Defending the indefensible

Rachel Slajda reports at TPM:

A federal judge ruled today that an Air Force major discharged in 2003 under Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be reinstated.

Judge Ronald Leighton ruled that former Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged unconstitutionally under the policy because the government hadn't shown that her firing benefited the military.

And the damned Obama Administration (yes, you read that correctly)?

The Obama administration is aggressively defending DADT when the Obama administration doesn't have to defend DADT. We've been saying making this point for over a year, since the DOMA brief debacle. See here, here and here. It's not just us. Senators and House members are asking Obama not to appeal. But, every indication we're getting is that DOJ will appeal. [emphasis mine]

[source]

When under attack for selecting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, Obama made what has proven to be an egregiously false claim:

Obama, who often mentioned his support of gay rights in stump speeches, though not gay marriage, said today that he is a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans,” adding, “It’s something I’ve been consistent on.”

On Thursday sixty-nine House Dems signed a letter urging the White House NOT to appeal on behalf of DADT.

Based on the actions and inactions of the current administration I must conclude that President Obama is not much of an advocate at all and certainly not a fierce one. And though I will vote for him in 2012, he cannot expect me to campaign on his behalf or donate a cent. I am supporting progressives. I never believed he was a progressive, though I did and do believe he is turning the nation in more or less the right direction. Nonetheless, I have grave misgivings on his positions with regard to military tribunals, rule of law, indefinite detention, equal justice for LGBT citizens, state secrets, transparency issues in general, and acknowledgment of war crimes.

It is not an attack to hold elected officials accountable.

--the BB

Remind me again which party is supposed to represent fiscal responsibility?

Iraq war reconstruction funds graphically illustrated.

h/t to Digby

--the BB

Demand Accountability for Torture!

Mcjoan, one of my all-time heroines, informs us of the following:

Now viewed as obstructionists at best and bald-faced liars on healthcare reform at worst, the Republican leadership seems to have decided it cannot take the additional hit of Bush regime horrors coming out at this moment, and have taken the highly unusual step of writing to Attorney General Eric Holder warning him to call off his dogs. The nine Republican senators, Kit Bond (Mo.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Richard Burr (N.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Cornyn (Texas) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa), are worried that however the scope of the prosecution is limited, all roads lead to Cheney.

Well now, isn't that just too damn bad?

If pursuit of lawbreakers in the interest of justice leads to Dick the Dick, so the fuck what? If he's innocent he gets a fair trial to prove it. If he's guilty, why in the name of all that is holy should he get off?

So, Kit, Saxby, Tom, Orrin, Richard, Jon, Jeff, John, and Chuck - justice obstructionists every one of you - why don't you just STFU?

If any gentle readers would like to sign a petition for Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor, you may do so here. I signed.

I wish we had more of this

By which I mean calling pundits to account for facts. One may have opinions but one must be held to facts. When someone bloviates and pollutes the media with things that are not true, that person's statements should be corrected. They may be sincerely held but incorrect beliefs, as opposed to intentional deceptions, but they should be debunked.

Rachel Maddow shows us all how it is done as she corrects the steaming pile of nonsense that Pat Buchanan dumped on her show the other day.

Maddow: It's not cool to talk about guests after their segment is over. It's also not fair to re-litigate these arguments in the absence of one of the parties who participated in the argument, and I will not try to do that now. But what I do feel obliged to do is to correct some of the things that were said in the course of my argument with Pat that were stated as fact, that were not true. I feel an obligation just to correct the factual record as we would with anything else that was stated as fact on this show that was not true.

I lifted the video and the quote by Dr. Maddow from Heather's post at Crooks and Liars. If you are not familiar with Crooks and Liars, check it out here.

Way to go, Rachel!

Newscasters and TV hosts, take note. This is how it's done. Now get off your lazy, dishonest asses and do it.

--the BB

No one does timelines like Emptywheel

Marcy is the empress of timelines in legal and political discussions. She can ferret out the smallest revealing details and put them in order and connect dots.

I light incense and bring flowers.

Because no one in Congress was told that the CIA was going to start torturing in 2002, until it was too late. Pelosi and Goss were told, after CIA had waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times, that CIA might waterboard in the future. Bob Graham was not told of waterboarding at all, according to him. Jello Jay was not at the briefing at which CIA told Pat Roberts "in considerable detail" about waterboarding. The CIA doesn't even say Jane Harman was told about waterboarding specifically in February 2003 (though I assume she was).

The first time CIA can say for certain that any Democratic members of Congress at all were briefed on waterboarding was in July 2004, after CIA had waterboarded for what ended up being the last time, and after their own Inspector General determined they were breaking the law.

And then, in 2005, when CIA was trying to sustain their ability to torture against Congressional wishes, CIA had briefings for Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for John McCain with no Democrats in attendance. They had two briefings for Bill Frist with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Duncan Hunter with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Crazy Pete Hoekstra with no Democrats in attendance.

Lindsey Graham says that, "if you were trying to commit a crime ... you would not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it." And that, as it turns out, is exactly what the public record shows: that the Bush Administration did not tell Democrats about what they were doing. For six months to two years after they started this program, and again when they were under pressure to end it, the Bush Administration did not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it.

--Emptywheel

The Goopers may now stop whining about what the Dems knew about torture. I have no problem with holding ALL sides accountable to the extent they are culpable, but you cannot - with the least shred of integrity - pretend that there was any equivalency in guilt on the torture front. This one belongs to the Bush White House. Period.

--the BB

Holding the good guys accountable in order to hold the bad guys accountable

Senator Leahy is one of the good guys in my book. But buhdydharma is urging others to join in letting Senator Leahy know that we will be watching and if a Truth Commission shoves information related to torture under the rug we will all be watching and holding him accountable.

I agree that we already know enough to prosecute, but nobody in a position to demand a special prosecuter has the ovaries to do it.

--the BB

Now that's accountability!

We lament what we consider a bad regulatory record in China but mightn't health and other standards be better observed in our own land if learned from the Chinese?

Two are sentenced to death over toxic milk scandal
Times Online - 5 hours ago
Two men are to be executed and one of China’s top dairy company bosses will spend the rest of her life in jail after at least six babies died and 300000 fell ill after drinking infant milk powder that was deliberately tainted with an industrial ...
Little comfort in milk scandal verdicts BBC News
Death sentences given in Chinese milk scandal International Herald Tribune

Can you just imagine headlines blazoning the execution of, say, the Enron execs, or Bernie Madoff, or heckuva job Brownie?

Admit it. It's tempting. At least as a fantasy.

Folks in charge would be examining regulatory minutiae and lab reports with great interest whilst trying to save their own necks. I mean: talk about your performance review!

[Y'all know better than to come here for sweetness and light.]
--the BB

Justice delayed is justice denied

That's an old truism of our legal system related to the right to a speedy trial. It can also apply to the public's desire to see justice done and things set right, or as near right as possible after a deed is done.

Today we have news.

After more than five years of rampant violence and misconduct carried out by the massive army of private corporate contractors in Iraq -- actions that have gone totally unpunished under any system of law -- the US Justice Department appears to be on the verge of handing down the first indictments against armed private forces for crimes committed in Iraq. The reported targets of the "draft" indictments: six Blackwater operatives involved in the September 16, 2007, killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square.The Associated Press reports, "The draft is being reviewed by senior Justice Department officials but no charging decisions have been made. A decision is not expected until at least later this month." The AP, citing sources close to the case, reports that the department has not determined if the Blackwater operatives would be charged with manslaughter or assault. Simply drafting the indictments does not mean that the Blackwater forces are certain to face charges. The department could indict as few as three of the operatives, who potentially face sentences of five to twenty years, depending on the charges.

If the Justice Department pursues a criminal prosecution, it would be the first time armed private contractors from the United States face justice.

But that is a very big "if."

--Jeremy Scahill at The Nation via Alternet

--the BB

Advent thoughts – Saturday of Advent 3

Now why does Psalm 55 make me think of the Anglican Communion's current unpleasantness?

For had it been an adversary who taunted me,

then I could have borne it; *

or had it been an enemy who vaunted himself against me,

then I could have hidden from him.

But it was you, a man after my own heart, *

my companion, my own familiar friend.

We took sweet counsel together, *

and walked with the throng in the house of God.
(Psalm 55:13-15)

Psalm 55 is eloquent as it speaks of betrayal by a trusted friend, an intimate, the last person one would expect to turn on one.

I think of neighbors who have lived side by side for decades, perhaps families who lived next door for centuries: Serbs, Croats, Bosnians--Muslims, Catholic, Orthodox. Then, when it suited the political purposes of some, the divisions were raised in the public consciousness and the ancient ties were forgotten. The calculating dug among the embers for age-old sparks of resentment and fanned them into blazes that consumed the populace. Suddenly the grocer who lives next door, the cobbler down the street, the woman who helped nurse your aunt through a sickness--these are mortal enemies. No one can be trusted. The person you thought you knew became a stranger; the friend of many years is now an enemy.



Or the Tutsi and Hutus in Rwanda who gave little thought to their differences until fear and suspicion raised their heads and the atmosphere went from cooperation to distrust. Before long it all turned to raging slaughter. And then having to live with the aftermath, a waking nightmare.

My companion stretched forth his hand against his comrade; *
he has broken his covenant.
His speech is softer than butter, *
but war is in his heart.
His words are smoother than oil, *
but they are drawn swords.
Cast your burden upon the LORD,
and he will sustain you; *
he will never let the righteous stumble.
(Psalm 55:21-24)

What has happened to the person you once worshiped with, ate with, babysat for, discussed football with, conducted business with, prayed and sang hymns with? The ones with whom you shared the Body and Blood of Christ for decades?

Now you find yourselves divided over your understanding of the Bible, your evaluation of other people's relationships, the (not again? not still?) issue of women clergy.

A few years ago you were working together in your parish food bank. Now you cannot sit comfortably in the same pew. Perhaps not even the same church.

What was the betrayal? And by whom?

Are we the same people we were ten years ago? (On many levels, of course not. And yet....)

Then, of course, there is the issue of those who fan the flames for their own purposes, their own ideological crusades, their own accumulation of power and importance.

These are the things that you shall do:
Speak the truth to one another,
render in your gates judgments that are true
and make for peace,
do not devise evil in your hearts against one another,
and love no false oath;
for all these are things that I hate, says the Lord.
(Zechariah 8:16-17)

Have you noticed how often these pithy summations deal with how we treat one another and not whether we are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, gay or straight, young or old, rich or poor, red or brown or black or yellow or white, rural or urban, isolated or crushed in throngs, unlettered or educated, swift or slow, weak or strong? The Torah, prophets, writings, gospels, epistles, and even the apocalypse all have things to say about abusing each other (don't do it) and treating each other justly (always). While many laws and teachings begin applying to some and not others, there is a clear development toward universality. Not matter who we are or with whom we deal, we are to behave justly, honestly, and graciously. In so doing we recognize the image of God in the other and in ourselves.

When we lose sight of the image of God, then we become capable of incredible cruelty and evil.

I know I have a list of people I demonize on a regular basis. Folks who read here know most of my list too.

How can I look for, espy, and attend to the image of God in them? Perhaps by praying to see it, and for them to find it and live out of it too.

While we're at it, we all have accountability issues. Speaking of which, holding someone accountable upholds their dignity but attributing agency to them.

Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” (Matthew 25:44-45)

--the BB

Let's remind ourselves

United States Law (courtesy of School of Law at Cornell):

U. S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

and:

§ 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Original document of the first Geneva Convention from 1864;
picture taken by Kevin Quinn, Ohio, US;
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license

From the Third Geneva Convention:

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. [emphasis mine]

Why does the Bush maladministration insist that captives in the SCWOT (so-called war on terror) are not prisoners of war? Well, this is why:

[From Article 17]
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

How about this?

Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105. [emphasis mine]

And the Bushies especially don't want anything like Article 3 to apply:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. [emphasis mine]

I do understand that the circumstances outlined at the beginning of Article 3 may not obtain in the cases we are looking at but I should think the moral principles would!

Oh, and speaking of torture, a topic much on our minds these days, how about reviewing a historical case from a 1628 witch trial? You can read the account, both of the trial and the letter written by the defendant (who was tortured and killed as a witch, of course) to his daughter over at Digby's Hullabaloo.

...
Burr's note: So ended the trial of Junius, and he was accordingly burned at the stake. But it so happens that there is also preserved in Bamberg a letter, in quivering hand, secretly written by him to his daughter while in the midst of his trial (July 24, 1628):

Many hundred thousand good-nights, dearly beloved daughter Veronica. Innocent have I come into prison, innocent have I been tortured, innocent must I die. For whoever comes into the witch prison must become a witch or be tortured until he invents something out of his head and--God pity him--bethinks him of something. I will tell you how it has gone with me.
...
Now, dear child, here you have all my confession, for which I must die. And they are sheer lies and made-up things, so help me God. For all this I was forced to say through fear of the torture which was threatened beyond what I had already endured. For they never leave off with the torture till one confesses something; be he never so good, he must be a witch. Nobody escapes, though he were an earl. . . .

Yes, this is what America now stands for. This is our image among the nations of the world, and well-deserved, for we have elected amoral thieves and scoundrels and suffered them to remain in office. They flout the laws and scoff at the misery they have inflicted upon this nation and the nations of the world, knowing that none will call their power to account. We twiddle our thumbs as they perform outrage upon outrage and Congress dithers and blusters and concedes, then wastes its time championing a dominant faith when it should be about the business of the People. So our Constitution is daily reduced to shreds, a once-great land becomes a byword among the nations, and tyranny establishes itself each day more firmly until soon none shall be able to stand against it.

What will it take? Or is it already too late?

I say let's kick a congressman's nuts up into his throat (mutatis mutandis for the ladies) until we get some reasonable action.

Hold elected officials accountable. Hold the media accountable. Get the truth out there!

Power to the People!
--the BB