system allows the Obama campaign’s computers to accept online donations from U.S. citizens above legal limits, and to accept donations from foreigners who are barred by law from contributing at all. Under federal law, campaigns are not required to release the name of individuals who contribute less than $200.
Asked by Gibson on Oct. 29 if he would disclose the names of his many unidentified donors, Obama said, “Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process. And we have done everything that’s been asked of us under the FEC guidelines.
“These are small donors. They’re ordinary folks. And the idea behind all campaign finance reform is to make sure that the public official is not bought and sold…. I may come into the White House with fewer strings attached to me than just about any presidential candidate in history.”
There are few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors. Obama’s campaign is using two of the nation’s largest financial companies to process online donations, according to a New York Times story in July. They are, according to the Times, American Express, which processes daily transactions by almost 90 million cardholders worldwide, and Bank of America, which processes 3 million credit card transactions every 16 minutes, according to its 2007 annual report [PDF].
However, a five-minute phone call to Bank of America’s merchant-services department showed how a campaign could sort transactions to identify the credit cards used in donations. The campaign could download transaction data from the bank’s Web site and transfer the file into a database, such as Excel, said the Bank of America employee. “Then highlight all your transactions and click your sort button,” the employee said.
Obama’s September take included money from many small donors, whose names have not been released. The McCain campaign Web site displays the names and home cities of all donors. McCain campaign demonstrated how they accept online donations only from people who submit an address that matches the billing address for their credit card, 180 degrees from that required by the Obama campaign.
Every organization that accepts credit cards relies on a complex financial industry to complete transactions. For example, a customer must get a credit card from a financial firm, usually a bank, which verifies the customer’s identity. These cards are actually managed by a network run by a credit card processing firm, which usually is a division of a large bank. When a customer makes a purchase, the card-processing firm either affirms the transaction or denies it — for example, if it is fraudulent.
A very large number of transactions are made every day. For example, in 2007 Bank of America processed 180,000 transactions per minute from its 59 million customers. American Express is a distinct network, where transactions of its 90 million cardholders are watched, approved, and stored by the firm’s own network.
Each transaction can be recorded — and thus stored — by multiple parties in databases for many years. For example, complete or partial data about online purchases can be stored by the credit card firms, the vendor’s accounting and marketing departments, the customer, and sometimes the customer’s bank. American Express, for example, stores transaction data for seven years.
Credit card numbers provide a wealth of information to Web site operators seeking to identify incoming customers, in part because the first seven digits reveal the financial firm that issued the card. Other numbers show the country where the issuer is located. Under federal rules, donations from overseas sources require extra scrutiny.
The Internet’s inner workings provide another rich source of data that can be used to sort and identify online donations.
Every device that links to the Internet has its own Internet Protocol address. For example, the IP address of johnmccain.com is 64.203.107.149, according to the Web site selfseo.com. IP addresses are assigned en-bloc to five regional organizations, which then award small blocs to Internet firms and governments. The U.S. regional organization is the American Registry for Internet Numbers, based in Chantilly, Va.
When an Internet user visits a Web site, the site’s operators can tell what Internet firm is providing the link and what part of the world the visitor is coming from. For example, all IP addresses in Europe and the Western section of the Middle East begin with “88.” said one person who helps manage the addressing system. Some Web sites, such as find-ip-address.org, offer this location service for free.
This addressing system allows Web site managers to exclude visitors they don’t want, he said. For example, vendors who do not want to sell to customers in Latin America, he said, can exclude all IP address beginning with “200.” The task is accomplished by modifying the “Access Control List” functions on a Web site’s routers and firewall, he said. Commercial firms, such as Boston-based MaxMind, provide similar services to companies such as IBM, Wal-Mart and eBay, to detect and exclude suspect IP addresses.
Software code on Obama’s online donations page indicates that the site recognizes the IP address of everyone who gives money. It can be viewed by selecting page source from the “view” menu on most Web browsers. The code for donate.barackobama.com includes an “ip_addr” field, which records the visitor’s IP address.
The quantity of overseas donations is unclear, partly because the Obama campaign has not released the names of the sub-$200 donors. .
Internet service providers record the activities of their customers to better understand what their customers are interested in, to ward off hacker attacks, and to detect online traffic jams. Internet search firms also track Internet traffic to sell that information to others. For example, Google records all the search inquiries made on its Web site, and Alexa.com tracks movement through the Obama and McCain Web sites.
So far, according to San Francisco-based Alexa, 20 percent of visitors to Obama’s Web site visited the donation Web page, but fewer than 1 percent of visitors to the McCain Web site opened up the campaign’s donations page. Alexa also reports that 55 percent of Obama’s visitors came from the United States, and 94 percent of visitors to johnmccain.com came from the United States.
Internet users can mask their online activities behind “anonymizers.” These services provide misleading IP addresses to customers who wish to visit a Web site without being recorded and the results are:
On Oct. 17, these reporters hid their identities behind an anonymizer while making several $25 donations to the Obama campaign with a pre-paid gift card without a single problem from overseas.
The same day the McCain Web site refused a similar donation because the gift card did not have a billing address that could be used to verify the address typed into the campaign’s Web site. It also flagged the donation as originating from overseas.
wow!
HEY TURLEY, OBAMA IS GOIN TO JAIL REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE WINS OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey Jon,
Please comment on the legal technicalities of the Coleman Texas lawsuit regarding the funneling of money through two of his supporters companies and his wife’s employer. Very interested to hear your take.
Jill & Rafflaw,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Re: Item 5 & 6 I refer you to the article in last month’s Rolling Stone “Make Believe Maverick” which you can find at this link:
shttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
(Sorry but I don’t know how to make it a real link, old fart that I am) This is one among many articles I’ve read on McCain. What is clear to me is that re: my Item 5, this man has never accomplished anything on his own except for the fact of his Father’s intervention, or Cindy’s money. His reputation as a “maverick” is further undeserved fostered by a worshipful press corp that covered up his various peccadillo’s. See the innumerable articles referencing the awe that he was held in, by those who covered him
As for Item 6 this is my take, like it or not. If I came from the distinguished military background that he did and my Father was Commander of the Pacific Fleet, they would have had to kill me before I cracked. However, admittedly if I was just an average guy who had been captured I would have cracked at the threat, they wouldn’t have had to touch me. Many of the POW’s at the Hanoi Hilton like John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam, didn’t crack. McCain was always a spoiled party boy, who was a lousy pilot and a serial cheater in all respects. Given the thousands of US Viet Nam war prisoners and the tens of thousands who were maimed by that war, his use of his imprisonment as a justification for his ambition and as his prevalent life narrative, is an insult to all of our troops.
To me he has run a great game to attain the status of “War Hero” but it was undeserved. He was a prisoner who survived. Had he not cracked then in my thinking we could call him a hero. I believe that the “Hero” status has been conferred on him mainly by male reporters/pundits who didn’t go to war and by female reporters/pundits susceptible to his charms. His history does show the ability to seduce women is probably his chief talent.
Gotta go with Mike on # 6. To follow the military code of conduct is an oath taken by all military personnel.
Sticking to the code, one would only give name, rank, and serial number under any and all events including torture.
Many American pow’s held and tortured in nam not only refused to give anything but name, rank, and serial number but also repeatedly tried to escape captivity.
Some of these men received the Congressional medal of honor, posthumously.
This is the definition of military honor.
Whooliebacon,
With all do respect, there is no bigger backer of Obama than myself, but McCain’s actions in Vietnam were honorable and heroic. Theh only thing we can ask of our service men and women is for them to do their best. Under such horrific circumstances, just surviving is a real achievement. The problems with McCain as a politician and a Presidential candidate have nothing to do with his service in Vietnam.
Hey liberal-hating, right-wing idiots about to vote against your own self-interest — enjoy Monday! It’s the last day anyone will listen to anything you say. Your president is a lame duck, your candidate is a douchebag, your party comprises the worst this country has ever produced and you redneck racist halfwits will soon be outnumbered by non-whites in the USA.
In other words, have fun spending the rest of your life as a member of an ever smaller minority of bitter, ignored, unemployed laughingstocks. The rest of us will enjoy pointing and laughing at you backward, inbred donkeys. Sayonara!
Dunno why I’m up at this time. Mike, I get that Glen was spouting talking points, but your response wasn’t much better; it also read like a laundry list of talking points. And #5 and #6 went overboard. Just watch this Letterman clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
On a separate note, I’d be interested in hearing what JT has to say about the mixed conservative reaction to Heller. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21guns.html?hp
Finally, do you guys and gals think Obama will gut the war on drugs? Since ‘04, his position has apparently evolved from decriminalization of pot, to instructing the Justice Department to not waste resources on its enforcement, to hesistanly endorsing its use for medical/palliative purposes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9flhDmz7Kwo
David H.,
I agree with some of your characterizations, but the entire Republican party is not racist or comprised of halfwits. The small minority of people in the Republican party that have contolled it and the country for the last 8 years are the worst of the worst. The only way people will be laughing at them in the future is if the new majority actually repairs the damage done to the Constitution and begins to govern for us and not for the corporation. I will be ecstatic if Obama wins on Tuesday, but I will be wary of what progress they are actually making. Once Obama is elected and in the White House, the Senate will have to grow a pair in order to redo the FISA to actually make the Executive Branch follow the law. And torture of any kind by any agency of the U.S. government must be stopped immediately.
Here is some information on the torture of our people at the hands of the North Vietnamese. I categorically oppose torture and cannot hold anyone accountable for what they say while being tortured. I oppose what happened to our people then and I oppose this govt.’s torture of people now. WARNING –THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TORTURE.
(EXAMPLES) Alvarez, who ejected not far from shore, was captured by armed Vietnamese in a fishing vessel. By Aug. 11, he had been taken to Hanoi’s notorious Hoa Lo Prison, a turn-of-the-century French-built facility with thick two-story concrete walls known in Vietnamese as the “fiery furnace.” Rats infested his cell. Food, consisting of animal hooves, chicken heads, rotten fish, and meat covered with hair, was sickening.
The complex, ringed with guard towers, soon became known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” with sections known as “Heartbreak Hotel,” “New Guy Village,” “Little Vegas,” and “Camp Unity.” The complex was so formidable that not a single US serviceman managed to make an escape during the entire war.
Navy Lt. j.g. Rodney A. Knutson, a radar intercept officer captured with pilot Lt. j.g. Ralph E. Gaither when their F-4 was shot down on Oct. 17, 1965, got an early taste of what lay ahead. His captors bound his arms so tightly that they lost circulation. He was denied food and water. He was beaten. When he still refused to cooperate, his torturers moved on to a new, more sinister method-the “rope torture.” Knutson was subjected to this technique on Oct. 25, 1965. The prisoner was forced face down onto a bunk with his ankles in stocks and a rope tied at his elbows, with the rope then pulled up to run through a hook in the ceiling. The guard hoisted the prisoner off the bunk so he could not ease any of his weight-producing extreme pain and constricting breathing.
USAF Capt. Konrad W. Trautman suffered the rope torture on a dozen occasions. “The pain is literally beyond description,” said Trautman, who was shot down and captured Oct. 5, 1967. “After about 10 or 15 minutes in this position, tied up so tightly, your nerves in your arms are pinched off, and then your whole upper torso becomes numb. It’s a relief. You feel no more pain. … However when they release the ropes, the procedure works completely in reverse. It’s almost like double jeopardy-you go through the same pain coming out of the ropes as you did going in.”
Air Force Capt. Earl G. Cobeil, captured on Nov. 5, 1967, feigned mental illness, as did some other POWs, to protect himself from the experimental brainwashing carried out by a dreaded Cuban interrogator. The Cuban, known among POWs as “Fidel,” convinced that Cobeil was faking, mercilessly beat him day after day. One day, Cobeil refused to bow. For the offense, Cobeil on May 21, 1968, was trussed in ropes overnight and mauled for 24 hours straight. Fidel, enraged, emerged from one torture session to shout to prisoners within earshot: “We’ve got [a POW] that’s faking. Nobody’s gonna fake and get away with it. … I’m gonna teach you all a lesson. … I’m gonna break this guy in a million pieces.” Cobeil was last seen in the fall of 1970 and did not return with the other POWs in 1973. The Vietnamese later reported Cobeil had died in November 1970; his remains were returned March 6, 1974.
One prisoner estimated that communist torturers exacted statements of some sort from 80 percent of the POWs. As soon as they recovered from the physical trauma, the prisoners faced the torment of having collaborated…
I’d like to expand on Jill’s remarks above. The prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton were airmen shot down over North Vietnam. They were volunteers, often graduates of our service academies & members of elite military units known for their esprit de corps. If 80% of these men broke under torture, then John McCain is in good company.
I don’t recall the military prosecuting any of these POW’s after their return. Perhaps this was a cynical PR move: to have done so would have been a major embarrassment in the wake of Vietnam. On the other hand, maybe the military has a better informed & more charitable understanding of victims of torture.
In support of the later view, I would point out that: 1. Some of the fiercest critics of the Bush Administration’s torture policies have been members of our military. 2. Numerous JAG officers defending Guantanamo inmates have jeopardized their own careers by protesting the admission into evidence of confessions extracted under torture.
Knocking McCain’s war record is just as bad as the Swiftboating of Kerry.
I also take exception to the assertion that McCain has never exhibited leadership. I have no use for the McCain of 2008; but I do recall his role in drafting & passing the McCain-Feingold Bill.
I understand partisanship, but I do not think it should take the form of false criticisms of your opponent.
Mike, a quick old fart computer lesson:
You inadvertently copied the ‘S’ from RS (Rolling Stone)
A link should begin with ‘http’, for starters, which can be accomplished by using your pointer to highlight the URL which you can either then ‘grab’ and ‘drag’ by holding your pointer down, and
then release the link where you want it in your document or on your Desktop.
Or, highlight the URL, go to ‘Edit’, choose ‘Copy’ by clicking, then ‘Paste’…
Here, JT’s software will do the rest.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
McCain’s own account of his POW experience, particularly regarding the offer for early release etc is certainly much more romantic than the account given in this interesting RS article. Thanks for referencing it.
McCain: A *bandy rooster* posturing as a ragdoll puppet action hero figure.
As a former military serviceman during the Viet Nam Era, I consider Mr. McCain a pathetic misrepresentation of his appellation as a “war hero”. He broke while others died before they would give any information that might harm their fellow soldiers or aviators. As an officer, McCain had an even higher oath to uphold.
I do not know if I could have endured unspeakable measures of torture, as occurred in Mr. McCain’s situation, to uphold the oath of non-collaboration with the enemy. I, of course, would like to think I could have endured since I strove to achieve the best I could do as a serviceman while receiving honor graduate status for almost every military endeavor I was given, including top physical fitness awards after ‘boot camp’.
Air Force Capt. Earl G. Cobeil, and others who died at their captors’ hands, and those who lived through the torture but who never ‘talked’, are the exemplary heroes worthy of admiration for their courage; however, McCain denigrates their honor with his *bandy rooster* posturing as a ragdoll puppet action hero figure. I have nothing but disdain for McCain.
To close in a positive vein, LTC Cobeil was posthumously awarded the Air Force Flying Cross. However, given the potential number of lives he preserved by not collaborating with the enemy, his gallantry and allegiances to his oath and country justified the additional recognition of the Medal of Honor that he never received.
Conservative 30-year registered Republican for Obama/Biden
FFLEO,
Posturing as a war hero is not acceptable. Being called dishonorable or a coward for breaking under torture is not acceptable either.
Jill,
I agree with your description entirely.
Jill and/or rafflaw,
Have you ever sworn an oath as a member of the military? Most of us who have taken oaths to Codes of Conduct do so with complete reverence, honor, and without reservation.
Below are the pertinent Articles of the Code of Conduct delineating a “set of rules that American soldiers were expected to follow if captured.” A PBS link is appended.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/filmmore/ps_code.html
The CAPS were original from the article.
Article III.
IF I AM CAPTURED, I WILL CONTINUE TO RESIST BY ALL MEANS AVAILABLE. I WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ESCAPE AND AID OTHERS TO ESCAPE. I WILL ACCEPT NEITHER PAROLE NOR SPECIAL FAVORS FROM THE ENEMY.
Article IV.
IF I BECOME A PRISONER OF WAR, I WILL KEEP FAITH WITH MY FELLOW PRISONERS. I WILL GIVE NO INFORMATION OR TAKE PART IN ANY ACTION WHICH MIGHT BE HARMFUL TO MY COMRADES. IF I AM SENIOR, I WILL TAKE COMMAND. IF NOT, I WILL OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THOSE APPOINTED OVER ME AND WILL BACK THEM UP IN EVERY WAY.
Article V.
WHEN QUESTIONED, SHOULD I BECOME A PRISONER OF WAR, I AM REQUIRED TO GIVE MY NAME, RANK, SERVICE NUMBER, AND DATE OF BIRTH. I WILL EVADE ANSWERING FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE UTMOST OF MY ABILITY. I WILL MAKE NO ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS DISLOYAL TO MY COUNTRY AND ITS ALLIES OR HARMFUL TO THEIR CAUSE.
FFLeo,
My son has taken that oath, but I have not. My father took it in World War II and Korea. My brother took it in Vietnam. Notwithstanding the oath that all military members take, I cannot fault them for faltering under brutal physcial torture, nor could I fault them for faltering under brutal and intense pyschological torture. To say that every service member can successfully thwart the torture that our enemies and the U.S. employ is pie in the sky. I expect them to do their very best, but I understand that every man and woman serving us has their limits.
FFleo,
Exactly as rafflaw stated. I have not and many of my closest family memebers have taken that oath and served on the ground in combat multiple times. Rafflaw is correct. Only a small percentage of people who are tortured are able to resist it. It is wrong to condemn the rest. It doesn’t matter who their father is or how wealthy (or poor) they are. This is blaming the victim. The person who tortured committed the crime. The person who approved and ordered torture committed a crime.
Patty C.,
Thanks for the effort unfortunately I still can’t do it. This article below by Emptywheel at Firedoglake and the sources cited further explains my disdain for McCain. (Would you believe at one point in the 90’s I ran a large NYC computer operation, lucky to have great staff).
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/11/03/mccain-was-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five-and-he-hasnt-changed/#more-3008
FFLEO,
Couldn’t agree with you more and I respect your service, not as the current cliche, but as someone whose eyes mist up at times with love for my country and those brave enough to defend it. I am not one of them and sincerely believed during Viet Nam that I would have been killed going through basic training. Luckily for me I was 4f due to high blood pressure, which a lifetime of early and current heart problems bore out.
Jill & Rafflaw,
As I expressed above and in my original post I know for a fact that I would have succumbed prior to torture. However, that would have been my pragmatic mind, fear of being hurt and belief that anything I said would have no material effect on the war. I don’t criticize McCain for “breaking” as many did, but that does not make his survival heroic. I think, physical coward (at least where torture is concerned) that I am, that if my Father was Commander of the Pacific Fleet they would had to cut me up piece by piece rather than me dishonoring my Father. As FFLEO points out there were many, many people who did resist all of whom had much less riding on their confessions other than the Military Honor Code. Those who held out are to be rightly called heroes. Those who couldn’t we can understand and sympathize with, but they were not heroes.
John McCain is not a hero. Disgracefully though, he has used his capture as a central meme detailing why he should be considered a man of honor. This is an abrogation and denial of the real sacrifices and heroism of some of our armed forces. This is all the actions of a dis-honorable and self-serving man. That lack of honor is further highlighted by the article I referenced above.
Although I’ve already proudly voted for Barack Obama, I don’t write this put down of McCain as the result of an excess of partisanship. I’m old enough to be far more cynical about the machinations of our political system than to dislike someone because they hold different political views. I write this about McCain because I hate hypocrisy and loath those who would be so awash in it, that they probably don’t even realize their own lying.
Patty C,
Wow it worked! Thank you.
Mike,
I agree that McCain should not run around calling himself a war hero. No one can know what kind of torture anyone experienced or demand that someone hold fast no matter what is done to them. There are so many valid criticisms of McCain. Holding him to a higher standard under torture doesn’t seem just. Breaking under torture isn’t dependent on loving/honoring your father or country. No studies of torture show that. In WWII there was one slight difference in whom the German’s had less success with–these were soldiers who had given the US army “trouble” before the Germans tortured them.
I worry that those men and women with prominant parents who broke under torture, or anyone who did, will read what you and FFLEO are saying and think they are guilty. People do that to children who were abused. For example by clergy: “Well, why did you let that happen? Your dad’s a minister.” This takes the onus off the person who committed the crime and places it on the victim of the crime.
Both of you have said you do not know if you would have broken or believe you might have. I believe you when you say you love this country (I don’t know how you feel towards your fathers). McCain while being tortured is no different than you or anyone else. Most people will break, only a rather small percentage do not. McCain as a candidate has many flaws but breaking under torture as a young man is not a flaw. That is why torture is a heinous crime.
Michael,
Way cool!
Thank you and thank JT!
p.s. I do believe it…!
Jill,
I don’t have any argument with you about people who break under torture. I’ve certainly admitted that I would with little coercion.
My problem is directly with McCain not only being called a hero, using it as a justification for his right to office and using it as a shield against criticism. That is my complaint and all of these tactics have been used by his campaign. They have made criticizing his experience as out of bounds, even though his experience and knowledge of the issues especially the economy and foreign relations are arguably those of a dilettante.
As to my Father, I adored him and he was very intelligent,but he died when I was 18. I know he would have advised me to break rather than be tortured. However, he was a car salesman, McCain’s was the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
Jill,
To answer your question about my natural father, he was career military, a WWII veteran, and taught college ROTC. My brother was a Green Beret (Special Forces) officer who was Killed In Action (KIA) in Laos at the time I was also serving in the military.
I do not know how else to express the solemn oath a soldier takes other than you are pledging that you will sacrifice everything, including your life, for your fellow soldier, your country, and for all U.S. citizens so they are able to live in freedom to achieve greatness or simply to be able to correspond as we are now.
Given the service of my father, my uncles, my brother’s son, and especially my brother’s ultimate sacrifice, I would have done anything honorably and physically possible to uphold the Codes of Conduct to which I solemnly pledged.
Mike,
I totally agree that McCain’s experience during Viet Nam does not qualify him for leadership as President of the United States. He is using that experience in a way that I agree is wrong. I still cannot understand how who your dad is can make any moral difference during torture. We can claim neither glory, nor ill repute from our relatives or parents. We can only live our own life as best as possible and I hope well. I cannot see how there is justice to claiming otherwise.
FFLEO,
“Given the service of my father, my uncles, my brother’s son, and especially my brother’s ultimate sacrifice, I would have done anything honorably and physically possible to uphold the Codes of Conduct to which I solemnly pledged.” I agree with that statement. It has no bearing on whether one breaks under torture. I would not consider you a dishonor to this nation had you been tortured and broken. One can do everything in one’s power and still fail. Failure to try is something one can make a moral judgement on. Trying and failing under torture is not.
I worry about the claim that people are dishonorable if they break under torture. It’s making torture O.K. as a starting point, something the cheneybush crowd certainly agrees with. Torture is against domestic and international law for real reasons.
Mike and FLEO,
You both express yourselves just fine…
Even though it was all sort of lost on Jill, who claims “many of my closest family memebers have taken that oath and served on the ground in combat multiple times, I do ‘get it’.
In contrast, I don’t have a lot of relatives – much less those who served ‘recently’ in combat, that I know of.
As tp ,y family’s early American history and Revolutionary War era – yes.
Thankfully, my brothers were either essentially 4-f, had college deferment, or missed the draft entirely. No doubt, at least one of them would have split for Canada from Fordham U, if necessary, even though he took the ROTC exam and passed with flying colors
- just in case
My father, on the other hand, was the WWII equivalent of the classic ‘MASH’ Army surgeon…