Jim C. and I went to the Capitals game last night, and the Caps won 4-1.
The Caps also made some trades yesterday, acquiring a new goaltender, a new forward, and a new defenseman. It looks like they are serious about making a push for the playoffs.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Lazy weekend
Snow day Friday, then a lazy Saturday. Did errands and chores, but also had time to watch movies, play Wii and watch hockey.
Friday, February 22, 2008
"Vantage Point"
I saw the movie "Vantage Point" today. It was a waste of money. The premise, that of various people seeing the same thing from different vantage points, got ridiculous after awhile, and the audience actually laughed and groaned when it cycled back to the same time, but a different vantage point.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Iran
Barack Obama seems to think that all will be well if we just sit down and talk with our enemies. Although he does not use the word enemies. Apparently he thinks that war is just a misunderstanding between countries.
Michael Ledeen, author of the Iranian Time Bomb, wrote the following on National Review Online today:
"We have been talking to Iran virtually non-stop for nearly 30 years. This most definitely includes the Bush administration, which has used open and back channels, including dispatching former Spanish President Felipe Gonzales to Tehran on our behalf."
"We have been talking to Iran. We are talking to Iran right now. The proposal that we talk to Iran is neither new nor does it represent any change in American policy. There is apparently a great desire to deny the facts in this matter."
"One further point: In his excellent book The Persian Puzzle, Ken Pollack spends many pages on the Clinton administration's many talks with Iran, which failed to produce any positive results. And he concludes that the failure to achieve any breakthrough with the mullahs is not our fault. They don't want good relations with us. They are our enemies...Talking will not improve this situation. They have been at war with us since 1979. Our only options are winning or losing."
Michael Ledeen, author of the Iranian Time Bomb, wrote the following on National Review Online today:
"We have been talking to Iran virtually non-stop for nearly 30 years. This most definitely includes the Bush administration, which has used open and back channels, including dispatching former Spanish President Felipe Gonzales to Tehran on our behalf."
"We have been talking to Iran. We are talking to Iran right now. The proposal that we talk to Iran is neither new nor does it represent any change in American policy. There is apparently a great desire to deny the facts in this matter."
"One further point: In his excellent book The Persian Puzzle, Ken Pollack spends many pages on the Clinton administration's many talks with Iran, which failed to produce any positive results. And he concludes that the failure to achieve any breakthrough with the mullahs is not our fault. They don't want good relations with us. They are our enemies...Talking will not improve this situation. They have been at war with us since 1979. Our only options are winning or losing."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Satellite Shoot-Down any day now
The Navy will be shooting down a spy satellite any day now. It is a fascinating technological effort. It involves a malfunctioning spy satellite the size of a school bus that is orbiting the earth at 22,000 miles per hour (more than 300 miles per second). To hit this target, the Navy will use a specially modified missile that was originally developed for use against incoming ballistic missiles. It is anticipated that there are ten-second windows of opportunity over the next ten days, and then the opportunity will be lost, because the satellite will be in the atmosphere by then. The order to fire is not being made by a military commander on the ground (or at sea), but is being made by the Secretary of Defense himself, who will presumably weigh factors like weather and even the international political climate at the time. The Secretary of Defense is flying to Hawaii today, and the official explanation is that this was a previously-scheduled trip that just happens to coincide with the shoot-down decision (Sure, I believe that...)
The expressed reason for shooting down the satellite is that a dangerous chemical, hydrazine, is on board, and could be hazardous to people should the satellite crash in a populated area. I'm sorry, but this explanation just does not wash. More hazardous chemicals like chlorine are transported in trucks and trains every day in the United States.
The real reason for the shootdown appears to be as follows: (1) to prevent spy technology from possibly falling into the wrong hands, (2) to test anti-ballistic missile systems against a realistic target, and (3) to send a subtle message to China and Russia that we can shoot down their satellites if we want to.
The U.S. government should just be up-front about its reasons for shooting down the satellite. No one is buying the explanation that it is to prevent damage to life and property caused by the on-board supply of hydrazine. It is this kind of obfuscation by the government that give rise to conspiracy theories.
A good discussion of these issues by Richard Fernandez can be found here. I must note again, that while I am employed by the DoD, all the information found in this post are from public sources, and nothing I say represents the views of the DoD or the agency I work for.
The expressed reason for shooting down the satellite is that a dangerous chemical, hydrazine, is on board, and could be hazardous to people should the satellite crash in a populated area. I'm sorry, but this explanation just does not wash. More hazardous chemicals like chlorine are transported in trucks and trains every day in the United States.
The real reason for the shootdown appears to be as follows: (1) to prevent spy technology from possibly falling into the wrong hands, (2) to test anti-ballistic missile systems against a realistic target, and (3) to send a subtle message to China and Russia that we can shoot down their satellites if we want to.
The U.S. government should just be up-front about its reasons for shooting down the satellite. No one is buying the explanation that it is to prevent damage to life and property caused by the on-board supply of hydrazine. It is this kind of obfuscation by the government that give rise to conspiracy theories.
A good discussion of these issues by Richard Fernandez can be found here. I must note again, that while I am employed by the DoD, all the information found in this post are from public sources, and nothing I say represents the views of the DoD or the agency I work for.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Gomez-Perez v. Potter
Today I attended Supreme Court arguments in Gomez-Perez v. Potter, a case that asks whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits federal employers, as opposed to private employers, from retaliating against employees who file complaints alleging age discrimination. Most members of the Court (Alito, Roberts, Scalia) seemed of the view that because the statute did not explicitly prohibit retaliation, it is not prohibited. A minority (Ginsburg, Souter) seemed ready to imply a retaliation cause of action. It was hard to read Breyer and Stevens, and Kennedy and Thomas were silent.
Surprisingly, some Justices suggested that the Court could go farther and say that TITLE VII does not prohibit retaliation against federal employees. Even the Justice Department was not asking for that, saying it was an open question. Scalia in particular complained that he needed to examine the text of Title VII. Scalia and others suggested that federal employees may have remedies through the Civil Service Reform Act or collective bargaining agreement.
It would be quite something if the Court says that Title VII does not provide for retaliation claims by federal employees (although, again, it is not explicitly provided for in the statute, and Congress knew how to write anti-retaliation language for the private sector). Because the Court likes to stick to statutory language, I predict that they will hold that a federal employee may not make a retaliation claim under the ADEA.
Surprisingly, some Justices suggested that the Court could go farther and say that TITLE VII does not prohibit retaliation against federal employees. Even the Justice Department was not asking for that, saying it was an open question. Scalia in particular complained that he needed to examine the text of Title VII. Scalia and others suggested that federal employees may have remedies through the Civil Service Reform Act or collective bargaining agreement.
It would be quite something if the Court says that Title VII does not provide for retaliation claims by federal employees (although, again, it is not explicitly provided for in the statute, and Congress knew how to write anti-retaliation language for the private sector). Because the Court likes to stick to statutory language, I predict that they will hold that a federal employee may not make a retaliation claim under the ADEA.
The Kennedy assassination
I saw a news item that said that 70% of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy. I suppose that there is a certain percentage of Americans that believe that there is a conspiracy about everything, and things were not helped by Oliver Stone's movie.
There was no conspiracy, and Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Two good books on the subject are Posner's "Case Closed" and Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History." I have met David Belin of the Warren Commission, and found him to be an honorable man. My own experience in government teaches me that it is hard for a government to keep a secret, much less manage a conspiracy.
The History Channel did a good show on the assassination earlier this month. It showed that Oswald was a loser who wanted to be a "big man." He attempted an assassination of a general earlier in 1963. He clearly purchased the rifle via mail order. He got a job in the Texas School Book depository, and the president's motorcade route was printed in the newspaper ahead of time. Oswald clearly had time to fire three shots. There was no "magic bullet"--one shot clearly went straight through Kennedy and Connolly. The acoustic "evidence" suggesting more than three shots does not hold up under scrutiny. The police officer whose microphone was on has stated that he was farther away from the site than the conspiracy theorists have suggested.
I know this brief post probably will not convince anyone, but if any parents are out there reading this, tell your children that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed John F. Kennedy. My two cents in an attempt to clarify the matter.
There was no conspiracy, and Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Two good books on the subject are Posner's "Case Closed" and Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History." I have met David Belin of the Warren Commission, and found him to be an honorable man. My own experience in government teaches me that it is hard for a government to keep a secret, much less manage a conspiracy.
The History Channel did a good show on the assassination earlier this month. It showed that Oswald was a loser who wanted to be a "big man." He attempted an assassination of a general earlier in 1963. He clearly purchased the rifle via mail order. He got a job in the Texas School Book depository, and the president's motorcade route was printed in the newspaper ahead of time. Oswald clearly had time to fire three shots. There was no "magic bullet"--one shot clearly went straight through Kennedy and Connolly. The acoustic "evidence" suggesting more than three shots does not hold up under scrutiny. The police officer whose microphone was on has stated that he was farther away from the site than the conspiracy theorists have suggested.
I know this brief post probably will not convince anyone, but if any parents are out there reading this, tell your children that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed John F. Kennedy. My two cents in an attempt to clarify the matter.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Just back from skiing
Back safely from a four day ski trip to Wisp. We left on Friday, skied on Saturday and Sunday, and returned today. Six adults chaperoned 24 teens. Fun.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
House adjourns without passing FISA bill
The House of Representatives recessed today without passing the FISA bill. As a result, the government will be unable to engage in electroninc surveillance of our enemies. The President has even offered to postpone his trip abroad so he may sign the bill. It has already passed the Senate. What a disgraceful performance on the part of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi deserves extreme scorn for this nonperformance.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The FISA reauthorization bill
The Senate passed the FISA surveillance bill yesterday. This is an important piece of legislation that allows electronic surveillance of terror suspects. The House leadership has refused to bring up the bill, even though a majority supports it.
Senator Obama voted AGAINST the bill, and Senator McCain voted FOR it. Senator Clinton did not vote. Clearly, this shows that Obama is unfit for command.
Also today, one of the FBI's ten most wanted terrorists was killed by a car bomb in Damascus. The terrorist was wanted for the 1985 TWA hijacking, the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, and other terrorist acts. It is not clear who killed him--one can hope it was a combination of the CIA and Mossad--but it could just as easily have been the government of Syria, who has used car bombs in the past (e.g. Hariri in Lebanon).
What continues to irritate me is that Nancy Pelosi seems to think that she can engage in solo diplomacy with Assad in Syria--remember her trip to Syria? It undermines American diplomacy when a Congressperson tries to engage in diplomacy with a thug who harbors terrorists.
Senator Obama voted AGAINST the bill, and Senator McCain voted FOR it. Senator Clinton did not vote. Clearly, this shows that Obama is unfit for command.
Also today, one of the FBI's ten most wanted terrorists was killed by a car bomb in Damascus. The terrorist was wanted for the 1985 TWA hijacking, the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, and other terrorist acts. It is not clear who killed him--one can hope it was a combination of the CIA and Mossad--but it could just as easily have been the government of Syria, who has used car bombs in the past (e.g. Hariri in Lebanon).
What continues to irritate me is that Nancy Pelosi seems to think that she can engage in solo diplomacy with Assad in Syria--remember her trip to Syria? It undermines American diplomacy when a Congressperson tries to engage in diplomacy with a thug who harbors terrorists.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The 9/11 Six: An opportunity for Sen. McCain
Andrew McCarthy has an excellent article here on an important difference between Sen. McCain and Sens. Clinton and Obama. Sen. McCain voted FOR the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Sens. Clinton and Obama voted AGAINST. Presumably, this means that they would prefer to try war criminals in civilian courts.
The problem with trying war criminals in civilian courts is that usually these people are captured abroad, sometimes even on a battlefield, and evidence-gathering is difficult. Witnesses against them can be difficult to find, and sometimes even inadvisable, such as when you are required to pull a soldier off the battlefield to testify at a trial. There obviously can be problems with interrogation, self-incrimination, confessions, and testimony by co-conspirators. We saw some of that in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 conspirator tried in Virginia a few years ago. The Military Commissions Act was an attempt to deal with the problem of how to try war criminals.
That is not to say that civilian courts are never a possibility. The President has the authority to transfer a suspect from a military court to a civilian court and vice versa. That is what happened to Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber who was transferred from a military court to a civilian court and ultimately convicted by a civilian court.
Sens. Clinton and Obama must answer the question on how they would deal with war criminals. Presumably, we must assume that they would prefer to try them in civilian courts, which as stated above is bad policy. The next question is, if either of them were elected President, would they order that the "9/11 six" be prosecuted in civilian courts? And where? Would they transfer Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his co-conspirators to New York City so they could be tried in lower Manhattan?
John McCain alone among the presidential contenders has the seriousness of purpose and clear-headedness necessary to fight and win a war against enemies of the United States. And that is why I am supporting him for President.
The problem with trying war criminals in civilian courts is that usually these people are captured abroad, sometimes even on a battlefield, and evidence-gathering is difficult. Witnesses against them can be difficult to find, and sometimes even inadvisable, such as when you are required to pull a soldier off the battlefield to testify at a trial. There obviously can be problems with interrogation, self-incrimination, confessions, and testimony by co-conspirators. We saw some of that in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 conspirator tried in Virginia a few years ago. The Military Commissions Act was an attempt to deal with the problem of how to try war criminals.
That is not to say that civilian courts are never a possibility. The President has the authority to transfer a suspect from a military court to a civilian court and vice versa. That is what happened to Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber who was transferred from a military court to a civilian court and ultimately convicted by a civilian court.
Sens. Clinton and Obama must answer the question on how they would deal with war criminals. Presumably, we must assume that they would prefer to try them in civilian courts, which as stated above is bad policy. The next question is, if either of them were elected President, would they order that the "9/11 six" be prosecuted in civilian courts? And where? Would they transfer Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his co-conspirators to New York City so they could be tried in lower Manhattan?
John McCain alone among the presidential contenders has the seriousness of purpose and clear-headedness necessary to fight and win a war against enemies of the United States. And that is why I am supporting him for President.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Clinton v. Obama: The lawsuit
Ted Olson has a great column in the Wall Street Journal today, previewing what might be the next big lawsuit: Clinton v. Obama. He predicts that there will be litigation over whether to seat the Florida delegation at the Democratic national convention. I say, Florida and Michigan should not have their delegations seated--they knew when they scheduled their primaries before February 5 that they risked not having them seated at the convention.
Sorry Hillary. The column is here.
Sorry Hillary. The column is here.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Capitals, etc.
Well, the Capitals lost on Friday night 2-1 to Carolina, but we had a good time.
Yesterday I got a couple of free Caps tickets to the 2/26 game against Minnesota. I went to the new Capitals iceplex in Arlington to give blood, but the line was too long so eventually I went home. I still got the tickets, though.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Capitals game tonight!
Tonight I am taking D. and K. to the Capitals game together with two of their friends. Hurray for student rush night ($10 UL/$25 LL tickets with student ID). The FIRST PLACE Capitals are on a roll these days, and it should be an exciting game tonight because the Caps continue to battle Carolina for first place in the Southeast Division.
Brent Johnson will be in the goal for the Caps tonight. Coach Bruce Boudreau is gradually giving more time to Johnson and less time to Ole Kolzig. I think he is recognizing that Kolzig is on the downward slope of his career. Still, I have to give Kolzig credit for staying in Washington all these years when he could have made much more money elsewhere (and probably would have been on better teams). It would sure be nice if the Capitals make the playoffs this year--it could be one of Kolzig's last seasons.
Brent Johnson will be in the goal for the Caps tonight. Coach Bruce Boudreau is gradually giving more time to Johnson and less time to Ole Kolzig. I think he is recognizing that Kolzig is on the downward slope of his career. Still, I have to give Kolzig credit for staying in Washington all these years when he could have made much more money elsewhere (and probably would have been on better teams). It would sure be nice if the Capitals make the playoffs this year--it could be one of Kolzig's last seasons.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
John McCain on the "Tonight" show
John McCain appeared on the "Tonight" show earlier this week. Here is the clips:
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
My crystal ball
My crystal ball looks like this:
The Republicans (with some grumbling) consolidate around McCain.
The Democrats continue to squabble over Clinton and Obama all the way to the convention. There is a big fight over Michigan and Florida delegations. Eventually they will be seated, as Clinton delegations. That, and the superdelegates, eventually put Clinton over the top. Clinton does NOT select Obama as her running mate (she picks someone like Evan Bayh). Lots of bitter people over the mistreatment and/or disrespect of Obama.
UPDATE: 9 PM 6 Feb: I have changed my mind again. Now I think Obama is going to win.
McCain then has to make a smart choice for VP. The way I figure it, he HAS to win both Missouri and Ohio. Mike Huckabee may help with Missouri (probably not much, though), but maybe he should consider Missouri Governor Matt Blunt (born 1970(!); graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy(!); did military service in Haiti and Operation Enduring Freedom; elected Missouri governor in 2004. Tim Pawlenty would also be a good choice.
The Republicans (with some grumbling) consolidate around McCain.
The Democrats continue to squabble over Clinton and Obama all the way to the convention. There is a big fight over Michigan and Florida delegations. Eventually they will be seated, as Clinton delegations. That, and the superdelegates, eventually put Clinton over the top. Clinton does NOT select Obama as her running mate (she picks someone like Evan Bayh). Lots of bitter people over the mistreatment and/or disrespect of Obama.
UPDATE: 9 PM 6 Feb: I have changed my mind again. Now I think Obama is going to win.
McCain then has to make a smart choice for VP. The way I figure it, he HAS to win both Missouri and Ohio. Mike Huckabee may help with Missouri (probably not much, though), but maybe he should consider Missouri Governor Matt Blunt (born 1970(!); graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy(!); did military service in Haiti and Operation Enduring Freedom; elected Missouri governor in 2004. Tim Pawlenty would also be a good choice.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
My prediction: a big night for Obama
I think this is going to be a big night for Obama. He may well win in Connecticut, Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, Delaware, Alaska, and North Dakota. I think that will make him the new front-runner, but that Democrats will not decide their nominee until the convention.
I am going to have more to say about this as the months go on, but both Clinton and Obama are absolutely the wrong way to go this year. On the most important issue of our time, winning the war, they are not committed to winning, and have a hard time even identifying the enemy, Islamic extremism.
UPDATE: Well my only incorrect prediction was Massachusetts, which Clinton won. It still appears that Clinton is the front-runner, but this may not be decided until the convention.
I am going to have more to say about this as the months go on, but both Clinton and Obama are absolutely the wrong way to go this year. On the most important issue of our time, winning the war, they are not committed to winning, and have a hard time even identifying the enemy, Islamic extremism.
UPDATE: Well my only incorrect prediction was Massachusetts, which Clinton won. It still appears that Clinton is the front-runner, but this may not be decided until the convention.
Monday, February 04, 2008
"20/20" on the Holloway case
The "20/20" report on the Holloway case was fascinating. Van der Sloet essentially admitted responsibility for disposing of Holloway's body. One jarring moment was a cut to a commercial on a beach, and I said to G., "it's a commercial for the Aruba tourist board." But it wasn't. It was a commercial for Tempurpedic beds.
The Super Bowl
We went to A. and D.'s house to watch the Super Bowl yesterday. As always, we enjoyed their hospitality, including chicken wings, chili, and wine, and G. brought the pie. We had to leave early because the kids had homework to do, but we did catch the exciting finish from home.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
"Charlie Wilson's War"
G. and I saw "Charlie Wilson's War" last night. It is about a Texas Congressman in the early 1980s (Tom Hanks) who uses his influence to covertly fund Afghan rebels fighting against Soviet domination of Afghanistan. It was pretty entertaining (I would even call it a comedy in part), and as I understand it, it is pretty close to accurate historically.
The movie also features Julia Roberts as a Texas socialite pressuring Hanks to do the right thing, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as a CIA agent. While they eventually were able to fund the Afghan rebels, it has unforseen consequences, namely the rise of the Taliban and, as we all know now, the rise of Osama bin Laden.
I left fairly entertained, and it also made me think. Director Mike Nichols ("the Graduate") always makes thought-provoking films. Writer Aaron Sorkin ("A Few Good Men," "The West Wing,") is one of America's best writers, although he has a political agenda at times. To me, it is important to recognize that there are villains (in this movie, it is the Soviets who mine Afghanistan, resulting in children getting their arms blown off). Of course, the Taliban and the supporters of bin Laden are also our enemies. I think it is America's responsiblity to stand with our friends (e.g. Israel, other democracies) and fight tyrants and terrorists wherever they may be found.
The movie also features Julia Roberts as a Texas socialite pressuring Hanks to do the right thing, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as a CIA agent. While they eventually were able to fund the Afghan rebels, it has unforseen consequences, namely the rise of the Taliban and, as we all know now, the rise of Osama bin Laden.
I left fairly entertained, and it also made me think. Director Mike Nichols ("the Graduate") always makes thought-provoking films. Writer Aaron Sorkin ("A Few Good Men," "The West Wing,") is one of America's best writers, although he has a political agenda at times. To me, it is important to recognize that there are villains (in this movie, it is the Soviets who mine Afghanistan, resulting in children getting their arms blown off). Of course, the Taliban and the supporters of bin Laden are also our enemies. I think it is America's responsiblity to stand with our friends (e.g. Israel, other democracies) and fight tyrants and terrorists wherever they may be found.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Theology of "Groundhog Day"
I agree with Jonah Goldberg that the movie "Groundhog Day" is a modern classic, that will eventually stand next to "It's a Wonderful Life" as one of the greatest movies of all time. Goldberg has an excellent essay on the moral and theological implications of "Groundhog Day" here.
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Natalee Holloway Case
I admit it, I'm a sucker for true crime stories. It's all my mother's fault--she gets caught up in the scandal of the moment, whether it is Watergate or the O.J. Simpson case.
I haven't been following the Natalee Holloway case too much, and maybe I am more protective of my 16-year-old daughter than most parents are. We know that Ms. Holloway was 18, and she traveled with 124 of her classmates from an upscale suburb of Birmingham, Alabama, to Aruba as part of an unofficial high school graduation trip. (I bet the school district is relieved that they did not officially sponsor the trip). 18-year-olds want to be independent and often ignore their parents. I can say that I would have been very unhappy if my daughter wanted to go on a 5-day trip to Aruba (where there would be heavy drinking, of course) and no doubt wanted me to pay for it. Sometimes parents just have to say "no," and it is hardest when the plea is that "123 of my classmates are going, and THEIR parents said it was OK."
Apparently, Ms. Holloway was drinking in a local bar (apparently drinking shots) and left with three young men, and was never heard from again. Apparently ABC will broadcast a "20/20" episode on Monday that suggests that she was murdered by one of the young men. She was probably too naive and inexperienced to know that alcohol, a group of young men, and a pretty young woman very often leads to trouble. And, of course, there is a foreign country involved, where--let me put this charitably--their law enforcement procedures are not the same as ours. It appears that they have more restrictive interrogation rules; rules on how long they can hold a suspect; and rules limiting wiretapping.
I haven't been following the Natalee Holloway case too much, and maybe I am more protective of my 16-year-old daughter than most parents are. We know that Ms. Holloway was 18, and she traveled with 124 of her classmates from an upscale suburb of Birmingham, Alabama, to Aruba as part of an unofficial high school graduation trip. (I bet the school district is relieved that they did not officially sponsor the trip). 18-year-olds want to be independent and often ignore their parents. I can say that I would have been very unhappy if my daughter wanted to go on a 5-day trip to Aruba (where there would be heavy drinking, of course) and no doubt wanted me to pay for it. Sometimes parents just have to say "no," and it is hardest when the plea is that "123 of my classmates are going, and THEIR parents said it was OK."
Apparently, Ms. Holloway was drinking in a local bar (apparently drinking shots) and left with three young men, and was never heard from again. Apparently ABC will broadcast a "20/20" episode on Monday that suggests that she was murdered by one of the young men. She was probably too naive and inexperienced to know that alcohol, a group of young men, and a pretty young woman very often leads to trouble. And, of course, there is a foreign country involved, where--let me put this charitably--their law enforcement procedures are not the same as ours. It appears that they have more restrictive interrogation rules; rules on how long they can hold a suspect; and rules limiting wiretapping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)