|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 25, 2004 |
|
|
|
Hatch's Evolving View of Profanity
In his recent post, Noam cited the AP story in which a Senate aide reports that Vice President Dick Cheney exchanged tense words with Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy on Tuesday. According to the aide, Cheney concluded his conversation with Leahy by saying either "F--k you" or "F--k off."
Anyone who has covered the Senate over the past couple of decades would consider Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as a definite conservative on social and cultural issues. Yet, according to a New York Times story about Tuesday's incident, Hatch actually seemed to praise Cheney's choice of words:"The vice president is a tough human being, and he's very honest, and his integrity is his most cherished attribute. I don't blame anybody for standing up for their own integrity." But only a few years ago, after seeing the award-winning movie "Traffic," Hatch sounded rather prudish, stating:"I was shocked and dismayed at the gratuitous amount of violence and profanity ... I do not condone it." This statement was particularly strange given that Hatch actually made a cameo appearance in "Traffic." Wouldn't you assume that the senator and his staff carefully read through the film's script (and knew how many profanities there were) before agreeing to do that cameo?
Of course, when it's one of your guys saying the F-word, it's a sign of "integrity." When it's uttered in a motion picture, it's those damn liberals in Hollywood trying to destroy traditional values.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN's Strange Choice
In Tunisia, the "information superhighway" moves at a snail's pace. Why? Today's New York Times:Walking toward an Internet cafe in this balmy Mediterranean capital, Siham Bensedrine, a journalist and human rights advocate, quietly points out the secret police agent regularly assigned to watch her building. She chooses a cafe at some distance from her apartment, lest the owner take fright at her surfing the Web with foreign visitors and ban her.
... "In this country, all the sites that speak about freedom are blocked," sighs Mrs. Bensedrine, a short, wan woman dressed mostly in black, adding that she was forced to use the heavily monitored Web cafes because her phone line at home was inexplicably severed.
... Tunis has proven itself to be perhaps the most repressive Arab government, activists here say. Not only are many Web sites blocked, they say, but e-mail is also heavily monitored. The ability to offer Web services is kept within a small privileged circle. Web cafes are shuttered if deemed too lax about monitoring every site visited by patrons. Harsh jail sentences are meted out to young men convicted of creating or even visiting banned sites. So which city has been chosen by the United Nations for its 2005 World Summit on the Information Society? Tunis.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just Wondering
How many "indicators of genocide" do we need to see before we declare it a "genocide"? U.S. officials are also actively considering whether to declare that genocide is taking place in Darfur. Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. war-crimes ambassador, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday that "we see indicators of genocide, and there is evidence that points in that direction."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nu? So What Else Did We Expect?
Zell Miller is speaking at the Republican National Convention. This is the meatiest article I could find about it, and it has a pitch-perfect response from the head of the Georgia Dems.Bobby Kahn, the chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party, said he wasn't surprised.
"Maybe I'll switch to the Republican Party so I can speak at the Democratic Convention and bash Bush," Kahn said. "It makes about as much sense."
Kahn was a top aide to Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, who appointed Miller to the Senate following the death of Miller's predecessor, Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell.
"I advocated his appointment," Kahn said of Miller. "He said he would be independent and he was for a while, but he hasn't been lately. He's been in lockstep with the Republicans and I don't know what's happened to him. It's really kind of sad."
posted by
Helena Montana at 2:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance
I've been working my way through the transcripts of all of interviews conducted for Frontline's "Ghosts of Rwanda."
Today I read the interview with the BBC's Mark Doyle who was more or less the only Western journalist to regularly report from Rwanda during the genocide and he had something interesting to say about the media's desire for "balance."
The context obviously has to do with covering an event in which one side is patently evil, but I think it has a lot of implications for the media's general obsession with presenting all sides of every issue as equally valid Do you remember when you started using the word "genocide?" And were your editors concerned about that word?
They weren't. I don't think it was an issue in the BBC. They almost couldn't believe that it was so one-sided. I remember having lots of conversations with editors when they'd say to me, "Yes, but Mark, you keep on reporting that these Tutsis are being killed. What-- I mean, these are just massacres all over the place." I said, "No, no, it's not. This is one-sided," and they found it difficult to swallow. I was accused of bias on a few occasions, privately by editors, but I said, "No, no, you've got to listen to what I'm saying. There's a genocide taking place in this country, and it's mostly the Tutsis that are getting killed, and some Hutus getting killed. That is what's happening." They said, "Yes, but you have-- Where's the balancing item?" I said, "There isn't a balancing item."
I remember very clearly when the RPF did do some killing. They killed some church people. I can't remember exactly where it was, but it became public that the RPF had killed some bishops, half a dozen of them. Undisciplined RPF elements had taken revenge, because the church had somehow been involved in a massacre of Tutsis. … I know that some RPF soldiers killed some bishops. The BBC seized on this immediately because they finally had what they thought was a balancing item -- to be fair.
To be fair to those editors in London, they were trying to do their job. This concept that a genocide was taking place hadn't taken grip on the world yet. It was just another African war to most people. … When the RPF killed those bishops, it became a huge story. Quite rightly, it was a big story, but it wasn't as huge as hundreds of thousands of people being killed. Somehow everyone grabbed onto it and wanted to tell that story again and again, because it somehow balanced the two sides. But the two sides weren't balanced; there were bad guys and there were relatively good guys.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inoculation
The schadenfreude set is sensing possible indictments of White House officials in the Valerie Plame leak case (I personally prefer "Intimigate," but I think that won't catch on any more than "Iranamok," the New Republic's label for what became known by the dull name of "the Iran-Contra Scandal").
Color me skeptical. But if it happens (if, say, Robert Novak is compelled to reveal the leaker), be prepared for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to get the slime-and-defend treatment. When your wingnut interlocutors repeat whatever nonsense the spin machine churns out about Fitzgerald, bear a few things in mind:
1. President Bush appointed him U.S. Attorney in Chicago. 2. John Ashcroft selected him as the special prosecutor and can fire him if he's committing any kind of prosecutorial misconduct (a huge difference from the days of the Independent Counsel statute, when the I.C. was truly independent of the Justice Department). 3. He's got excellent War on Terror credentials from his days in the U.S. Attorney's Office here in New York, which prosecuted a number of terrorist conspiracies in the 90s (the 1993 WTC bombing, for instance).
Check out this tidbit from the Lynne Stewart trial, currently underway here. Stewart was the lawyer for the "blind sheik," Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Stewart is charged with carrying messages from her client to his terrorist buddies, facilitating the continued terrorist activities of the sheik's network.The government's first witness was Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney for Chicago. He was a prosecutor in Mr. Abdel Rahman's 1995 terrorism trial and later administered severe prison restrictions that were imposed on the sheik.
Mr. Fitzgerald testified that Ms. Stewart signed a series of agreements that she would not, among other things, convey messages from the sheik to the news media after visiting him in jail. After Ms. Stewart released some comments by the sheik to a Reuters reporter in Cairo in June 2000, Mr. Fitzgerald said he considered starting criminal proceedings against her.
But he was told not to by the F.B.I., Mr. Fitzgerald said, because the bureau had placed a higher priority on a separate intelligence investigation of Mr. Sattar [Stewart's paralegal] that it was pursuing. So if Fitzgerald gets the grand jury to return politically embarrassing indictments, just remember in the torrent of anti-Fitzgerald slime that this is a prosecutor who knows what he's talking about when it comes to terrorism and intelligence, as well as a person whom Bush and Ashcroft have trusted with important prosecutorial work.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody Punch Dick Morris
I'm no psychologist, but when someone like Dick Morris, who's entire professional career hinges on his proximity to and obsession with all things Clinton, starts worrying about Clinton's "neurosis and his inability to function when he is not on stage," I think it is just a classic case of projection.
The crux of Morris' current column is that Clinton released his book when he did in order to hurt Kerry's presidential campaign and thereby create an opportunity for Hillary to run in 2008 - all to satisfy his own personal need for attention Clinton's insistence on revisiting the past and dragging it into the present is bound to have a negative impact on Kerry's candidacy. First Reagan's death and now Clinton's memoir blot out Kerry's message and usurp his time in the sun. The run-up to the Democratic convention now must be fraught with the wreckage of Clinton's personal image.
Is it just a coincidence that the former president has strewn such dubious roses in the path of his possible successor as Democratic standard-bearer? One suspects that Clinton, of all people, knows exactly what he is doing and precisely why he is doing it.
It is a sad statement that everything Morris says about the Clinton's must be analyzed in light of the fact that, without them, Morris would most likely cease to exist - literally. I honestly believe that if the Clinton's suddenly disappeared from public view, Morris would instantaneously be swallowed whole by his own vacuous intellect.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't Make the Cut at Comedy Central
The right wing's silly attacks on John Kerry range from the hysterical -- the web portal WorldNetDaily's story headlined "Terrorists Cheer Kerry's Rhetoric" -- to the pissy, as in this sophomoric blurb written by the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" editor, James Taranto:A John Kerry campaign paper on the economy ... (includes) this peculiar observation:
In the United States last year, 638,000 more children went through their parents' bankruptcy than divorce. 1,690,000 saw their parents go bankrupt while 1,053,000 saw their parents divorce.
If Kerry favors a lower bankruptcy-to-divorce ratio, then it follows logically that he is pro-divorce. He's already done his part to bring the ratio down, splitting from his first wife, Julia Thorne, in the early 1980s. My, aren't we clever? I suspect that the gang at the Journal would be less likely to chuckle about news of rising corporate bankruptcies.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Missed Opportunity to Inform
I continue to believe that, despite its occasional shortcomings, the New York Times is the best daily newspaper in America. One of those shortcomings, however, was in evidence today. The Times ran this story about India's Bharatiya Janata Party, which has traditionally led the country's Hindu nationalist movement.
In the article, The Times reported that the BJP just finished a 3-day strategy session and that the party is hoping to recover from its unexpected defeat in last month's parliamentary elections. We even learned where the 3-day meeting was held (Mumbai), that this city was "formerly called Bombay," and that the former prime minister has apparently written poetry. But readers who might not be familiar with the Hindu nationalist movement learned nothing of substance about the BJP's platform.
Most of us recall reading about the anti-Muslim riots that occurred two years ago and led to the brutal deaths of thousands. But what is the BJP's position on the religious strife, on the rights of minority Muslims, etc. In short, how extreme is this form of nationalism?
Within this 445-word article, just a sentence or two could have gone a long way in painting a better profile of the BJP and/or the movement that retains widespread support in a nation of 600 million-plus people. It would have been worth mentioning, even paranthetically, that it was a militant in the Hindu nationalist movement who had murdered Gandhi in '48, that the party had been banned for many years thereafter, or that BJP's big electoral breakthrough came in 1998.
Did Times reporter Amy Waldman consider that what she already knew wasn't worth writing about or is this another case of a copy editor making some poor judgments about what gets cut from an article?
And we wonder why so many Americans are fundamentally ignorant about international issues.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheney to Leahy: "F--- you"
This just in from the Associated Press:
Senate aides with knowledge of the encounter Tuesday said the vice president confronted Leahy about some of the Democrat's criticism about alleged improprieties in Iraq military contracts awarded to Halliburton Co. Cheney, who as vice president is president of the Senate, is a former CEO of Halliburton.
Leahy responded by criticizing the White House for standing by allies who had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic last year in opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees, said one Senate aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Cheney then responded, "F--- off" or "F--- you," the aide said. Is Cheney too unhinged to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? After all, when Howard Dean screamed during a rally early this year, he was described as too "nutso" to have his hand on the nuclear button. And, when Al Gore made an impassioned speech defending civil liberties in May, he was labelled "mentally unstable" and advised to "seek out for his own good a cool and quiet darkened room."
And neither Dean nor Gore used the dreaded f-word, nor did they lose their cool on the floor of the Senate. Oh, the humanity!
posted by
Noam Alaska at 9:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Daniel Geffen attended a breakfast hosted by CARE International with Nicholas Kristof, CARE Secretary General Denis Caillaux and one of the "lost boys" of Sudan and has a good post on the topic
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer ran a long piece on Darfur last night
Colin Powell is going to travel to Darfur next week in order to bring attention to the crisis and pressure Khartoum to disarm the Janjaweed militias.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) are also traveling there.
The $416 billion defense spending bill passed by the Senate yesterday contains $95 million in relief aid for Darfur.
But of course, the Pentagon still doesn't want to get involved The Pentagon's chief spokesman is downplaying the prospects for U.S. military intervention in the crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita acknowledges there is what he terms "a serious humanitarian situation" in the Darfur region.
But speaking to reporters at the Defense Department, Mr. Di Rita sidestepped a question Thursday about whether the Pentagon opposes direct American military intervention in Sudan just as declassified documents show it initially opposed action in Rwanda during the genocide there 10 years ago.
Mr. Di Rita made clear the Bush administration favors action in Sudan by other countries.
"That would be obviously the first best choice for something like that: get other countries that have capability to do that," he said. "It's been done before and we believe that's probably the best thing that we as a government can do is encourage [other] countries to be involved."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Not Such a Slut After All
Perhaps I'd simply been on the road too much lately and was in need of a conjugal visit from my significant-other. But, whatever the reason, there I was -- heading home on an airline flight this morning -- when I opened up this morning's Wall Street Journal (registration req'd) and stumbled upon a review of Bill Clinton's new book, "My Life," that carried this headline:The Wrong Way to Mount Rushmore I wondered if I was the only reader who saw the double-entendre in this headline. Did I pick up on that because:a) I was thinking like a cat in heat b) our ex-president frequently seemed to think that way, or c) the Journal's reviewer was deliberately aiming for that effect. Somewhat to my relief, the answer was: c). In his pissy review, Mark Steyn confirms this when he writes that "Mr. Clinton's book is a double flop: Either stake your claim as a guy to join the guys at Mount Rushmore or embrace your destiny as a guy who rushes to mount more."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Small Nitpick
If the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy is going to have an entire section of their website dedicated to tracking the confirmation of President Bush's judges, it would be nice if could keep it updated so that the numbers reflect ... you know ... reality.
It doesn't appear if the OLP has updated their statistics in over three months, and is claiming that only 76 of Bush's nominees have been confirmed since 1/2003.
Of course, the actual number confirmed since then is 91.
In fact, just by glancing around at the statistics available on the OLP's page, I can see that none of them are accurate.
But I am sure that it's just an oversight. It's not like this administration would intentionally manipulate information or undercount data in order to mislead the public or score political points.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, June 24, 2004 |
|
|
|
Dead Blogger Blogging
Well, almost. In a few weeks I'll start a new job that will deliver me from slackerville. But I'm also quite certain that blogging will no longer fit into my new daily schedule.
Anyways, on to something else much more interesting. The American Family Association of Michigan is run by a miserable, anti-gay asshole named Gary Glenn. But now a new sheriff is in town by the name of Coalition for a Fair Michigan. They're new, but so far I appreciate their snarky style:The Coalition for a Fair Michigan (CFM) said today that they were happy to find common ground with the Michigan affiliate of the American Family Association (AFA), one of the lead proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. Last night, at a forum on the amendment held at the Resurrection Lutheran Church in Saginaw, both sides agreed that the amendment would go much further than defining marriage by also eliminating any government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits.
"I’m glad we could find common ground with the AFA, and I want to thank Gary Glenn for his willingness to be upfront on this point," said Wendy Howell, Campaign Manager for CFM. "Since we all agree that this amendment is about much more than marriage, it’s my hope that we can broaden the discussion to include all of the real and concrete impacts it would have on Michigan families rather than just focusing on its most divisive aspect." Gary Glenn isn't an asshole because he's against same-sex marriage. But he's an asshole because he's really freakin' nasty and degrading about it.
(Note: If you want to see the whole CFM press release, e-mail me.)
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 4:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not What You'd Find in MoMA
The New York Times reports today on a very unusual exhibit that has attracted several hundred visitors a day in Israel's capital city:When Israeli soldiers opened an exhibit this month documenting some of their own misdeeds while serving in the tense West Bank city of Hebron, they caused a brief stir.
At a photographic institute in Tel Aviv, the soldiers, all recently discharged, offer video testimony of gratuitous harassment and abuse of Palestinians, like firing tear gas just to get a reaction. Hanging on the wall are dozens of car keys confiscated from Hebron residents, a punishment both common and unauthorized, soldiers say.
... the Israeli military, which had expressed only mild dismay initially, has re-energized the debate surrounding the exhibit by confiscating the video testimony on Tuesday and calling in five soldiers for questioning on Wednesday.
The exhibit remains open, and the military said it took the actions not to suppress it but to investigate the abuses described by soldiers. The former soldiers maintain that the military is trying to silence them and to discourage others from speaking out.
... The five soldiers, [including Yehuda Shaul], spoke about their actions when questioned by the military on Wednesday, Mr. Shaul said. But they refused to identify others who speak anonymously in the video. These soldiers are not pictured, and their voices are distorted, though the television screen presents the text of their statements.
... "When we made the video, we promised not to give their names," Mr. Shaul said. "We feel the army doesn't really want to deal with the serious issues, they just want to make other soldiers afraid."
... the video testimony from 29 soldiers describes a litany of improper actions by members of the Nahal Brigade, charged with protecting 500 Jewish settlers surrounded by 130,000 Palestinians.
Through long, sweaty days and the endless, chilly nights, the soldiers describe how discipline unravels, fatigue and boredom set in, and they experience a rush in exercising power over those with no recourse. One soldier says a colleague would fire tear gas canisters "every time he climbed up to his post and came back from it.''
"If he saw a group of people standing and talking, he would fire the tear gas just to see them run and cough," the soldier added. "He got a big kick out of it."
... in a lengthy interview with Haaretz magazine, Mr. Shaul said the Hebron soldiers often used Palestinians as "human shields" despite an Israeli court decision forbidding the practice.
"Using a human shield means grabbing some fellow and sending him to open the door to a suspect's house, so if he shoots, this guy will take the bullets and not us," Mr. Shaul said. He was not aware of any Palestinians killed in this practice, but the risk was always present, he said.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIA Officer: Iraq Was Bin Laden's "Christmas Gift"
MSNBC's website today reports:A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States.
The author, who writes as "Anonymous," is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information. In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, "Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get." By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war. For a complete transcript of Andrea Mitchell’s interview with the anonymous author, click right here and scroll down.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ethics of Duty
After losing his job as counsel for Sen. Bill Frist for downloading and reading thousands of internal Democratic Judiciary Committee memos, and amid being the subject of a federal investigation, Manuel Miranda appears to have been reborn.
He is now the head of the Ethics in Nominations Project which seeks to highlight, ironically enough, corruption in the judicial confirmation process and Miranda is clearly enjoying his newfound status as martyr/scapegoat/whistleblower/pundit. And judging by his recent op-ed in The Hill, he also now fancies himself a philosopher Ethics is not dull etiquette. It is defined as the science of duty, and as with all science there is a method. Norms either are encoded or may be discerned under two theories: duty and consequence. The first asks: Is there a duty and to whom is it owed?
Consequence theory queries: Is someone harmed or benefited? An action is ethical if its consequence is more favorable than unfavorable.
And by either the Consequence Standard or the Duty Standard, Miranda believes that what he did was entirely ethical The public harm and benefit of reviewing political documents evidencing corrupt practices, as the Democratic judiciary documents do, is plain.
[edit]
Republican staff owed no duty to Democrat senators. In fact, the code imposes a duty to disclose evidence of corruption "wherever discovered." Congress may have no whistleblower protection, but it maintains a whistleblower duty.
I recall reading something recently about ethics and duty. Now where was that?
Oh yes, in Kant (which is nicely paraphrased here) When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome. What we can control, however, is the will behind the action. That is, we can will to act according to one law rather than another. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it.
[edit]
Kant has shown that the acceptable conception of the moral law cannot be merely hypothetical. Our actions cannot be moral on the ground of some conditional purpose or goal. Morality requires an unconditional statement of one's duty.
[edit]
And in fact, reason produces an absolute statement of moral action. The moral imperative is unconditional; that is, its imperative force is not tempered by the conditional "if I want to achieve some end, then do X." It simply states, do X. Kant believes that reason dictates a categorical imperative for moral action. He gives at least three formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
1. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Ibid., 422)
2. "Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature." (Ibid)
3. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." (Ibid., 429)
By my count, Miranda violated all three formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
As such, maybe he is not the sort of man from whom people ought to be taking ethical advice.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Cheney Decision
One of my pet peeves as a lawyer is when the press misrepresents what a court actually decided by simplistically focusing on who won. An example would be a (hypothetical) headline in the Pledge of Allegiance case: "Court Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge." Of course, the Court didn't decide whether or not having a teacher lead a Pledge including the words "under God" was constitutional; it just decided that the guy who brought the case didn't have the right to sue on his daughter's behalf.
From a quick read, I don't think a "who won" oversimplification is going to be a problem with the Cheney case. This is a big win for the White House.
In fact, the opposite could occur: the losers might try to minimize the magnitude of the decision by (correctly) pointing out that the Court did not decide whether Cheney and the other defendants have to turn over the documents that the trial court ordered them to. That is correct, but the implication of the Court's reasoning goes well beyond the jurisdictional question that the Court technically decided.
Here's a quick primer in federal appellate jurisdiction. Generally, you can't appeal until a case is completely over. For example, if someone sues you, you can ask the judge to dismiss the case because even if what they're complaining about is true, you haven't done anything wrong (think of the quick dismissal of the Fox-Al Franken trademark case). If the judge disagrees, then you have to start gathering evidence and ultimately going through a trial. You can't immediately appeal and say the judge should have dismissed the case. If you lose after trial and are ordered to pay damages, then you can appeal, and during that appeal you can argue that the case should have dismissed right at the beginning.
This describes pretty much what happened in the Cheney case. Cheney and the other defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no right to get the information they were demanding and asked the court to dismiss the case. The court disagreed: if private individuals (let's say Ken Lay), while not official members of the task force, were "de facto members," then the task force would be an "advisory committee" and would have to turn over a lot of material regarding its proceedings; but if Ken Lay just gave some advice to a task force whose only members, de facto or otherwise, were government employees, the task force wouldn't be an "advisory committee" as defined by the relevant statute, and there would be no obligation to turn over the documents. So the judge denied the motion to dismiss, and it ordered Cheney to turn over a limited amount of information about the membership and structure of the energy task force. This would allow the court to decide whether private individuals had been "de facto members" of the task force; if so, the court would then order Cheney to turn over a lot more information that the plaintiffs had demanded.
The defendants couldn't appeal because the case wasn't over yet. They tried a rarely-available exception to the finality rule, asking the court of appeals for something called a writ of mandamus. In very exceptional situations, an appellate court can order the trial court to reverse course in the middle of the case. The court of appeals in this case said that a writ of mandamus wasn't available to the defendants, and they'd have to wait until the case was over to appeal.
What the Supreme Court did today, technically, was just to say that in this case, a writ of mandamus was a proper procedural device for getting immediate review of the trial judge's decision. It sent the case back to the court of appeals to decide whether the trial judge was right or wrong. So the narrow, technical reading of the decision is that the Court didn't say whether Cheney ultimately has an obligation to turn over any information; it just said the appeals court has jurisdiction to decide that question now rather than waiting until the case is over.
But that technical reading really understates what happened today. The reasons that mandamus is available, according to the majority, have to do with who the defendants are. The Court made it clear that there are serious constitutional issues raised by any court's ordering the President (or the V.P.) to disclose information about internal deliberations regarding policymaking. Those serious issues are what makes the matter important enough for mandamus to be available, but they obviously have a big influence on the merits of the case as well. In other words, when the court of appeals decides whether the trial judge was right to order the "limited" discovery he needed to resolve the "de facto membership" question, that court will surely note the Supreme Court's very strong emphasis of the need to avoid intruding on executive deliberations. That must make it quite likely that the court will reverse the trial judge.
So, yes, technically, the case is still alive, and it is conceivable that the lower courts could force Cheney to turn over some task force information. But the chance that they will do so seems very slim in light of the Court's reasoning today.
In any event, for those focused on how this case might affect the election, there's virtually no chance that Cheney will have to turn over anything before Election Day. Even if he eventually loses, the lower courts won't make their decision quickly enough for any documents actually to change hands before next year.
So when tomorrow's headlines say: "Cheney Wins Big in Energy Task Force Case," they'll be exactly right.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Good Thing Gets Better
Balkinization, the excellent blog of Yale Law School's Jack Balkin, just got better. He's now got some guest law-professor bloggers, and they're awfully high caliber. If you're not a fan of legal academia, you'll have to trust me on this one, but Sandy Levinson is a big deal, and his inaugural post, on the administration's phraseology concerning torture, is a terrific start. Cass Sunstein, the unbelievably prolific U. of Chicago Law School professor, has also joined the team.
For those interested in the legal aspect of current events--Levinson has considerable expertise about the law relating to torture, for example--this blog has become even more essential reading. And even on things that aren't strictly about the law, their professional penchant for carefully parsing language comes in mighty handy in cutting through some of the spin and jargon that fill our news, particularly when it comes to noticing things that have not been said.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dallaire Says it Best
The other day I posted on Bill Clinton's self-serving insistence that his failure to do anything during the genocide in Rwanda is "one of the greatest regrets" of his presidency.
While reading over Gen. Dallaire's interview from "Ghosts of Rwanda" I came across this passage How do you feel now when you hear U.S. senior officials -- Clinton, Albright, others -- talk about Rwanda? Of course Clinton went and apologized--
He didn't apologize. Well, it was couched as an apology.
No, no. He went to reinforce the blackmail on the Rwandans. … When he was there in `98, he said, "Oh, I didn't know. We didn't realize." I've got all those quotes and stuff, which are outright lies. They knew, it was there as information, and it is evident that that information was either at his level or stopped within the structures. But the Americans knew what was going on inside there, and [it's awful] to go and excuse yourself -- the Belgians did the same thing -- in front of these people. The Americans scuttled any initiative to bring about a force to be able to save hundreds of thousands. How can they look at this guy and accept an apology?
But worse than that is that the Rwandans need American money. They need Belgian money to reconstitute themselves. What option do they have regarding Clinton coming in there and trying to excuse himself? Throw him out? No. Embarrass him? They gave him a bit of a hard time, but that was insignificant to what was deserved. These great leaders who go to these countries and ask for excuses, that's sort of like trying to get rid of the blood on their hands. Really what they're doing is imposing that on those people, blackmailing them to accept these apologies, so that it satisfies the people back home that we brought closure. "I went there and in humble statements I demonstrated that we had failed and that we are sorry about it." Bullshit. I have no time for any such actions.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coulter Protests Too Much
No one should be surprised that Ann Coulter panned Bill Clinton's new book. However, part of her review surprises me--the part where she urges Clinton to go away:
OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price for so much cow manure. Why does it strike me that Ann is being just a tad disingenuous here? Perhaps it's because she made her "reputation" by attacking Clinton back in the '90s. Or, maybe it's because she can't seem to go more than a column or two without making some-coy-reference-to-the-former-pres-and-the-stained-blue-dress. Who knows?
But let's take her at face value. I'd be perfectly happy to banish Clinton from the public stage forever if Coulter, too, would "shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back." It seems more than a fair trade. Heck, I'd even be willing to pony up for her latest pile of cow manure.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make Nice
Two New York City takes on the Republican Party from yesterday's New York Times.
First was the full-page advertisement featuring a large photo of ex-mayor and alleged Democrat Ed Koch on behalf of the NYC Host Committee (for the Republican Convention). The text was similar to the committee's public service announcements on radio and TV, also starring Koch.This summer the Republicans are holding their National Convention at Madison Square Garden.
While they're here, make nice. I think this is really the wrong tone. Apart from being pathetic, the ads make it seem as if Republicans are alien to New York. We've actually got plenty of 'em in this town, which is remarkably tolerant of all kinds of deviant behavior. Even Tom DeLay was dissuaded from his plan to moor a cruise ship in the Hudson River so that he and his friends could attend the convention without setting foot in the city any more than absolutely necessary; if he can make it here, anyone can.
Meanwhile, the same edition carried an editorial lauding our current Mayor and alleged Republican Mike Bloomberg (a man who is clearly to Koch's left) for lambasting Republicans in Congress who keep shafting the city.In a move that had the political world buzzing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has delivered the back of his hand to Representative Bob Ney, an important Republican [Chairman of the Banking Committee, for instance] from rural Ohio. As the G.O.P. convention in August draws near, Mr. Ney was looking forward to a political power lunch this week at the mayor's Upper East Side town house. But he was disinvited right after he voted against a $446 million proposal to help New York and other high-risk areas fight terrorism. (In an interesting side note, Bloomberg was forced to admit that the World's Biggest Asshole, whom Bloomberg makes no secret of disagreeing with over almost everything, was on the right side of this issue).
Bloomberg has taken to punishing national Republicans who don't do right by the city. He points out that they come to New York to raise money from rich GOP supporters, and he says he's not going to help the ones who are screwing the city with their congressional votes.
Perhaps Koch's message--make nice--should be directed at the current occupant of his old City Hall office. It's sure not going to stop demonstrators from letting the GOP know what they think of this administration, let alone dissuade anyone bent on mayhem.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Senators Mike DeWine and John McCain have an op-ed in today's Washington Post warning that Mass human destruction is unfolding today in Sudan, with the potential to bring a death toll even higher than that in Rwanda.
NASA photos of Darfur reportedly show massive destruction in nearly 400 villages.
Today, the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC will close for one hour to highlight the humanitarian crisis.
UN field workers say that Janjaweed militias continue to attack villages in the south of Darfur.
The U.S. European Command has reportedly moved a small team of military non-combat specialists into Chad in case the Bush administration orders military operations, but Pentagon officials say they have not been asked to prepare for any kind of intervention.
And Physicians for Human Rights says that "a genocidal process is unfolding in Darfur, Sudan." You can read their report here (pdf format)
This final bit of news reminded me of a statement made by Gen. Romeo Dallaire during an interview for the Frontline documentary "Ghosts of Rwanda" regarding the useless debate over the use of the term "genocide" in 1994 I mean it's a useless argument. Human beings are being killed in the thousands, it could be in the hundreds of thousands. You don't need the term "genocide" to decide to help other human beings. In fact, once they finally agreed to using the term genocide it did absolutely nothing, it changed nobody's perspective in any way, shape or form that brought any result on the field. On the contrary, the arguments were that the killing was over now, so is the deployment really so essential?
That whole exercise of numbers became a great perversion, because ultimately you don't need four thousand bodies to say that we've got a real problem. And the proof of that is that how many people died in that market in Sarajevo? Sixty? The whole damn world got really concerned, and the western world mobilized everybody they could to respond to that. … It was just an absolute perverse exercise of developed nations using excuses of sovereignty and nationalism and involvement and self-interest, to argue the way around one of the most fundamental premises: Are these people human? Do you have a capability? Then why aren't you doing something? Why is it that the black Africans sitting there being slaughtered by the thousands get nothing? Why is it when a bunch of white Europeans get slaughtered in Yugoslavia you can't put enough capability in there?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 |
|
|
|
One Thing Nader and I Agree On...
...he's advising Kerry to pick Edwards for VP.
Meanwhile, the ever-helpful folks on the Right are urging Kerry to tap the dreadfully dull Gephardt (who has two losing presidential campaigns to his name to say nothing of his failed attempts to win Democratic control as House Minority Leader). This sounds suspiciously similar to all the pro-Joe Lieberman talk in right-wing circles several months back.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 5:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can You Say: "Abu Graib"?
The New York Times reports:"The United States bowed to broad opposition on the Security Council today and announced that it was dropping its effort to gain immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court." The rest of the story is here.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"2 More Soldiers Died in Iraq, But On a Lighter Note ..."
Last week, officials at the Defense Department should have had an awful lot on their mind. After all, the scheduled handover of authority in Iraq to civilian officials was less than two weeks off .... U.S. casualties continued to climb .... The far northern region of Iraq -- long considered the one area of the post-war country that was relatively free of violence -- could be destabilized as ethnic Kurds forcibly retake lands they once owned, prompting tens of thousands of Iraqi Arabs to flee and enter already overburdened refugee camps .... and, last week, the Pentagon continued to face tough questions about the rather unorthodox interrogation methods that Secretary Rumsfeld endorsed, but later rescinded.
But never mind all of that. Amid such sober issues, the Department of Defense had an important bulletin for Americans -- and just in time for Father's Day: Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a really good dad.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton Hatred vs. Bush Hatred
It seems like only the other day that The Corner devoted all of its posts to testimonials of Reagan love. What a difference a week makes. The folks at the Corner are now up to their eyeballs in Clinton hatred and it's hard to say what they feel more strongly...love for the Gipper or hatred for Bubba.
Today, they're getting all misty-eyed recalling the moment that they first started hating Clinton (see Jonah Goldberg's "insta-dislike" moment here). This serial Clinton bashing has proven too much even for some of the Corner's dedicated readership. Here's a note one reader sent to Goldberg:
[Y]ou should reign in your Cornerites’ Clinton-bashing. It undercuts the recent plea made by Bush-defenders about the harsh “tone” of the alleged Bush-haters and how disrepectful, coarse, and nasty our public discourse has now become.
Exhibit A: The Corner of the last few days. Plainly, the Clinton-hatred was always there, was very real, and was far more personal than the mostly policy-based criticisms of Dubya you see in the mainstream and liberal press. A bit much (and I’m no Clinton fan). Goldberg responds by saying that it is preferable to hate somebody on a personal level than to hate them for policy reasons:
Those who hate Clinton hate Clinton because they hate Clinton. It may seem counter-intuitive in today's climate, but it seems to me that the Clinton haters have the more honorable position....It seems to me to hate a man because of his policies alone is not a respectable position, unless of course you make the argument that the policies themselves are flatly evil. I think that's an almost impossible sell with Bush. Whatever you say, Jonah. But, it seems to me that it is rational to dislike a president for his right-wing judicial appointments or a budget and tax policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, but entirely irrational to dislike someone because of the way he talks about his troubled childhood, plays the sax on Arsenio Hall, bites his lip, or raises a "butt-ugly daughter."
Something to consider the next time the right-wing shrink brigade accuses Democrats of pathological Bush hatred.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leave It to the States ... Well, Not Really
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on Capitol Hill yesterday, offering testimony in support of one version of the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In his prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gov. Romney recited the usual conservative line that can best be summed up as "it's about the kids." He told the Judiciary Committee:"... marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children." Once again, conservatives seem to be telling the childless straight couples of America that they've not fulfilled the duties of their marital contract. Romney continued:"The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.
... circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders." What's he saying? Your father's dead, but, as a kid you can still "be influenced" by his gender? Sounds like something the right-wing would normally label as psycho-babble.
For Romney, the issue is all about children. He didn't even attempt to make the argument that many on the Religious Right continue to make -- "letting them marry will weaken our marriages." Romney stated:Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole ..." In arguing that a federal amendment is needed to preserve tradition values, Romney posed this rhetorical question:"Has America been wrong about marriage for 200-plus years? ... For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary." Yet the governor fails to acknowledge that during those 200-plus years, states have had marriage laws that differed from one another -- sometimes significantly. By backing this federal marriage amendment, Romney would effectively discard those 200-plus years of tradition by putting the federal government, not the states, in the position of defining the term of marriage.
The proposed federal amendment that Romney supports defines marriage as between a man and a woman. After his testimony, Senator Richard Durbin asked Romney this question: What if Durbin's home state of Illinois, unlike other states, wanted to alter its marriage law in a way that did not specify the gender of the couple? Wouldn't the federal amendment Romney supports prevent that? The governor stammered as he offered an empty reply. Sometimes the word "yes" can get caught in your throat.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush's Reassuring Line Rings Hollow
Associated Press White House correspondent Terence Hunt on the White House's feeble attempt to put to rest the issue of the administration's torture-related memoranda:The release Tuesday of hundreds of pages of internal memos by the White House was meant to blunt criticism that President Bush had laid the groundwork for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by condoning torture. The president insisted Tuesday: "I have never ordered torture." Yes, but ....... a 2002 order signed by Bush says the president reserves the right to suspend the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war at any time.
... The White House released Defense Department memos detailing some of the harsh interrogation methods approved -- and then rescinded -- by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003. The administration continues to refuse to say what interrogation methods are approved for use now.
... An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture -- and even deliberate killing -- of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee (who is now a justice on the 9th Circuit) also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture. For all intents and purposes, that "restricted" definition of torture means anything short of actually killing a prisoner (since the failure of a major organ such as the heart or liver would result in death).... The Justice Department backed away from Bybee's memo Tuesday. Senior department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the memo would be rewritten because it contains advice that is too broad and irrelevant. I suppose that's one way of putting it.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage: Resistance is Futile
Perhaps the Federal Marriage Amendment should itself be amended so as to prevent nuptuals between humans and the Borg. After all, the evidence clearly shows that such unions threaten the institution.
Illinois Senate Campaign Thrown Into Prurient Turmoil
posted by
Noam Alaska at 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 |
|
|
|
“Those who committed this crime in the name of the people they belong to also committed a crime against their own people.”
And now for some good news in the world of genocide. The Bosnian Serb government has completed a report on the massacre at Srebrenica, which the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) recently found to constitute genocide. Dragan Cavic, the President of the Bosnian Serb republic (to be distinguished from Serbia proper), addressed his people today about what the report had found.“The content of this report represents shocking information about the tragic truth involving enormous human suffering,” Cavic said, adding that Serbs need to face “the truth ... which, although not complete, still is frightening.” Outsiders have been telling the Bosnian Serbs for a decade of the crimes committed in their name, but it is a real breakthrough for Bosnian Serb leaders themselves to come to grips with what happened.
Will they now turn over Radovan Karadzic, who is suspected to be hiding in Bosnian Serb territory and has been indicted by ICTY? I wouldn't hold my breath. But this is progress. And maybe there was a message to Karadzic, and to Ratko Mladic, in Cavic's words:"Those who have committed these crimes have lost face and cannot expect the whole Serb nation to lose its face because of them," Cavic said. And this was bravely said; consider the enormity of the crime and the difficulty politicians (and even regular humans) have in confessing any association with even minor wrongdoing:“I can't know if this address will be any consolation to the relatives of the Muslim victims of the crime committed by the Serbs. (But) I understand and share the pain of those who are still searching for their beloved ones,” he said. Today's development isn't a cure for everything that happened. But it is good news.
Perhaps the leaders of the Sudanese government and the janjaweed were taking notes for their public speeches circa 2015.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 9:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must Read for Robert Novak
As denizens of the leftish portion of the blogosphere know all too well, when alleged journalist Robert Novak published the fact that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative, he attributed the information to an unnamed "senior administration official" (or words to that effect). A grand jury investigation has ensued, with the special prosecutor and grand jury presumably inquiring into the possibility that Novak's source committed a crime by divulging the information. Novak has declined to name his source, though I do not believe he's been asked to do so by the prosecutor.
Novak might want to take a gander at a case that the First Circuit decided yesterday. The case involved a grand jury investigation into corruption, ultimately leading to an indictment of the Mayor of Providence. After some defendants had been indicted, but while the investigation was continuing, the prosecution had to turn over to the defense certain categories of relevant evidence, including some video and audio tapes that recorded some of the allegedly criminal transactions. The judge, on the consent of all parties, ordered them to keep the tapes confidential to protect the ongoing grand jury proceedings and the defendants' right to a fair trial.
Lo and behold, a local NBC affiliate broadcast one of the videotapes showing a government witness handing the mayor's aide an envelope filled with cash.
The judge was concerned that a crime may have been committed if the videotape had been leaked to the reporter by someone involved in the case; for example, such conduct might have amounted to a criminal contempt of court by violating the judge's confidentiality order. The judge appointed a special prosecutor (since the leak might have come from the prosecution, he didn't think it was appropriate to ask the prosecutor's office to handle the matter).
The special prosecutor interviewed 14 witnesses in an attempt to trace the leak, but he could not find out where the tape had come from. Saying he'd exhausted other potential sources of the information, he subpoenaed the reporter and asked him who had given him the tape. The reporter declined, citing a "newsman's privilege" not to reveal confidential sources. The judge ordered the reporter to answer the question, and, after taking the necessary steps to make the case appealable, the reporter appealed to the First Circuit (the intermediate appellate court between the federal trial court and the Supreme Court). The First Circuit held that the reporter had to disclose his source.
As I read the opinion, and accepting the court's description of the holdings of other federal circuit courts (including a 2003 opinion from the esteemed conservative Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit), Novak won't have a leg to stand on if the Plame prosecutor insists that he divulge the identity of the leaker.
First, the court discusses the DOJ regulations that would have governed the special prosecutor if he had been a DOJ employee (and that do bind the Plame prosecutor, who is a U.S. Attorney):So far as Taricani [the reporter] is arguing that the Attorney General's regulations should be imposed on DeSisto [the special prosecutor] by the courts, the short answer is that a government prosecutor could have subpoenaed Taricani consistent with the regulations. These require that reasonable grounds exist to believe that a crime has occurred and that prior efforts have been made by the prosecutor to get the necessary information from non-media sources. 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.10(b),(f)(1)-(3) (2003). So if the Plame prosecutor can't find out who leaked to Novak except by asking Novak himself, and if it's reasonable to believe the leak constituted a crime, the DOJ regs don't seem to present any obstacle.
What about the Constitution, or a common-law reporter's privilege? Not much hope there for Novak, either:In Branzburg [v. Hayes, a 1972 case], the Supreme Court flatly rejected any notion of a general-purpose reporter's privilege for confidential sources, whether by virtue of the First Amendment or of a newly hewn common law privilege. The Court stressed inter alia the importance of criminal investigations, the usual obligation of citizens to provide evidence, and the lack of proof that news-gathering required such a privilege.
[snip]
What Branzburg left open was the prospect that in certain situations--e.g., a showing of bad faith purpose to harass--First Amendment protections might be invoked by the reporter.
[snip]
The three leading cases in this circuit require "heightened sensitivity" to First Amendment concerns and invite a "balancing" of considerations (at least in situations distinct from Branzburg). In substance, these cases suggest that the disclosure of a reporter's confidential sources may not be compelled unless directly relevant to a nonfrivolous claim or inquiry undertaken in good faith; and disclosure may be denied where the same information is readily available from a less sensitive source.
How far these constraints may be constitutional requirements (as opposed to prudential considerations) is unsettled; the Supreme Court twice rejected any automatic requirement that non-confidential sources be exhausted. In all events, in this case there is no doubt that the request to Taricani was for information highly relevant to a good faith criminal investigation; and, as already noted, that reasonable efforts were made to obtain the information elsewhere. So the Plame prosecutor might not even have to show that there's nowhere else to look for the information; but if he has exhausted all reasonable alternatives, it surely seems he would be entitled to demand that Novak testify.
An important caveat: the Plame grand jury is in Washington, and any dispute over a subpoena to Novak would be heard first by the district court there and then by the D.C. Circuit, neither of which is compelled to agree with the First Circuit's analysis. But for what it's worth, the First Circuit's opinion doesn't read as if this was a particularly hard case; unless the court is really mischaracterizing the Supreme Court precedent, Novak wouldn't have much basis to claim a right or privilege to keep his source confidential. Of course, courts tend to write their opinions to make the outcome seem inescapable, but after you've read a few hundred appellate decisions, you can get a decent sense for when a court is stretching precedent or venturing into unexplored territory. This court doesn't sound as if it's doing either.
Stay tuned.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must Read for William Safire
Safire used to be worth reading, though his tendency to refer to war criminals by affectionate nicknames ("As Arik Sharon was telling me the other day at his grandson's bris . . . .") was rather tedious. But he's really lost it in recent months. I think it's time for the Times to find a new columnist.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Clinton Rated
More than a week after former President Reagan was laid to rest, the ebullient salutes to his presidency from conservative commentators have only now begun to subside. These pundits of the Right generally detest Bill Clinton, who is in the midst of a book-signing and lecture tour associated with his just-released book, "My Life." But what did the public at-large think of how well each man performed the job of president?
Both presidents served during a time of economic expansion. As controversial as Clinton was, one might assume that Reagan's average job-approval rating was higher. If so, one would assume incorrectly. The graph below from the Gallup organization reveals that even as controversial as Clinton was, the public rated him a few points higher than the Gipper:
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
As much as I complain about the US not doing enough to alleviate the suffering in Darfur, we are doing a hell of a lot more than the rest of the world International agency Oxfam today attacked donor governments for failing to deliver enough funding to help an estimated two million people affected by the crisis in Darfur, western Sudan.
According to latest United Nations figures, the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and rich Arab countries have been some of the least generous.
[edit]
The United Nations has appealed for almost $350 million to cover urgent needs this year for all its agencies working on the crisis. Yet, according to latest UN figures, this appeal has so far received just one third of the money needed, with contributions totaling only around $114 million.
In terms of bilateral contributions to the 2004 appeal, France has given just $3.45 million, Spain $600,000, Germany $7.14 million, Japan $3.29m, Italy $2.4 million, Saudi Arabia $204,000, and United Arab Emirates $82,000.
By comparison, the US has given $89.5 million and the UK has given $52.1 million.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 3:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further Adventures in Wise Decision-Making
We may be in for more fun with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Iraq, but the story begins in Cuba:Three months after a get-tough general took command of the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, prisoners began a flurry of suicide attempts, according to military records.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took over as commander at Guantanamo in November 2002 after interrogators criticized his predecessor for being too solicitous for the detainees' welfare. I like that: "too solicitous for the detainees' welfare." I'll let it pass without further comment for now, though.Between January and March 2003, 14 prisoners at Guantanamo tried to kill themselves, according to Pentagon figures. That's more than 40 percent of the 34 suicide attempts by 21 inmates since the prison was opened in January 2002. This Miller character sure seems to make life worth living. As the now-infamous "torture memo" pointed out, Islam forbids suicide, so that if a fundamentalist Muslim is pushed to the point of attempting it, there's a decent chance that he's been subjected to torture, even by the extremely lenient standard set forth in the memo:"We think that pushing someone to the brink of suicide, particularly where the person comes from a culture with strong taboos against suicide, and it is evidenced by acts of self-mutilation, would be a sufficient disruption of the personality to constitute a `profound disruption,'" Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge, wrote to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. But back to Gen. Miller. What's he up to now?Miller is now in charge of all military-run U.S. prisons in Iraq, a job he took after news broke of beatings and sexual humiliations last fall at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Well, that was a great idea.
But maybe the rash of suicide attempts at Gitmo was just a coincidence, or maybe Miller has learned from experience which techniques he should eschew this time around.Miller had visited Abu Ghraib in August and September and recommended interrogation techniques that military lawyers said had to be modified to comply with the Geneva Conventions on treating prisoners of war. I love lawyers (after all, I am one, and I'm married to one). Miller's techniques comply with the Geneva Conventions now that they've been modified. A more straightforward way of putting it is that Miller recommended actions that violate the Geneva Conventions.
Good thing our President believes in accountability. Miller's assignment sure sends a strong signal that mistreatment of prisoners won't be tolerated by this administration.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the Bouncing Ball
You probably won't see Michael Moore's new film playing at any Loews Cineplex theaters any time soon.
Why is that?
Well, Dan just sent me this link alerting me to the fact that the Carlyle Group and some others just bought them all for $1.46 billion.
The Carlyle Group you say?
Isn't that the same company Moore exposes in his new film as establishing lucrative business links between the bin Laden family and the Bush dynasty?
Indeed it is.
As the old saying goes: "if you can't beat 'em, use your billions of dollars to shut down the marketplace of ideas."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Favorite Mistake
After reading this Washington Post article on Clinton's new book and seeing this quote He also acknowledges that his failure to take action in 1994 to stop genocide in Rwanda "became one of the greatest regrets of my presidency."
I went to the bookstore and took a look at it. Since his handling of Rwanda was "one of [his] greatest regrets," I figured that he would have dedicated a few pages or more to explaining just what went wrong.
Wrong!
In 957 pages, Clinton managed to pen a grand total of three paragraphs about the genocide.
In the first, he brags about evacuating American citizens and sending in troops to protect them but argues that the US didn't do more because we were bombing Bosnia, Black Hawk down had recently happened, and Congress was unhappy with the idea of sending US troops on military adventures in far-off lands.
The other two paragraphs deal with his trip to Rwanda in 1998 to apologize for not doing anything (but he was oh-so brave for going even though the Secret Service didn't want him to.)
The only thing more infuriating than Clinton's utter failure to do anything during the genocide is his self-serving insistence that not doing anything is now a source of great regret.
If it truly was, he would have dedicated more than three paragraphs discussing it.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Job Opening in the White House
Apparently they're in some dire need of some professional factcheckers.An allegation that a high-ranking al Qaeda member was an officer in Saddam Hussein's private militia may have resulted from confusion over Iraqi names, a senior administration official said yesterday. ... One of them is Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, identified as an al Qaeda "fixer" in Malaysia. Officials say he served as an airport greeter for al Qaeda in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, at a gathering for members who were to be involved in the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Iraqi military documents, found last year, listed a similar name, Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad, on a roster of Hussein's militia, Saddam's Fedayeen. ... Allegations that Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi was under Iraqi intelligence control were raised last year in an article in the Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes, and later discounted by U.S. intelligence officials. No such tie was indicated in the commission report.
The commission staff report, released Wednesday, prompted a vigorous response from the Bush administration, which had cited since 2002 an al Qaeda-Hussein link as one reason for going to war. Just last week, Vice President Cheney said in a television interview he "probably" knew intelligence about Iraq's ties to terrorists that the commission had not received, but added, "I don't know what they know."
Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi and Hikmat Shakir Ahmad
So close, yet so far.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Truth...
about dodgeball. This is the kind of essay that actually makes Slate worth checking on a regular basis. Well worth reading.What made the game unique was that it managed to eliminate, if only for a few adrenalized minutes, all those cruel social hierarchies that torment you so when you're young. It was a wholly egalitarian pastime and for a wholly unromantic reason: In trying to dodge the ball, you often failed to dodge the fellow players. The pale forehead of a geek would collide with the Herculean nose of a bully, knocking him flat on his face, and that was more than OK: It was the whole point. No one was safe. Everyone got hurt. Dodgeball, in short, wasn't Lord of the Flies so much as Fight Club for the Saturday cartoon set: I hit you; you hit me; see you here tomorrow.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's All About the Benjamins
According to the spankin' new Congressional Budget Office's report, The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages, preventing same-sex couples from being legally wed actually robs the government of revenue. (Call it the heterosexual marriage-only tax.) By simply adding same-sex couples to the "married" box, it would actually provide a boost to the government's coffers. Some very interesting facts:The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person's eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions--ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)--in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges."(1) In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government. ... On balance, legalization of same-sex marriages would have only a small impact on federal tax revenues, CBO estimates. Revenues would be slightly higher: by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010 and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014. Those amounts represent less than 0.1 percent of total federal revenues. ... Recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays for Social Security and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, CBO estimates, but would reduce spending for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Medicare. Effects on other programs would be negligible. Altogether, CBO concludes, recognizing same-sex marriages would affect outlays by less than $50 million a year in either direction through 2009 and reduce them by about $100 million to $200 million annually from 2010 through 2014. Take that, congress!
Oh, wait, it was Rep. Steve Chabot(R-OH), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary, who requested the report in the first place. What do you want to bet that he was hoping for different results?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 1:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Words Lose All Meaning
Laughable The United States plans to turn over legal, but not physical, custody of Saddam Hussein and some other prisoners to the Iraqi interim government soon after it takes over on June 30, a senior official said on Tuesday.
[edit]
"We understand the importance of transferring the high-value detainees to the Iraqi interim government upon their request, which we anticipate will be received shortly after July 1," the official in Iraq's U.S.-led administration said.
"Because the Iraqi interim government is not currently in a position to safeguard these detainees, at least in large numbers, our current plan calls for the transfer of legal responsibility over a certain number of high-profile detainees...while physical custody will remain with the multinational force in Iraq," he told reporters.
I don't necessarily think that Hussein should be turned over right away, or maybe even ever, but this administration needs to stop parsing language in a desperate attempt to have its cake and eat it too.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who Would Oppose This?
Mainly Republicans, that's who SEC. 364. PROTOCOL ON MEDIA COVERAGE OF RETURN TO UNITED STATES OF REMAINS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO DIE OVERSEAS.
(a) PROTOCOL REQUIRED.--(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall develop a protocol that permits media coverage of the return to the United States of the coffins containing the remains of members of the Armed Forces who die overseas.
(2) The protocol shall ensure the preservation of the dignity of the occasion of the return to the United States of members of the Armed Forces who die overseas.
(3) The protocol shall ensure the preservation of the confidentiality of the identity of each member of the Armed Forces whose remains are returning to the United States.
(b) REPORT.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a copy of the protocol developed under subsection (a).
Carpetbagger has more.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's Such a Great Law My Justice Dept. Is Fighting It"
I cannot be the only person scratching his head this morning over this excerpt from the Washington Post article about yesterday's high court decision:The Supreme Court yesterday struck down a Texas patients' rights law in a ruling that bars all states from letting patients sue managed-care companies whose refusal to pay for treatment allegedly results in death or injury.
... President Bush touted the Texas law in his 2000 campaign, but his Justice Department opposed it in the two cases decided jointly yesterday. What a president.
The gap between Bush's rhetoric and what he and/or his administration do is nothing new. In 2000, the Boston Globe offered this analysis of Bush's record on support for a patient's bill of rights, juxtaposed with remarks he had just made at the 10/17/2000 presidential debate in St. Louis:In 1995, (then-Governor) Bush vetoed a patient’s bill of rights, one that contained many of the provisions that he praised last night: report cards on health maintenance organizations, liberal emergency room access, and the elimination of a gag clause forbidding doctors from telling patients about more costly treatment options than HMO coverage.
At the time, Bush said these provisions would be too costly to business. Bush did sign some of the provisions into law two years later. But he opposed the right to sue HMOs in court, a right last night he termed "interesting."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Is Just Sad
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, of which I've been a member since a couple of months after 9/11, issued an advisory to members via e-mail yesterday. The advisory is now up on ADC's website. The opening paragraph should give you an idea:In light of the horrific acts of violence committed in Saudi Arabia by a group of fanatical extremists, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is releasing the following advisory statement to members of the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities. ADC feels it prudent to issue this advisory statement as we have confirmed reports of anti-Muslim acts of vandalism in Florida and hate-filled messages posted in New Jersey and other states this past weekend. The advisory goes on to suggest courses of action in each of three circumstances:1) IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS PLACED IN PHYSICAL DANGER BECAUSE OF YOUR ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
2) IF YOUR PLACE OF WORK, PLACE OF WORSHIP, OR SCHOOL IS IDENTIFIED WITH ARABS AND/OR MUSLIMS
3) IF YOUR CHILD CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS ARAB OR MUSLIM, OR MAY BE CONFUSED FOR BEING OF MIDDLE-EASTERN ORIGIN Considering the murders of Sikhs in "retaliation" for the 9/11 attacks, the "confused for being of Middle-Eastern origin" phrase is not to be taken lightly.
The sad thing is that I can see no reason to think that ADC is overreacting or being hypersensitive to the possibility of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim violence, given past performance. Talk about terrorism: it takes only a handful of hateful individuals, committing a few acts of violence, to put millions of Americans in fear for their safety.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan in Political Intensive-Care
Jack Ryan, Illinois’ GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate, is knee-deep in what Papa Bush would call "deep doo-doo." According to the Chicago Sun-Times:Actress Jeri Ryan accused ex-husband Jack Ryan of insisting she go to "explicit sex clubs" in New York, New Orleans and Paris during their marriage -- including "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."
Jack Ryan wanted her to have sex with him while others watched, the star of "Boston Public" alleged.
The Republican U.S. Senate candidate dismissed his ex-wife's allegations as "ridiculous accusations" and "smut" that she was dishing out … Those were the key revelations in documents from a 2000 and 2001 child custody battle that a judge ordered unsealed Monday. Given the venom that religious conservatives directed at Bill Clinton in the late 1990’s for his moral failings, it will be interesting to see how this faction of the Right reacts to these allegations surrounding Ryan.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Fast Can You Read?
Not as fast as Rich Lowry I am now holding in my hands a copy of Clinton's book. Just picking it up is a stupifying act. I have to finish a review for NR by noon tomorrow--wish me luck.
If I was going to review Clinton's 957-page book, I'd probably try to give myself a little more than 26 hours to read it and write the review.
But that's just me - I'm worried about accuracy, facts and objectivity. Lowry's just looking for his name.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Hate Polls, Part 612
Data from the new Washington Post-ABC News poll Before the war, do you think Iraq did or did not provide direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group?
Iraq provided support, YOUR SUSPICION ONLY: 38%
Iraq provided support, SOLID EVIDENCE OF THAT: 23%
Iraq did not provide support: 33%
DK/No opinion: 6%
So some 61% of people either suspect or think there is solid evidence that Iraq supported al Qaeda. Then why this? Do you think the Bush administration intentionally misled the American public about possible links between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist group, or do you think the administration told the American public what it believed to be true about this?
Intentionally misled the American public: 48%
Told the American public what it believed to be true: 50%
DK/No opinion 2%
How can 48% of the people think that the administration intentionally misled them, but only 33% think there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda?
Who are these people who think that the administration intentionally mislead them about an Iraq/al Qaeda connection, but still think there was some Iraq/al Qaeda connection?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Kofi Annan makes an utterly reasonable point, but it sounds like whining U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told U.N. members not to use him "as an alibi" for their own inaction in helping 2 million people caught in fighting in Sudan's Darfur region.
[edit]
"We should avoid the situations where we allow member states to hide behind the secretary general, use him as an alibi for their own inaction," he told U.N. radio on its launch of a new program on Africa on Monday.
And things are about to go from bad to worse One of the world's worst humanitarian situations - the strife-torn Darfur region of western Sudan - could deteriorate further now that the area's rainy season has begun, hampering the delivery of life-sustaining aid and fostering a breeding ground for infectious diseases, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Oh, and polio has re-emerged in Darfur and now threatens to create an Africa-wide epidemic.
And then there is this
A Sudanese refugee mother breastfeeds her malnourished child at a refugee camp set up near a school in El Genina, in Sudan's northern Darfur province.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 21, 2004 |
|
|
|
I'm Guessing the Thai Constitution Doesn't Have an Eighth Amendment
Mrs. California was born and spent her first four years in Bangkok, and I've spent a few months there, so I have a soft spot for the place. This AP story from the ancient capital of Ayuthaya caught my eye. I liked this line especially:"We train the elephants every day to play soccer, kick the ball, and to keep from stepping on the other people," said Pattarapon Meepan, 19, whose father owns the Elephant Palace. If you go to the story, you can see a video and a slideshow of interesting images, such as this one:
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'Index' on Iraq and War
More interesting snippets from "Harper's Index" -- factoids from the May issue are now posted on the magazine's Web site. Turning to the issue of Iraq and al Qaeda:Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by the Bush Administration's top officials since March 2002 : 237
[Source: Committee on Government Reform, Washington, D.C.]
* * * * * * * *
Percentage of these that contradicted, made selective use of, or mischaracterized existing government intelligence : 100
[Source: Committee on Government Reform, Washington, D.C.]
* * * * * * * *
Days before last year's invasion of Iraq that Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist infidel" : 36
[Source: Al Jazeera (Doha, Qatar)/BBC Monitoring Service, Caversham Park, U.K.] Yessiree. Just like Dick Cheney has been trying to tell us, Osama and Saddam were the best of buds. Now, this one is my personal favorite -- our future president defining what "military victory" is all about:Days into the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo that candidate George W. Bush observed, "Victory means exit strategy" : 17
[Source: Houston Chronicle/NATO, Brussels hdqtrs.] Care to repeat that, George?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democracy: Still Endangered in Fla.
If you're guessing that Florida has adequately addressed its mechanical and procedural problems with voting, then you might be interested in these factoids from the May issue of "Harper's Index":Number of blank votes recorded by touchscreen ...... 137 machines in a January election for Fla.'s House of Representatives
Votes by which the race was won ........................... 12 Sigh. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scoring Better in Every Way
Public schools that serve wealthier communities are not only places where students score better on standardized tests; they are places where athletic teams score better too. According to a recent article by USA Today:Public schools in the wealthiest neighborhoods win state team championships at more than twice the rate of schools in the least wealthy neighborhoods, according to a USA Today database analysis of championships in 10 core sports in 27 states in all regions of the country.
The trend is most pronounced in Kentucky, where schools in the wealthiest neighborhoods won 15 state championships to every one won by a school in the least wealthy neighborhoods.
Schools in wealthier neighborhoods often have booster clubs that raise money beyond what is budgeted by school districts and can be used for any number of wish-list functions.
"Think about coaches, equipment, weight rooms" and places to play, says Bruce Weber, publisher of Scholastic Coach and Athletic Director magazine. "All those are things that money can buy."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings from Looneyville
While we have always suspected that the Christian Coalition was out of touch with reality, it is still satisfying to find out where exactly they're coming from. Check out this dateline (as reported by the Wall Street Journal, subscription required):
LOONEYVILLE, W.VA.--The Christian Coalition has fallen far from its glory days as a pro-Republican fighting force in the 1990s. But now Pastor J. Allen Fine has a new political weapon.
"Gay marriage is societal suicide," says Mr. Fine, a religious broadcaster who was recently installed as state director of the coalition's West Virginia chapter. "We were asked on our radio program, 'Is sodomy still a sin?' It brought in so many calls and the dish of the fax machine overflowed."
posted by
Noam Alaska at 3:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bedsworth for Supreme Court!
He's got too much personality to survive the confirmation process these days. But go to his latest for the context of the following remark:'Dear President Castro, the nation which bankrolled the Bay of Pigs and once seriously considered ways to poison your coffee hereby apologizes for interrupting your phone service with a crank call.' That's a little bizarre, even by the standards of the last two administrations.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 2:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NR Wearing Egg on Its Face
Chicago Tribune columnist James Warren reminds us that on the prisoner abuse issue, conservative media critics continue to blow smoke -- and get burned:NationalReview.com, the Web site of the stalwart and engaging political magazine, includes (a reference to CNN's Aaron) Brown ... to explain alleged hypocrisy in the media's Iraq coverage. The problem is that the (magazine's) premise was quite wet.
The magazine bashed Brown for declaring on air that one had to see the video of prison humiliations by Americans at the Abu Graib prison to believe it, while allegedly not showing available video of prison atrocities during the Saddam Hussein era.
For starters, [Brown] notes that the line attributed to him was first spoken by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He then notes that Brown's show, "Newsnight," did on Oct. 30, 2003, run a Saddam torture tape, perhaps even the one National Review chided the media for not running. He suggests the magazine's writer watch his show a bit more often. *The original article on NationalReview.com that took a swipe at CNN's Brown
*Aaron Brown's letter of reply
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Blast from the Past
What with Clinton's apologia-cum-moneymaker hitting the shelves and everyone wallowing in late-90s nostalgia, I thought I'd add my little contribution to the journey down memory lane:After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons. The fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead. If the president refuses to resign for the sake of the nation, I believe he should be impeached and face Senate trial. —Dick Armey, 1998 Ah, Dick, we hardly knew ye.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Haven't We Invaded Saudi Arabia?
It's not as if I believe the latest incendiary claim from al Qaida--that individuals in the Saudi security forces helped them kidnap Paul Johnson, the American they beheaded last week. On the other hand, if it turns out to be true, it won't be the biggest surprise in the world.
But forget about that. Based on what we know about Saudi Arabia, that country's (and its government's) "ties to" and "relationship with" and "contacts with" al Qaida go well beyond anything that can reasonably be claimed about Iraq. Using the administration's own mealy-mouthed standards, we should have invaded right after 9/11.
Consider: 14 of the 19 highjackers were Saudi (zero were Iraqi); not only bin Laden himself, but much of al Qaida's leadership is Saudi (no significant Iraqis); considerable al Qaida funding has come from Saudi Arabia (virtually none from Iraq); and several al Qaida attacks on American interests were carried out from or on Saudi territory (none in or from Iraq before we invaded).
I wonder what there was about Saudi Arabia in the congressional report on 9/11--information that's not public since the entire 27-page section on Saudi Arabia was classified at the administration's behest.
The President, his flaks, and their media apologists have been backpedaling for days from the claims that they frequently implied and sometimes explicitly made about Iraq's involvement with terrorism. But in doing so, they've lowered the threshold so far that it's hard to justify our inaction against Saudi Arabia--and Pakistan, and Iran, and Yemen, and Sudan, and . . . .
If a handful of contacts between Iraqi officials and al Qaida operatives, from which nothing seems to have developed, are enough to make the Iraq war a "front in the War on Terror," as the New York Post put it last week, then why haven't we done anything about countries where al Qaida has actually been operating, recruiting, and raising funds?
It's pretty simple: "contacts" aren't enough to get the American public to support a war of the magnitude of the one in Iraq. Which is why the administration and its supporters portrayed Iraq as being involved with the 9/11 attack, or at least the most likely source of the "next 9/11." Now, with the WMD and al Qaida claims evaporating for want of evidence, the President is pretending he never said what he said--but he had said anything less, he couldn't have gotten the country to go to war.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Jay Bybee Be Impeached?
I'm inclined to say "yes," but I don't really know if and how the Constitutional protocols apply.
First of all, here is a piece from the Washington Post's "Outlook" section on the Justice Department memo sanctioning the use of torture, authored by Bybee It's hard to believe that the memo was poorly researched, so it makes one wonder whether the Justice Department was being disingenuous. A lawyer who is arguing to a court is allowed to be disingenuous because it is up to the judge to evaluate that argument against the adversary's and decide what the law is. But a lawyer who is writing an opinion letter is ethically bound to be frank.
How could Bybee have written such a scandalous opinion? Lawyers who tell their clients what they want to hear -- rather than the advice they need -- are sometimes rewarded with career advancement. Last year, Jay Bybee was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
There is a proud tradition of lawyers bravely telling clients not what they want to hear, but what the law requires. Judge Bybee's actions stand in stark contrast to the best traditions of the bar.
Article III, Section I says The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
I don't know if Bybee's memo is grounds for impeachment since it was written before he ever was nominated and confirmed to the 9th Circuit. Article II, Section IV says The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Is the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel considered a "civil officer"? If so, advocating that the President of the United States ignore/break domestic and international law certainly ought to qualify as a "high crime." But since he no longer holds that position, can he be impeached from his new position for something he did in that capacity?
Considering that the House and Senate are both controlled by Republicans, and that impeaching Bybee would raise a host of politically unpleasant questions regarding Bush's role in all of this, Bybee's seat on the 9th Circuit is undoubtedly safe.
But on strictly constitutional grounds, could Bybee be impeached for this?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exporting Priest-Molesters
Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II called children "that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity." Roughly eight and a half years ago, the pontiff issued a declaration in which he stated:I feel bound to mention in a particular way children who are suffering and those who often grow to adulthood without ever having experienced peace. Children's faces should always be happy and trusting, but at times they are full of sadness and fear ... I invite everyone to help children to grow up in an environment of authentic peace. This is their right, and it is our duty. But, as the child sexual abuse scandal has demonstrated so profoundly, the Catholic Church repeatedly placed its own public image ahead of its duty to children.
With an opportunity to make amends, the church -- despite its rhetoric -- seems to be engaging in more deception and denial. The Associated Press reported that the Vatican had no comment to this news, broken this weekend by the Dallas Morning News:An international movement of Roman Catholic priests out of countries where they have been accused of abusing children has continued even after the abuse scandal that swept the U.S. church in 2002 ...
Hundreds of priests accused of abuse have been moved from country to country, allowing them to start new lives in unsuspecting communities and continue working in church ministries, the newspaper reported in yesterday's editions.
... In one case, the Rev. Frank Klep, a convicted child molester who has admitted abusing one boy and is wanted on more charges in Australia, was placed in Apia, Samoa, in the South Pacific. Australia has no extradition treaty with Samoa.
Klep told the newspaper that neither he nor the church feels an obligation to tell anyone about his past. Few, if any, locals are aware of his history.
"I'd prefer to just leave it," Klep said. "If I felt I was still a risk to their children, then I'd think differently. But I don't think I am at risk anymore." Are we supposed to be reassured when a convicted child molester tells us he doesn't "think" he's a threat to children any longer?
It should hardly surprise anyone that Catholic officials in Rome and in the U.S. have apparently permitted local dioceses to continue to "export" priest-molesters. Bear in mind that it wasn't until March 2002 that Pope John Paul II finally broke his silence on the growing spate of sexual abuse cases in America. That was more than four years after a record damage-award settlement for sexual abuse was reached by the Catholic Diocese in Dallas, Tex., and it came after the church's legal liability had reached an estimated $1 billion.
Even when the pontiff publicly acknowledged the widespread cases of abuse, consider how he chose his words: "We are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers," the Pope wrote in the 2002 letter. There's not much there to suggest that he recognizes the church's role in permitting these abusers to operate for many years with essentially no or minimal consequences. Incidentally, the abuse issue was noted in only one paragraph of the pontiff's 22-page letter.
Two years later, in April of this year, those "sins" didn't seem to matter very much to the Pope, who chose to give a prominent church post to Boston's Cardinal Law, someone who was thoroughly discredited by the sex abuse scandal.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arguably Legal?
The Washington Post on Darfur THE BUSH administration is waking up to Darfur, the western Sudanese province where Arab death squads have herded African villagers into refugee camps and are waiting for them to die. Two weeks ago Andrew Natsios, the administration's top aid official, estimated that at least a third of a million refugees are likely to perish for lack of food or basic medicines, and earlier this month Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged to the New York Times that the death squads have been supported by Sudan's government. Mr. Powell added that State Department lawyers are determining whether the killing, which the administration has already characterized as ethnic cleansing, may qualify for the term "genocide" -- a determination that would impose moral, political and arguably also legal obligations to intervene in Darfur
The Genocide Convention reads Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
By ratifying the Convention, the US pledged to prevent and to punish genocide. If genocide is declared, the US doesn't "arguably" have a legal obligation to intervene - it is obligated to intervene.
And that is why the US is resisting declaring it a genocide.
On a related note, Tacitus has a really good post on Darfur that you should read I hold little brief for those who gripe overmuch about sins of omission, but when it comes to genocide, that most capital of crimes, omission is commission. We ought to have learnt that by now. We have not. Never again? Talk is cheap: after half a century, the phrase is a cruel joke, resounding down the ages and spat in the face of a dying African, alone with the corpses of his children in the vast desert.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Africa
Some potentially good news Sudan's president, under international pressure to end killings of civilians in the western Darfur region, said the armed forces will disarm the Arab militias blamed for what the United Nations has called a humanitarian crisis.
President Omar el-Bashir said in a statement Saturday said he was ordering a "complete mobilization" of all Sudanese army and security forces to disarm all Darfur's warring parties, including the janjaweed ? nomadic Arab militia that the government has been accused of supporting.
Whether or not the government of Sudan is serious about this and will actually forcibly disarm the militias remains to be seen. Even if they do, there is no telling how long it will take before the militias are disarmed and the area is safe for humanitarian and aid workers to enter.
And even if they can get in, Medecins Sans Frontieres says that, as it stands now, aid groups are unprepared to deal with the situation they face Relief operations throughout the region fall far short of the massive needs and, as currently designed, will not succeed in preventing an entirely man-made famine from wiping out tens of thousands of lives throughout the region.
Elsewhere nearby there is some potentially bad news in that Congo is suspected of amassing troops on its border with Rwanda in response to suspicions that Rwanda has been arming and supporting rebels operating inside Congo. Rwanda denies doing so and Congo denies amassing troops on the border, so what will happen is anybody's guess.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, June 20, 2004 |
|
|
|
Why the Putin Disclosure Smells
I am every bit as skeptical of the news that broke this past Friday as Eugene was in this post -- the news disclosed by Russian Premier Vladimir Putin that Russian intelligence services had informed the Bush administration on multiple occasions that Iraq was planning to attack American targets both inside and outside the United States.
For starters, Eugene's argument is tough to overcome -- namely, if Russia's own intelligence services had uncovered such plans, then what possible justification could Putin have given for threatening to veto a UN resolution supporting a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq?
I have no great personal insights into what makes Putin tick, but I find it hard to believe that Putin would deliver this message to President Bush:"Yes, it's true that in recent months we've repeatedly learned of plots by a specific country to attack U.S. troops or targets, but, nonetheless, we will firmly oppose any U.S. attempt to take military action against the country plotting those attacks." It just doesn't pass the smell test. Keep in mind that Putin was a senior officer in the KGB -- a man whose life, in the words of a Washington Post headline, is "rooted in Russia's KGB." Putin would seem to be the kind of person who would take such intelligence reports very seriously. If he didn't think they were credible, then why would he have permitted them to be shared with U.S. officials?
But there's a second reason to cast serious doubt on Putin's disclosure. News articles on this disclosure report that President Bush himself thanked a senior Russian intelligence official. In other words, Bush himself supposedly knew of these intelligence reports. If so, why wouldn't he ever have gone public with the information -- if not to shame Russia into supporting the invasion, at least to give the American people a major new reason to support his administration's push to invade Iraq.
By last fall, once it become clear that WMDs were not going to materialize in Iraq, the Bush team would surely have cited the Russian intelligence reports if only to reassure the American people that the administration had compelling reasons to invade Iraq.
What explains Putin's disclosure? Three Latin words: quid pro quo. We know what Bush stands to gain from the disclosure. In the words of a Reuters article:"The Kremlin leader's comments were certain to bolster Bush, whose campaign for re-election in November is under pressure from the Iraq crisis." And what's in it for Putin? We may never know. Probably the Bush administration's agreement to look the other way as Putin moves with a brutal hand against the few remaining foes he faces -- from journalists and political rivals on the domestic scene to presumed "terrorists" in Chechnya.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 7:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|