by Unknown | 12/07/2007 05:32:00 AM
On tap for today:

  • The Historians for Obama have been joined by a similar group, Academics for Ron Paul. Though I don't expect to support Paul this cycle, I much prefer the wording of this statement (authored by David Beito) to that of the one the Historians for Obama put out.

  • Scott McLemee of InsideHigherEd mentions PH and quotes yours truly in a column on blogging.

  • PH reader William Hogeland has a new essay, Inventing Alexander Hamilton, up at the Boston Review.

  • Gil Troy, a noted conservative U.S. historian from McGill University, has started a blog at HNN. While I disagree with Troy's politics, I find him invariably thoughtful and worth reading, and wish him luck in this new endeavor. His site has been blogrolled here at PH.

  • An excellent and thought-provoking three-part series on pornography by gender historian Hugo Schwyzer: 1 2 3 WARNING! This is a post about pornography.

I won't be around much for the next week or so, as I'm finishing up a couple of papers for the end of the semester (though I'll probably check in at least once a day to read comments). See you on the flip side!

Until then, what's on your mind?

Put the rest of your post here, and delete this text.




Blogger Ahistoricality on 12/07/2007 12:45 PM:

A quibble: Hugo Schwyzer, for all his virtues, is not a gender historian. He's a medievalist by training and generalist history teacher who also teaches and writes about feminism and gender studies, from a fairly ahistorical and Christian perspective.

Any ideas on place/time for the PH AHA meet-up?


Blogger Unknown on 12/07/2007 3:53 PM:

Fixed -- thanks for the correction.

Is it time for us to start talking about that? I figure you're the one with the most difficult schedule. If so, we can take it to e-mail. We should give folks a few weeks' notice if at all possible, since Bastoche is planning to come down by train specifically for the meeting.


Anonymous Anonymous on 12/08/2007 3:31 PM:

"What's on my mind?" , you ask,
well, first of all get all the air heads out
of the prez race, that would leave maybe Kucinich.
Ron Paul, a libation terrier, is not an alternative,
Obama is too superficial, Hillary
is Hillary (tough luck , I ain't votin for her
and I ain't no back in the hollow red neck)
Ah yes, the profresserate, ah
yes, you lot, the lot thast countenances torture's advocate at
Boalt Hall in Berkeley, ah yes!
Whether tis nobler in the mind to
suffer this dumb shit place or by
opposing, leave you all to your
inevitable fate, the dumb fuck crowd that shuffled on to
extinction, superceded by the
DoD electronic robots, without
ever having truly militated for
an equitable coexistence of
living things on this planet, well hell, in that context Rupert
can install whoever he wants,
Hillary, Barack, Ron, Rudy, it's
all the same, all the same, why
it might be said to be the negative
apotheosis of the ineviatbale
monomaniacal tendancies of
mediterranena monotheism in all
of its blood lust forms!


Anonymous Anonymous on 12/10/2007 12:57 AM:

9/11 Commission where reality stopped

By: Jesse Hemingway

Let's start here with some basic ground rules of law and work from there.

Out of the gate we need to look at the scope of the Executive Order (EO) and does that have any legal bearing on a successful criminal prosecution and the crimes that occurred on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was formed under an EO does it carry any legal validity or was it just a bluff to buy time? What type of criminal procedures followed 9/11 if any then if not who made the decisions not to file or follow criminal investigations or proceedings?

Went to the well one to many times
The EO procedures worked quite well with the JFK murder investigation it totally circumvented Texas state law bought enough time to yield to strong arm tactics with in the government similar to 9/11. In less then one year after JFK’s murder we were committed to a surge in Vietnam under false pretence Tokin Gulf Resolution the vote in the Senate 98 for 2 against.

Executive Orders Defined

An Executive Order (EO) is a directive issued to executive-level agencies, department heads, or other employees from the President under the President's statutory, or constitutional powers. In many ways, the EO is similar to written orders, or instructions the president of a corporation might send to department heads or directors.Thirty days after it is officially published in the Federal Register, an EO becomes law. While the EO does bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional. The first EO was issued in 1789 by none other than George Washington. Not until 1907 were EOs given official numbers.

no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) testimony in the 9/11 commission report would most likely be considered unconstitutional thus EO would be in violation of the law. The entire 9/11 commission report hinges on the testimony from KSM was that testimony obtained legally?

Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order

Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes:
1. Operational management of the executive branch
2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities

Powers of the President

+ Serve as commander in chief of all U.S. armed forces
+ Commission officers of the armed forces
+ Grant pardons and reprieves from Federal offenses (except impeachments)
+ Convene special sessions of Congress
+ Receive foreign ambassadors
+ Take care that Federal laws are faithfully executed
+ Wield the "executive power"
+ Appoint officials to lesser offices
Powers of the President Shared With the Senate
+ Make treaties
+ Appoint ambassadors, judges, and higher officials
Powers of the President Shared With Congress as a Whole
+ Approve legislation

What is an Executive Order?

From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

Crime (what is a crime)

A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.

See Topic: Criminal Law

Prosecution n. 1) in criminal law, the government attorney charging and trying the case against a person accused of a crime. 2) a common term for the government's side in a criminal case, as in "the prosecution will present five witnesses" or "the prosecution rests" (completed its case). (See: prosecute, prosecutor)

Next step in the process:


§ 301. State's prima facie case; proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) In any prosecution for an offense, a prima facie case for the State consists of some credible evidence tending to prove the existence of each element of the offense.
(b) No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) In any prosecution for any compound crime, including but not limited to first degree murder under § 636(a)(2) or (a)(6) of this title or for second degree murder under § 635(2) of this title, the corpus delicti of the underlying felony need not be proved independently of a defendant's extrajudicial statement. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 301; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 463, § 1.)
§ 302. Jury instruction for defendant on reasonable doubt.

(a) Pursuant to § 301(b) of this title, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit if they fail to find each element of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(b) The defendant may produce whatever evidence the defendant has tending to negate the existence of any element of the offense, and, if the court finds that a reasonable juror might believe that evidence, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must consider whether the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 302; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 303. Credible evidence to support defenses.

(a) No defense defined by this Criminal Code or by another statute may be considered by the jury unless the court is satisfied that some credible evidence supporting the defense has been presented.
(b) Evidence supports a defense when it tends to establish the existence of each element of the defense.
(c) If some credible evidence supporting a defense is presented, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 303; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 547, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 304. Defendant's affirmative defenses; prove by preponderance of evidence.
(a) When a defense declared by this Criminal Code or by another statute to be an affirmative defense is raised at trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence.
(b) Unless the court determines that no reasonable juror could find an affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defendant, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the jury must acquit the defendant if they find the affirmative defense established by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) An affirmative defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence when the jury is persuaded that the evidence makes it more likely than not that each element of the affirmative defense existed at the required time. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 304; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 305.
Exemption from criminal liability; affirmative defense to be proved by defendant.
When this Criminal Code or another statute specifically exempts a person or activity from the scope of its application and the defendant contends that the defendant is legally entitled to be exempted thereby, the burden is on the defendant to prove, as an affirmative defense, facts necessary to bring the defendant within the exemption. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 305; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 306. No conclusive presumptions; rebuttable presumptions and proof thereof.
(a) There are no conclusive presumptions in this Criminal Code, and all conclusive presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are hereby abolished.
(b) Rebuttable presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are preserved except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Criminal Code.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Criminal Code, the following rebuttable presumptions are expressly preserved:

(1) A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of the person's act.
(2) A person found in possession of goods acquired as a result of the commission of a recent crime is presumed to have committed the crime.
(d) Proof of a fact tending to create a rebuttable presumption not inconsistent with this Criminal Code or a presumption created by this Criminal Code constitutes prima facie evidence of the presumed conclusion.

(e) The court may tell the jury of the existence of the presumption, and if it does so the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the presumption does not relieve the State of its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the jury may convict the defendant, despite the existence of evidence tending to rebut the presumption, if they find no reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 306; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 203, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 307. Jury inference of defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief.
(a) The defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief at the time of the offense for which the defendant is charged may be inferred by the jury from the circumstances surrounding the act the defendant is alleged to have done. In making the inference permitted by this section, the jury may consider whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of the offense would have had or lacked the requisite intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief.
(b) When the defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief is an element of an offense, it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the State to prove circumstances surrounding the act which the defendant is alleged to have done from which a reasonable juror might infer that the defendant's intention, recklessness, knowledge or belief was of the sort required for commission of the offense. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 307; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 308. Construction of provisions allowing no defense.
When a provision of this Criminal Code expressly denies the applications of a specific defense, no inference is thereby created that any other defense is valid. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 308; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1.)

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”


Anonymous Anonymous on 12/10/2007 9:44 AM:

December 8, 2007, Greencastle, Ind. - "Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton, a 1952 graduate of DePauw University, in today's Detroit Free Press.
The article details demands by congressional Democrats "that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed" the tapes. It notes, "White House press secretary Dana Perino said President George W. Bush didn't recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she didn't rule out White House involvement, saying she hadn't asked others about it."

Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports "the former chairmen of the Sept. 11 commission, who said the CIA assured them repeatedly during their inquiry that no original material existed from its interrogations of Qaeda figures, said they were furious to learn about the tapes ... Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said they had made clear in hours of negotiations and discussions with the CIA, as well as in written requests, that they wanted all material connected to the interrogations of Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody in order to get a complete understanding of the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks for their 2004 report."


Anonymous Anonymous on 12/14/2007 12:21 AM:

The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

The report added to suspicions about a Saudi role in the hijacking plot.

It's not the first time Graham has accused the Bush administration of a cover-up, having previously alleged that the White House had hidden evidence exposing Saudi Arabia's links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.