Good riddance!

By Carl

You think Barack Obama is glad to see 2009 end?

1) Climate Change Conference Stalled

2) Democrats Squabble Over Healthcare Reform

3) Whiny Republicans Throw A Temper Tantrum

4) First Time Jobless Claims Are Surprisingly Higher

5) Obama's Support Is Winnowing Away

This closely mirrors the first Bush year, when he could get nothing done and was falling apart, until one fateful day in September of 2001.

We hope Obama will not resort to allowing a tragedy on his watch, but one never knows for sure.

I wouldn't say he desperately needs good news, but it's certainly looking as though he could stand a bit of picking up and the clock is running, after all. He needs something in the first half of 2010 in order to consolidate the gains Democrats have made over the past six years in Congress.

Curiously, it's the attacking from the left that flummoxes me. I get that an awful lot of hope (pun intended) was placed on Obama's shoulders, but come on! The economy this year, the worst since the Great Depression, has hampered any effective legislation he could possibly have been expected to pass, AND he's had to herd cats from his left and his right in order to do what he has been able to accomplish.

And it's most assuredly NOT helping that the moronic leadership in Congress has been nipping at his heels instead of assisting his agenda.

Hell, you'd almost be tempted to blame Bush/Cheney for sabotaging the nation, poisoning the well ahead of Obama's takeover, in order to give one final bird to the people of the United States.

If liberals, and I count myself a liberal, albeit one with a mind, are going to blame anyone, then let's shift the focus to where the blame truly belongs. If Republicans could blame Clinton (or worse, Jimmy Carter) for Bush's failings eight years out, certainly we can be sporting enough to blame Bush for failing to live up to his fiduciary duty to protect the nation and its citzenry, just one year down the road.


(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

"This is a crisis of leadership"

By Carol Gee

As "vulnerable GOP members reject[ed the] bailout," pundits, experts, officials and citizens alike chalked the bill's defeat up to failed Republican leadership or failed Democratic leadership. Depending on whose side they favored, opinion makers have spent the time on casting blame since the result emerged. Today's post will be another in my "leadership" series examining what makes a good leader, and hoping to maintain a bit of objectivity, rather than partisanship.

Faulty information is an enemy of good leadership. Leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has been widely blamed for the defeat of the so-called Wall Street bail-out bill yesterday. There was a good amount of finger-pointing both from within and between the Democratic and Republican parties. Bipartisanship disappeared rapidly after the vote count was tallied. The blame for the Iraq war is now well placed because we now know that the administration's rationale for the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty information. We see that good leaders work from credible information. Just as a small example, the leaders of both parties were not working from trustworthy estimates of what the final vote could be, even though their overall goal was bipartisanship. Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan, from Politico.com. conclude what actually happened in, "Boehner's gamble: Could it cost him his job?" To quote:

. . . Blunt said he had come to the floor thinking 75 Republicans would support the plan. He was off by 10 — just short of the 12 that were needed to turn defeat into victory.

But Boehner told a different story. He said that the GOP leaders never thought they’d get more than 68 Republicans to support the bill — and that he sent Blunt to tell Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as much nearly two hours before the vote.

“I sent [Blunt] down to talk to Hoyer, 11:30, quarter to 12, somewhere in that time frame,” Boehner said. “We had a pretty good idea where we were, where we thought we could get to. And Hoyer knew.”

Boehner added: “I did not talk to [Hoyer], so I don’t know what their conversation was. [Blunt] and I had that conversation. We talked about ‘Should we just rise [walk out]?’ It wouldn’t have been good, but I thought it would have been better than this. It really doesn’t make any difference.”

Democrats, for their part, said they assumed Blunt was lowballing his whip count to force Pelosi and the Democrats to line up more votes from their members.

In the end, as Pelosi and her team tried to flip votes in favor of the proposal, there was little Boehner or his Republican leadership team could do to entice those who voted “no” to switch their tally in support of the controversial measure.

“Given the unpopularity of this whole concept, it’s amazing that we got as many votes as we did,” Boehner said.

Information is power and rank and file citizens took some leadership power unto themselves this past week, directly contacting their Representatives in Congress. Callers were objecting in high percentages to the idea of bailing out those on Wall Street. With the election just weeks away, many vulnerable candidates were influenced by their constituents' points of view about the nature of the crisis. A few Reps exercised good leadership and voted from what their consciences dictated, going against expressed public opinion. No matter which side we would take regarding the current crisis, we are better served if leaders are willing to lose an election for principle.

Government is supposed to be in the business of exercising good leadership. As citizens we elect people to look out after our best interests, to protect us from harm, and to seek justice through lawmaking. At this time in history the economy is seriously out of whack because of a power-grabbing oligarchy and a Congress marked by weakness and lack of leadership. If any U.S. Representatives read the following analysis, it would go a long way to explain why the bail-out bill failed: "Grand Theft America#" by Stephen Lendman at Global Research is probably one of the very best articles one could read to truly understand what this crisis is about. (As an aside, it revealed the genesis of Paulson's moved to grab unreviewable powers). The author explores "the current dilemma that world leaders and financial experts are scrambling to figure out. . . . . . A global asset bubble. . . . Begun after Chicago School economics took hold under Ronald Reagan. Continued under GHW Bush. Became religion under Bill Clinton, and ultimately fundamentalism under GW Bush. . . . At 19%, George Bush scored lowest [rating] ever for a US president . . ." For your own information, I quote a few key paragraphs:

The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis. Economist Michael Hudson and others refer to a kleptocracy. A Ponzi scheme writ large. Maybe an out-of-control Andromeda Strain. An economic one. Deadly. Unrecallable. Science fiction now real life. Potentially catastrophic. World governments trying to contain it. Trying everything but not sure what can work. Maybe only able to paper it over for short-term relief. Buy time but in the end vindicate the maxim that things that can't go on forever, won't.

. . . The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies....and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism....blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.

. . . Yet Bush concluded that "democratic capitalism (is the) best system the world has ever devised" in spite of clear evidence that it's broken and corrupted. Exploits people for profit. Enriches the few at the expense of the many. Rewards criminals for their crimes. Protects the rich from beneficial social change.

In other words, unchallengeable czarist powers. In contrast to the 1930s Reconstruction Finance Corporation's (RFC) closely supervised operations. That era's Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) that refinanced homes to prevent foreclosures. And the 1980s Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) mandate to liquidate assets from failed S & Ls. Not dispense free money for bad investments unchecked. The above authorities subject to judicial review. Not governed by a financial boss to run as he pleased.

. . . Given the bipartisan blame for today's crisis. The post-9/11 willingness to give the administration near-carte blanche authority across the board. Eight years of indifference to social needs and public welfare. Who now believes that policy going forward will change and that the agreed-on scheme will protect people or curb the secretary's authority. On his own initiative, George Bush usurped supreme power post-9/11 while few in Congress blanched. None in leadership positions. Little today has changed.

Leadership capacity rests on differing traits in different people. As examples, strengths such as being mutually respectful, "tough as a boot," calm in a storm, experienced, and incredibly articulate or intelligent, all come to my mind. Everyone in both parties has his or her own list. The story of John Boehner's easy-handed leadership style, one that respects the principles of his followers and lets them do what they want, is an interesting one. To further quote from the previous story:

The bruising tally — coming on the heels of a weeklong revolt — had some GOP members asking privately whether Boehner can hold on to his leadership post. He said he did everything he could.

“You can’t break their arms, you can’t put your whole relationship on the line, ask them to do something that they do not want to do and have that member regret that vote for the rest of their life,” Boehner said. “Twenty years from now, nobody will care how anyone voted except those members. You can’t do that. You just can’t.”

. . . Boehner has [told] Republicans he would not lean on them as his predecessor, former Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, was wont to do. On some level, the problem was a lack of discipline. House Republicans lack the clear leadership chain that characterized their tenure in the majority under DeLay. The member-to-member relationships were much closer, so the whips typically had a better sense where votes stood before heading to the floor.

Boehner lacks the heft of former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who could always flip a few core votes in the final days before a tough roll call, and his party lacks any other heavy now that President Bush has only a few months left in office.

As the House prepared to vote Monday, Boehner delivered an astonishingly nonpartisan speech, telling the members who had already assembled on the House floor: “I don’t know that they get much tougher than this. No one wants to vote for this.”

When he finished, Boehner got more applause from Democrats than Republicans. . .

As a leader nation, the United States must now exercise good governance for the sake of the entire world. Whether we like it or not, we are an example of representative government that listens to its people, respects the rule of law, and looks out for the most vulnerable among us. Our top leaders had better be very careful about next steps. That means that the executive and legislative branches had must seek cooperative solutions that make sense to our own people, and not just to the oligarchs. Other nations are depending on that. So what are the next steps? The New York Times reports, Treasury and the Fed Looking at Options." To quote the article's conclusion:

. . . Mr. Rogoff cautioned that the real limitation for American policy makers is whether they can maintain the government’s long-term credibility. “The real constraint is not a bookkeeping one,” he said. “It is a sense of faith on the part of foreigners that the U.S. government will repay its debt. Our most precious asset is that credibility.”

The current crisis of leadership is partly our fault. We put these people in office without knowing the qualities of good leadership. My post's goal today has been to lay out a few of those key qualities, such as confronting reality, valuing the truth, exhibiting outstanding interpersonal skills, standing on principle, understanding compromise and conciliation, and being able to occasionally set aside ego. We will change a lot of leaders in the next few weeks; be careful about the qualities you look at when deciding.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Politics stops at the border, right?

By Carl

Then explain this:

US intelligence analysts are putting the final touches on a secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan that reportedly describes the situation as "grim", but there are "no plans to declassify" any of it before the election, according to one US official familiar with the process.

Officials say a draft of the classified NIE, representing the key judgments of the US intelligence community's 17 agencies and departments, is being circulated in Washington and a final "coordination meeting" of the agencies involved, under the direction of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is scheduled in the next few weeks.

According to people who have been briefed, the NIE will paint a "grim" picture of the situation in Afghanistan, seven years after the US invaded in an effort to dismantle the al Qaeda network and its Taliban protectors.

Lemme think, now...what happens in the next few weeks...*koffkoff* electionisonlyfiveweeksaway*koffkoff*

Ah, yes, and a grim picture of Afghanistan would play against the public image of John McCain on national security.

Or maybe not. If I'm the McCain campaign, I want this report released to make people understand that the past eight years have been a boondoggled blunderfest, that has to be fixed.

This issue plays to Obama, too, to be sure: the agent of change trope is tailormade for the case I made for the "Maverick". In other words, the declassification of this report would neither hurt nor really help either candidate.

Which is why it will likely remain conveniently classified until November 5, when miraculously it will be leaked to the Washington Post.

After all, it's important that the American people hear confirmation of what Admiral Michael Mullen said last week to Congress we're running out of time. "I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan," were his exact words.

Couple that with the story about the deteriorating situation Pakistan in last week's Time Magazine, and you have a now-regional fuck up on the part of the Bush administration.

All this is happening while the clown car that is the White House has distracted you with handwringing and bickering over the $700 billion bailout as proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Fingerpointing seems to be the order of the day on the Hill. All eyes focused on McCain's support or lack thereof of Paulson's deeply flawed package, while Nancy Pelosi has demanded strong Republican backing in the House.

Give Pelosi credit. She's at least taking a stand. Harry Reid has all but dissappeared here. Can you say "Senate Majority Leader Clinton"? I knew that you could. So now we uncover the bargain Hillary and Barack came to.

Things are so bad in the House that even the Dark Lord of the Shits, Dick Cheney, can't keep his stormtroopers quiet, probably because they've deliberately kept their minions in the dark.

That's not to minimize the bailout or underlying economic troubles of the country. Bush and company have managed to do what Osama bin Laden, 19 terrorists and four airplanes could not: bring America to its knees.

What it does point out is, yet again, the Bush administration is deliberately paying lip service to an unfolding foreign crisis in order to let it fester to the point where the US is, once again, forced to go to war.

Only this time, it will be for the good of the economy, and not just the oil barons. You think jingoism was the order of the day in the early Aughts, wait till you seen what happens next!

It ain't gonna be pretty, folks.


(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Truth in Comics

By Creature


If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

When is a crime not a crime?

by Capt. Fogg

"Professionalism is alive and well at the Justice Department,"

says Michael Mukasey and I'm sure he's right, but just what is it that the Bush Action Team is professional about? Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, the Attorney General said

"not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

So when is breaking the law not a crime? I think we know: not when the professional lawbreakers do it.

Mukasey has announced, according to USA Today, that "former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers."

Not that it's not against the law and it's not as though there is no evidence and testimony that the law was broken. It's just that certain people are above laws meant for the proletariat. Certain people belong to the class of übermenschen. Just ask the Nazis Bush administration.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Middle East "Reality" Bites

By Carol Gee

One of the greatest losses to our national psyche during the past two Bush terms of office as our current president (OCP) has been his credibility. We need to worry about his mind even more these days. He is on a trip to the Middle East, and his airplane must have had trouble with pressurization for an extended period over the Atlantic, because what OCP is saying indicates that he is out of touch with reality. His flight of fantasy begins with this headline:"Bush envisions Middle East free of oppression." This 5/15/08 story from the National Examiner ushered in a lengthy narrative that is jarring in what it says. Jennifer Loven's AP article reveals a wide-eyed surreal optimism from OCP about what will happen in the future to the various countries of the region. Here is a sample of the unhinged man's rhetoric:

• [Israel's] 120th birthday would find it alongside a Palestinian state and in an all-democratic neighborhood free of today's oppression, restrictions on freedom and extremist Muslim movements.


• Bush limited his mention of Palestinians to just one sentence. "The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved, a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror," he said.


• "From Cairo and Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy, tourism and trade," he said. "Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, where today's oppression is a distant memory and people are free to speak their minds and develop their talents. And al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause."

In addition to those bizarre statements, OCP took an opportunity to behave in an even more irrational way by intentionally "poisoning the water" for Democrats in the Middle East, causing an absolute firestorm of disapproval from a variety of quarters, including Senator Clinton. And what is worse, the administration denies doing it. The only thing that makes it at all tolerable is that many national leaders now know OCP for what he is-- without credibility. To quote from the same story:

Without naming names, Bush criticized those who "believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." He called the approach "the false comfort of appeasement," and one that has been discredited by history.

The strong words came as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, has expressed a willingness to meet with the leaders of U.S. adversaries, including Iran and Syria. However, White House press secretary Dana Perino flatly rejected the idea that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama, and Johndroe said Bush was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors." Former President Carter recently held talks with Hamas leaders.

McCain = Bush -- If you think Senator John McCain would be an improvement, guess again. It is this kind of news that makes it abundantly clear that a McCain presidency would be equivalent to a Bush third term. For example, McCain agreed with OCP's inflammatory remarks before the Israeli parliament. Steve Benen, at The Carpetbagger Report today took the same approach to examining the rhetoric of Senator John McCain regarding Iraq, as in my above remarks about OCP. To quote Benen's exerpted quotes (his links):

This morning, in a similar vein, McCain told an Ohio audience about his vision of Iraq after his first term in the White House.

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.

“Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.”

. . . What’s more, Ilan Goldenberg noted that McCain has hoped for success in Iraq before, but sweet, innocent wishes never seem to come true.

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There’s no doubt in my mind that… we will be welcomed as liberators.” [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02. MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]

“I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past… I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [Face the Nation, 9/15/02]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC Hardball, 4/23/03]

McCain was asked, “at what point will America be able to say the war was won?” He responded, “…it’s clear that the end is, is, is very much in sight.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 4/9/03]

Exactly one year before violence in Iraq peaked: “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

Other Republicans taking leave of their senses regarding the Middle East -- "Ollie North Believes We Are Fighting A Religious War In The Middle East," is the post title from Cliff Schecter at Firedoglake. To quote North regarding the soldiers in battle:

The pictures of these youngsters gathering in prayer, literally kneeling and praying. They are not pictures getting ready for a football game. They know they may not come back and they’re bold about it. My colleagues in the mainstream media never show that.

Do not mistake the following for cynicism -- Reality when it comes to the Middle Ease cannot be stated in vague generalities hinting at an idealized picture. From the beginning of this century, OCP, his neocon minders, and other end-timer types, have had an irrational view of the region. In doing so, they have done the people victimized by it a terrible disservice. Dismissing any culture but ones redone in the image of an idealized United States, assuming it will take Christians to save Muslims from themselves, touting a"democracy" modeled after one that we don't even like much right now, OCP and his types have taken the Middle East region down a dangerous path. Do not be fooled by so-called "Maverick McCain." Any difference from OCP would not hold up in a crisis. He would revert to unrealistic instinctual behavior.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Baghdad before and after - Updated

By Libby Spencer

I think about Iraq a lot. Sometimes when I'm reading about the occupation, which I do for hours every week, I'm struck by a profound sadness that I never traveled there before the invasion. I always wanted to see the antiquities of Baghdad but many of its ancient treasures have been destroyed or ruined in the "liberation" so even if peace ever inflicts itself again on that city, it won't ever the same.

Not having a guidebook handy, I decided I wanted to see what it looked like before our bombs arrived. I discovered it's not that easy to find photos of Baghdad before the invasion. These were the best I could find. As you can see it was once a green and beautiful place.




Now, not so much. It's a broken city. [Click on the photos to enlarge them. I can't copy them full size.]



There's more shots from this photograher at this album and others have posted more. Iraq was beautiful before the 'war.' None of this will ever be the same.

I think a lot about the people of Iraq. I look at the shots at the last link, of ordinary people smiling, the kids with innocence still intact in their eyes and it breaks my heart. I haven't been able to get through the whole nine minutes yet. I find it physically painful to think of all those normal comfortable lives forever disrupted for the crass ambition of politicians.

Two weeks before the invasion Bahgdad was a happy place. The people smiled on the lighted streets, filled with sidewalk vendors and laughing party goers. An American traveler was safe to wander them at will. Now you need a flack vest and an armed guard to leave the Green Zone.

Two weeks before the invasion, the Tigris river was blue. Today it's a different color. The lights don't go on in the city at night. The remaining vendors stalls are nearly empty and no one laughs in the streets. This is the legacy our tax dollars have bought.

They tell me freedom isn't free and I believe it. We've paid dearly in blood and treasure in its name. But when we count up the cost, let's include the Iraqi people's loss in the price. It's been significant.

Update: Armed Liberal mocks my empathy and accuses me of romanticizing Saddam's regime. Spare me the horror stories. I suppose I could spend a half an hour assembling links in response but what would be the point? The warmongers lost any ground to argue about Saddam's brutality the day our government became a state sponsor of torture.

These pictures speak for themselves. The millions of displaced Iraqis who lost their homes and livelihoods and the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed suffered a great loss. No matter how you feel about the occupation, it's only common decency to acknowledge it and hiding behind Saddam's atrocities to excuse our own mistakes is pure cowardice.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Tortured Thinking, Part II -- the Witnesses

By Carol Gee


The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, held a hearing on the subject of torture this week. This eye-opening session was spotlighted in my May 8 post, "Tortured Thinking, Part I -- the Players." It was a summary of what House Members are seeking regarding what happened with the issue of detainee interrogations. Since the beginning of the administration, the subject of how to interrogate has been a problem. A number of legal memos have emerged, as well as the identities of the key players, top to bottom. Committee Democrats, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler D-NY, and supported by the overall Committee Chairman, John Conyers D-MI, questioned a panel of legal experts, upon whom today's post focuses.

Chairman Nadler swore in a panel of witnesses who gave a more in-depth picture than we have previously known of our nation's recent history of "severe interrogation," what some see as torture. Witnesses included British law Professor Phillipe Sands and Georgetown Professor David Luban. Other witnesses were former administration Counsel's Office lawyer David B. Rivkin and Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. Links to their prepared statements are included. Their statements are not covered here but summaries of the main points made by each, follow the Committee's questions:

• Witness prepared statement: Philippe Sands, QC
  Professor of Law
  University College London
  Barrister
  Matrix Chambers.
  
  Professor Sands recently researched the history of Bush administration actions around the torture issue ; it is chronicled in his illuminating article, "The Green Light."
  Chairman Conyers asked Professor Sands about what else to do. The professor said, "The country is at an important moment, and it is best to eventually unite amongst ourselves and move on from 2002. We need to find out what actually happened, however, crucial facts about the military involvement must be found out and the CIA stuff remains, Sands said. He added that David Addington's testimony is pivotal due to his "deep involvement. He was the leader of the pack, driving the policy, assisted by DOJ Counsel Haynes." Sands recounted the trip that Addington and a group of high administration officials took to visit Guantanamo "to see the place and the detainee causing all the difficulty, Mohamed al-Khatani, whom they thought was the 20th hijacker."
  Rep Mike Pence R-Indiana asked about the British experience of 15 years of bombs and the IRA. Sands said having so many lives on the line is the "heart of the matter" in every country that deals with terrorism. Sands said that the British military eventually came to consensus that coercion of detainees does not work, just as did the U.S. military and the FBI. U.K. authorities "tried all the hooding, etc. in the 1970s, and it created outrage that extended the conflict with Ireland for 15 extra years." Sands urged dropping the term "war on terror" because it makes the extremists into "warriors" and creates "good recruitment arguments." Sands noted that President Bush, unfortunately, doesn't ask advice from other countries.
  Rep. Artur Davis, D-Alabama, had an excellent discussion with Sands about the fact that Israel has fore-sworn torture, feeling that their democracy is stronger. Sands also said the the "ticking time bomb theory is completely hypothetical."
  Rep. Darrell Issa R-CA's discussion elicited from Professor Sands that, "The Army Field Manual is a sensible guide to use for interrogation. Sands regrets that the President vetoed good legislation prohibiting the use of water-boarding. He also recounted a conversation with an unnamed foreign head of state, who pulled a copy of the Yoo memo out of his pocket and asserted to Sands, "Why not do it?"
  Rep. Keith Ellison D-MN asked Phillipe Sands the question, "Does torture work?" Sands recounted his 1 and 1/2 years of investigation of the interrogation of one man, the so-called 20th hijacker, al-Khatani, "and the torture produced nothing. You cannot determine what is true with this method. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM," thought to have masterminded the 9/11 attacks) was tortured and confessed to everything. Coerced information leads to excluding the facts that are true.
  Rep. Bobby Scott D-VA asked Sands what is the affect of allowing troops to use torture. He answered, "Military morale is degraded, and exposes members of the military as well as U.S. nationals in foreign lands to higher risk from enemies." Sands reported that he has been contacted by many members of the military who are pleased by how the investigation is proceeding.
  Rep. Mel Watt D-NC asked what the committee should do next? Sands gave this advice. "Just document the facts needing exploration. Exercise prosecutorial discretion with your subpoenaes. The Committee can do this. Just ask all the lawyers about all the facts. Regarding other aspects, torture violates the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. has the obligation to investigate and prosecute or extradite officials to other countries who bring up charges against U.S. officials. "The U.S. must handle this or other countries will," he warned.
  Rep. Steve Cohen's D-TN questions to Sands elicited further leads from Sands to the Committee that should be investigated: for one, the high level of tension regarding the move towards aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo. Look into "Spike" Bowman's concerns that were brushed off by DOJ Counsel Haynes. Find out what Haynes' role was, what did he do to Khatani, and what did Donald Rumsfeld do? Sands said that Haynes already knew of Yoo's DOJ sign-off memo before the first trip to Guantanamo. Evidently, Haynes put the blame on two military officers, who've now been prosecuted. One was Diane Beavers who has been hurt by the public revelations, "outed." All these facts need to be investigated by this committee, Sands concluded. (See "The Green Light" article linked above to flesh out this imformation completely).
  

• Witness prepared statement: David J. Luban
  Professor of Law
  Georgetown University Law Center
  
  Professor Luban was questioned by Chairman Nadler. Luban discussed the intervening Supreme Court's decision regrading the application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to detainee treatment. He also elaborated on the legal memos' words about the whole concept of measuring physical pain. Saying that the "severe pain" definition, to which the torture memos referred, is a medical emergency that was taken out of the Medicare statutes. He also discussed the memos' idea that prohibited severe physical suffering had to be applied if "prolonged." He noted that water-boarding usually takes just three minutes.
  Rep. Darrell Issa R-CA elicited the professor's information that, during interrogation death threats against the detainee's family are not legally allowed, but that some other kinds of lies to "trick-out information" is permissible, and even moral.
  Rep. Keith Ellison D-MN asked the question whether there had ever been an actual "ticking time-bomb" episode, and he replied that none has ever occurred that has been documented.
  Rep. Steve Cohen's D-TN questions to Luban also revealed that British Intelligence has admitted to using five of the 15 different severe interrogation techniques discussed during this hearing.
  Rep. Mel Watt D-NC asked, "what should be done about all this?" Luban recommended that we find out what really happened, including what techniques were actually used, publicize all the as yet unrevealed memos, get the full story out, go after legal ethics violations, but not get into the law-breaking aspects just yet, as that would be premature. He added that none of this has been a state secret for three years, denying that excuse to the administration.
  

To be continued -- "Tortured Thinking, Part III - the Final Witnesses." I encourage you to read "The Green Light" article for Sands' complete narrative of his year and a half investigation. I believe it to be very significant material because so many of the players were quite willing to talk to the professor about it.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Tortured Thinking, Part I - the Players

By Carol Gee

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary/Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, held an important hearing on "Detainee Interrogation Rules" May 6. (The above opening link is to the committee's news release with good highlights of the hearing's testimony). The committee also authorized a subpoena for Bush administration lawyer David Addington, who actually may be willing to testify, though he might not say very much.

Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers D-MI, laid the groundwork for finding out more about the role of senior government lawyers in the development of the legal opinions authorizing interrogation methods via a series of so-called torture memos:

1. 8-1-02, the Bybee memo to Alberto Gonzales containing a narrow definition of torture -- allowed interrogation methods. Withdrawn in 2004.
2. 12-2-o2, DOD Secy. Rumsfeld approved the harsher interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay, which may have echoed the earlier memo.
3. 3-14-03, DOJ John Yoo memo, also involved Jim Haynes, the DOD's attorney for Rumsfeld. It was similar to 8-1-02 but more extreme. This is the memo withdrawn by DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith.
   

Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, swore in a panel of witnesses who gave a more in-depth picture than we have previously known of our nation's recent history of "severe interrogation," what some call torture. Witnesses included British law Professor Phillipe Sands and Georgetown Professor David Luban. Other witnesses were former administration Counsel's Office lawyer David B. Rivkin and Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. Hat tip to "SmileySam" at Daily Kos for his interesting article on the hearing, including some very good links. Also, this Kos blogger borrows from Dan Froomkin's well-linked blog at the WaPo: "Torture Showdown Coming."

Republicans on the Committee who asked questions included Ranking Member, Rep.Trent Franks of Arizona, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, Rep. Mike Pense of Indiana, and Rep. Steve King of Iowa. Rep. Issa was true to form, picking a fight early with Chairman Nadler over limiting members' opening statements. When denied he demanded a roll call vote on the chair's ruling, resulting in 4 "yes," 2 "no," 1 (Issa) "Hell, no" votes.

Later the Republicans were relatively thoughtful in their questioning. Rep. Franks made a point about the Yoo memo "trying to get specific," asking Professor Luban about the term "severe pain." Luban replied that to him it refers to ideas such as a dentist's drill with no anesthetic or a broken bone. He described water-boarding as "suffering." Rep. Pence discussed his idea that our methods need to be kept secret so that "terrorists could not train themselves to resist specific methods." And he wanted to find out, after 9/11 with addition American lives perhaps on the line, how you gain information from detainees who will not respond to relationship-building techniques, what he termed "the Oprah Winfrey methods." Rep. Issa supports a ban on torture. His question to David Rivkin produced the witness' opinion that, "investigations can "degenerate into a witch hunt." Rep Steve King believes that focusing on the "narrow exceptions" of U.S. torture, rather than our "long history" of justice does a disservice to the country. In asking Professor Sands to give an instance of "when our enemies were more moral that we were," King fell into a delicious trap that provoked wry smiles as he back-peddled from Sands' answer. Sands (a British citizen) said, to paraphrase, "The United States has long been the historical moral leader of the world. And, as I spent the past year working on my investigation of what happened after 9/11, I met many military leaders of whom I had a very favorable impressions. Things went wrong under the political appointees."

To be continued with "Tortured Thinking, Part II - the Witnesses." In the meantime boys and girls, your homework is to read Phillipe Sands' "Green Light." For extra credit you can watch the hearing on C-SPAN television or watch the video posted at the House Judiciary website. (links below)

References:

• The hearing is available in full at C-SPAN: House Hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules: Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) presides over a a House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on detainee treatment and interrogation techniques at facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They voted to authorize a subpoena for Vice President Cheney?s chief of staff and former legal counsel, David S. Addington to appear at a later hearing. 5/6/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 22 min.


• The Senate Committee on the Judiciary -- Committee website


• " The Green Light." Professor Phillipe Sands wonderful new article this month (should be required reading) in Vanity Fair Magazine, Intro:
  

  As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn’t talk, the Bush administration’s highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army’s own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure—then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war crimes charges.



• Representative Nadler writes at the Huffington Post (11/15/07), "No More Clever Word-play on Torture," on the torture-banning legislation subsequently vetoed by our current president: The Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.


• Nov. 8, 2007 -- Hearings by the same committee on water-boarding torture at Guantanamo Bay.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Pakistan News Updated

By Carol Gee

Tangled foreign policy -- One of the consequences of the focus of our current president's obsessive focus on Iraq has been moving Pakistan and Afghanistan off the front pages of the news. Today's post is a composite of the most important developments in Pakistan in recent weeks. The balance of power has been changed as a result of general elections. Authority for governance switched, following the defeat of President Pervez Musharraf (currently on a trip to China). Yousaf Raza Gilani, a loyal member of martyred Benazir Bhutto's party, the liberal and secular Pakistan Peoples Party, was selected to be the new Prime Minister, according to The National Post (3/24/08). To quote:

Pakistan's National Assembly elected as prime minister on Monday Yousaf Raza Gilani, a top official in assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto's party, five weeks after it won a general election.

. . . Mr. Gilani, a close aide to Ms. Bhutto and a vice chairman of her party and former National Assembly speaker, had been expected to win the vote with a big majority.

. . . There had been speculation the PPP would nominate a stop-gap prime minister and Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, who now leads the party, would take over the post after entering parliament via a by-election.

But the News newspaper on Monday cited Mr. Zardari as rejecting such speculation, saying Mr. Gilani would be prime minister for a full five-year term.

Significant changes in Pakistan are already taking place. Barack Obama pointed that out in a speech last month, noting Pakistan's new "moderate majority." Parliament will act to remove restrictions on the press. At the end of last month the new PM ordered the release of the judges who had been deposed by Musharraf. Disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan also hopes to be freed by the new government.

At the same time the dilemma in the United States centers around what our dealings with the new PPP coalition government will look like, in relation to its dealings with the more extreme Taliban and tribal elements along the border with Afghanistan. An Asia Times article offers an excellent analysis of how this might play out in "The Taliban will talk, but no 'sugar-coating'," by Syed Saleem Shahzad. To quote:

While responding positively to the Pakistani government's offer of peace talks, the Pakistani Taliban have demanded the release of several key personalities in return for the Taliban freeing about 250 security personnel they are holding.

. . . The Taliban's demand is the first challenge to the new cabinet to make an urgent choice between internal peace on the one side and resentment from Islamabad's "war on terror" allies on the other. . . . Gillani has vowed to eradicate militancy from the country through dialogue.

. . . The government in Islamabad is now in the unenviable position of having to decide between giving in to the Pakistani Taliban's demands and releasing some of its most-wanted detainees, or submitting to inevitable war. Neither option is appealing.

. . . On Monday, the government announced the appointment of Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, retired Major General Mahmood Ali Durrani, as national security advisor to the prime minister. This indicates the PPP does not have any intention of pulling back from its "war on terror" commitments or from Washington's agenda in the region.

What we know for sure is that the same assumptions no longer apply no longer apply in Pakistan. This period of rapid change signals either good news or bad news for U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East and South Asia.

Miscellaneous references --

• Australian Benjamin Gilmour's award winning movie, "Son of a Lion," was filmed in Pakistan's Northern Tribal Area: "The story of a boy in a gun-making village who fights his former Mujahedin dad's refusal to send him to school - the old man, once a warrior against the Russians, prefers to harden him for battle against the new infidels - was made with local (non) actors."


• Benazir Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, was recently acquitted of a murder charge after spending 11 years in jail awaiting trial.
  

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Mixed messenger

By Capt. Fogg

George Walker Bush gave a speech yesterday at the Union League Club in Chicago. That, of course, is a club where it's been a tradition that no one of my ethnic background would have been allowed to join. Of course I have as much interest in applying as I do in furthering the economic rape of the United States by Mr. Bush's clients, but I digress. The revelation here is not that Bush feels at home in restricted men's clubs but that he's made a long overdue admission, carefully disguised as optimism, that the economy stands on foundations of Jello.

"We can't take growth for granted"

is as close to an admission of the rising doo-doo level as I've heard him make. Rising unemployment, plunging housing markets and the struggling Dollar were were tangentially touched upon by saying

“recent economic indicators have become increasingly mixed.”

I've never served on a Submarine, but I've seen enough movies to have an idea that when the klaxon blows it doesn't indicate a mixed message; something is heading downward very soon and I'm sure that isn't a violin I'm hearing.

“Many Americans are anxious about the economy,”

says the decider who seems as yet undecided as to whether to openly acknowledge that we have a problem for fear that someone might notice that he caused it. We will probably have to wait until what I will celebrate as his last State of the Union Address later this month to know whether he intends to ignore the invisible hand of the market and try to stimulate the economy, whether he intends to run out the clock, or whether he will just do the Bush thing and push for another regressive tax cut.

“People said, ‘Are you optimistic?’ I said, ‘Absolutely, absolutely optimistic. Do I recognize the reality of the situation? You bet I do.”

Said Bush to his base. I'll bet he does too but you'll have to give me a billion to one odds.

The Democratic response, according to The New York Times will likely resemble "a $500 across-the-board rebate, possibly to be returned to taxpayers in their paychecks through the payroll tax system, as well as a plan to restore the $1,000 per child tax credit to many low-income families that currently do not qualify for it." Who knows if that will help slow the downward momentum but it may help restore optimism outside the Bush bubble.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Yes, Virginia, even sadder, Little Billy Kristol is going to the NYT

By J. Thomas Duffy

Boy, our poor little Christmas girl can't catch a break.

First, we have to confirm to her that Yes, Virginia, There Is, Sadly, A William Kristol ..., and now this drops on her.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Little Billy Kristol will be taking his craziness to the pages of the New York Times (Bill Kristol To Become New York Times Columnist In 2008), only a week after Time Magazine gave him the boot.

I suppose this was inevitable.

A great deal of Bush Grindhouse water has pooled up since Judy Miller left, so the NYT had a need for another water carrier, someone with a big bucket, someone with "Big Lying" credentials.

Apparently, David Brooks wasn't up to snuff, or that his "body language" thing has even creeped-out his co-workers.

Jonah Goldberg is currently unavailable, too busy sticking his head up his own ass.

They probably could have reached out and pulled in Coltergeist, but why risk seeing the building explode into flames?

Someone should go check on Arthur Schulzberger Jr., just to make sure he didn't hit his head on a SUV sunroof lever.


Bonus Bad News Billy Links

Anonymous Liberal: Kristol's Secret to Success

Anonymous Liberal: Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar

Creature/State of The Day: The post in which my head explodes

Crooks and Liars: Bill Kristol is rewarded for being “wrong” on everything: NY Times gig is a comin’

Crooks and Liars: Bonus Bill Kristol Highlight Reel

It Takes A Neocon To Raise A Legacy ... They're Drinking The Kool-Aid Again ...

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"










(Cross Posted at The Garlic)