When I first read about Republican senators stealing Democrat memos, I was furious. It still isn't a big story, what with Janet Jackson's boob and all. There have been developments, however. Bill Frist's senior aide, whose last name is Miranda -- it's rife with irony -- resigned, and the proceeded to whine that the memos they found detail illegal and unethical activity.

So here's the question. Let's say I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room." Are we then both guilty?

Well, yeah, but the problem is with the defense. Two wrongs don't make a right, except in politics. Two wrongs means we both look bad, so no one wins.

The British on-line nerd publication The Register also brings up the technological judicial issues surrounding this case:

Politics is dirty business, and rarely so much as in the area of patronage: appointments to sought-after federal jobs in general, and to the federal bench in particular. So it should be little surprise that, with so much at stake, one political party would want to use the insecurity inherent in computerized databases to its political advantage.

What is surprising, however, is that, caught with their hand in the cookie jar, Senate Republicans employed the tactic of blaming the victim: they said, in essence, It's your fault that we got and used your information. If successful, this tactic does not bode well for the government's ability to prosecute computer crimes, and to protect critical infrastructures.

So the plot thickens. So let's make an addition to my allegory: I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room. And you forgot to lock your front door, so I didn't break in."

This case is going to be going on for a while, and of course no one in the media will report on it. It's simply not an interesting story, what with Janet Jackson's boob and all. Here's why it's going to take long, again, from The Register:

Miranda claims it isn't stealing because you can't steal government documents, and it's not a violation of the rules because they aren't government documents. Or something like that. He also seems to argue that the password misconfiguration made the documents fair game.

...

It seems that Miranda is arguing that, when the Democratic staffers act in a political capacity, their documents no longer relate to an Agency or Department - it's just politics. Finally, Miranda seems to argue that there is no proprietary right to government documents. While he is correct that government documents are not entitled to copyright protection, this does not imply that it is therefore okay to break into a computer database and take them.

Finally, one more addition to my allegory: I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room. And you forgot to lock your front door, so I didn't break in. And because child pornography cannot be protected by copyright, therefore not entitling you to ownership, I cannot be accused of stealing."

The part that has to be proven is, of course, is intent. Was my intent to enter your home done with the express purpose of taking stuff? Of course. If I stole all your child porn and a toaster oven, then my obvious intent was to steal. Plus, even if I stumble upon the fact that your door was open, that doesn't give me the right to enter your house.

Bill Frist's office had no right to take Democratic memos from their server, even if the Dems can't take the 30 seconds to put a freaking password on it. Even if the memos show impropriety*, it doesn't mean that the Republicans shouldn't be held accountable for what they did.

*Oh, and by the way, what are these improprieties?

Conservatives have talked up the memos as proof the Democrats colluded with outside liberal groups in their choices of which Bush appellate nominees to block.

The memos also show, conservatives contend, that Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada was blocked largely for two reasons:

--Confirmation would have put him in line for a Supreme Court nomination, and Democrats did not want a Republican president to appoint the first Latino to that court.

--Democrats wanted to keep conservative nominees off the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after the University of Michigan affirmative action case was decided.

Huh. I guess the GOP has never blocked judicial nominees before.