What'd I say

Poor Richard's Almanac from Jan. 25th, 2001, has this entry:

We urgently need such a Principals level review on the al Qida network.

. . .

al Qida is the active, organized, major force that is using a distorted version of Islam as its vehicle to achieve two goals:

--to drive the US out of the Muslim world, forcing the withdrawal of our military and ecomonic presence in countries from Morocco to Indonesia;

--to replace moderate, modern, Western regimes in Muslim contries with theocracies modeled along the lines of the Taliban.

. . .

Attached is the year-end 2000 strategy on al Qida developed by the last Administration to give to you. Also attached is the 1998 strategy. Neither was a "covert action only" approach. Both incorporated diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy and intelligence tools. Using the 2000 paper as background, we could prepare a decision paper/guide for a PC review.

So I'm pretty sure that Richard Clarke was concerned about these al Qida folks as a bit of a potential problem to the US. So what did National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice do? Funny you should ask. Here's a little timeline:

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

You say plan, I say plan, I dunno. Maybe just semantics. Here's more:

Asked by Hadley to offer major initiatives, on January 25, 2001 Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new Administration: Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance; significantly increase funding; choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the Cole and deciding on a response; going forward with new Predator missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version; and more work on terrorist fundraising.

. . .

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al Qaida were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the deputies committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on Al Qaida. The principals committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process. Rice and Hadley told us that, although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the Al Qaida program, its policies on Al Qaida, quote, "had run out of gas," and they therefore set about developing a new presidential directive and a new, comprehensive policy on terrorism.

Holy crap. Does it ever end. Freedom is on the march, I guess, so that makes it all OK. After all, the administration took Poor Richard's admonition seriously, as reported here:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

So the responce was "Go away, kid, you bother me."

I'm so tired of this. These people are so craven, so morally corrupt that there is no lie that is too great, no untruth too bold, no evasion too cowardly for them. These people were warned about Al Qaeda (however the hell you Anglicize the Arabic spelling), and they instead chose to worry about anything and everything else.

John Ashcroft was covering up titties in the Whitel House, Karl Rove was plotting to overthrow the constitution, Ari Fleischer was spinning more webs than a black widow, Don Rumsfeld was designing an army based on SimCity, and GWBush was working hard. Could they have prevented 9/11? No, probably not. But they could have at least acted like al Qaeda was important.

Because they were.

Lawyers, guns and money

One of the many John Ashcroft balls in the air fell today as told by Reuters:

A New York lawyer aided terrorism by helping a client send messages to militant followers, a federal jury found on Thursday in a case critics said stemmed from Bush administration efforts to discourage the defense of accused terrorists.

Lynne Stewart, 65, long a defender of the poor and unpopular, was convicted of helping her imprisoned client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, to contact followers in Egypt with messages that could have ended a cease-fire there and ignited violence.

Abdel-Rahman was found guilty in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was serving a life term when the crimes charged against Stewart occurred.

Stewart was convicted of all five counts against her, including two terrorism charges that combined carry a maximum 15-year prison term. All five counts combined carry a maximum term of 30 years, but it is unlikely she will be sentenced to such a lengthy term

.

and this:

The case attracted attention from U.S. lawyers, some of whom believed Stewart was the target of vindictive prosecutors who wanted to punish her for her leftist beliefs and others who said she willingly broke the law.

"It's unbelievable," said Ivan Fisher, a New York defense lawyer. He said she was "absolutely" a target of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

Jeff Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "There are some (lawyers) who will be scared and won't take these cases, but there are others who might be even more zealous to demonstrate that we won't be cowed."

Newly appointed Torturer-General Alberto Gonzales said this:

the convictions "send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals."

The message is clear: don't screw with us, don't help anone we dislike, or we will crush your head.

Stewart plans to appeal the verdict.

Secret agent man

What evil lies in the heart of man? Only the CIA knows...

We now know more than before, about the heinous history of our great Central Intelligence Agency, courtesy of FOIA document releases to the non-profit The National Security Archive. From Haaretz, a liberal Israeli newspaper (think Jewish folks might find this disturbing?):

Five of Adolph Eichmann's Nazi assistants were recruited and employed by the Central Intelligence Agency after World War II, according to recently declassified intelligence documents.

. . .

The revelations cast a negative light not only on American intelligence activity but also the U.S. Army's conduct in Germany at the conclusion of the war. The military made efforts to recruit members of the SS and the Gestapo into its ranks despite simultaenously waging a campaign of de-Nazification over vanquished Germany, a process which included arresting and trying Nazi war criminals.

The documents also reveal in great detail CIA efforts to recruit Reinhard Gehlen, who was the Wermacht's chief intelligence officer for the eastern front during the war.

The recruitment evolved into a new intelligence sub-organization known as "Gehlen's Organization," which served as the basis for what would later become West Germany's foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).

Nice. Freedom is on the march. Yeah. We also know some other stuff about the checkered past of the CIA:

Developed from the wartime Office of Strategic Services and set up by Congress as part of the National Security Act, on the lines of the British Secret Service, the CIA was intended solely for use overseas in the Cold War. It was involved in, for example, the restoration of the Shah of Iran in 1953, South Vietnam (during the Vietnam War), Chile (the coup against President Allende), and Cuba (the Bay of Pigs). On the domestic front, it was illegally involved in the Watergate political scandal and in the 1970s lost public confidence when US influence collapsed in Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Yemen, and elsewhere.

Re: Chile:

In September 14, 1970, a deputy to then National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger wrote him a memo, classified SECRET / SENSITIVE, arguing against covert operations to block the duly elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende from assuming the presidency. "What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets," noted Viron Vaky. "If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat to us., e.g. to our survival. Is Allende a mortal threat to the U.S.?" Vaky asked. "It is hard to argue this."

Kissinger ignored this advice. The next day he participated in a now-famous meeting where President Nixon instructed CIA Director Richard Helms to "save Chile" by secretly fomenting a coup to prevent Allende's inauguration. When those covert operations failed, Kissinger goaded Nixon into instructing the entire national security bureaucracy "on opposing Allende" and destabilizing his government. "Election of Allende as president of Chile poses one of [the] most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere," says a newly declassified briefing paper Kissinger gave to Nixon two days after Allende's inauguration. "Your decision as to what to do may be most historic and difficult foreign affairs decision you will have to make this year.... If all concerned do not understand that you want Allende opposed as strongly as we can, result will be steady draft toward modus vivendi approach."

Re: Iran:

To illustrate the dark side of American oil policy, we offer two tales, stitched together from declassified government documents and oil-industry memos, involving a pair of Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Afghanistan. The first one begins with the rise of a member of Iran's parliament, Mohammed Mossadegh, an impassioned speaker and popular politician who had long chafed at British domination over his country's oil.

. . .

On Aug. 19, 1953, after the deaths of about 300 people in street riots, the 71-year-old Premier was overthrown. He was replaced by a retired army general, Fazollah Zahedi. The American-friendly Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had earlier fled the country, returned triumphantly, resumed the throne and reasserted his control. Media accounts of the coup were seemingly straightforward. The Washington Post reported that Iran had been saved from falling into communist hands and that the communists were blaming Brigadier General H. Norman Schwarzkopf "for alleged complicity in the coup." The paper said Schwarzkopf, whose namesake son would lead U.S. forces nearly a half-century later as they drove the Iraqi military out of Kuwait, had visited Iran "but only to see friends, the State Department said." TIME reported: "This was no military coup, but a spontaneous popular uprising."

It was anything but. When Mossadegh delayed settling with Anglo-Iranian on the takeover of the company, the British approached the CIA with a plan to remove the Premier and get Britain's oil back. The British could not do it alone, since they had left Iran. Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and his brother John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, agreed. The Dulles brothers assigned the task of overseeing the clandestine venture to Kermit Roosevelt, a longtime intelligence operative and the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. In the months leading up to the coup, Roosevelt spent much of his time in Tehran, coordinating efforts of CIA agents and Iranian sympathizers. To ensure the cooperation of a then indecisive Shah, the CIA turned to one of his old friends, General Schwarzkopf, who in 1942-48 worked with an internal-security force under palace command that helped the Shah maintain rule.

The CIA's fingerprints were everywhere. Operatives paid off Iranian newspaper editors to print pro-Shah and anti-Mossadegh stories. They produced their own stories and editorial cartoons and published fabricated interviews. They secured the cooperation of the Iranian military. They spread antigovernment rumors. They prepared phony documents to show secret agreements between Mossadegh and the local Communist Party. They masqueraded as communists, threatened conservative Muslim clerics and even staged a sham fire-bombing of the home of a religious leader. They incited rioters to set fire to a pro-Mossadegh newspaper. They stage-managed the appearance of Mossadegh's successor, General Zahedi, whose personal bank account they fattened.

Is it any wonder that we find this new verification of widely held beliefs, that the US government and its operatives are truly the craven villians and hypocrites they seem to be, and nothing they do is surpassed by other despots around the world. Right wingers will sputter and whine "Realpolitik...self interests...national defense...we had to do it."

Bullshit. We simply set out on a course to take what we want, when we want, with apparently no thoughts to long term ramifications. The Iranian coup we engineered led directly to the '79 revolution. The Chilean coup led directly to the disappearances of thousands of innocents.

And the merging of Nazi oficers into the modern German security apparatus led to...well, we will have to wait for further horrors, soon, at a theater near you. Starring Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Allen Dulles, Adolph Eichman, and a cast of thousands.

When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.

Everybody wants to rule the world

In a lovely moment of irony, Condoleeza Rice says this today in the NYTimes:

"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people or for the region," Ms. Rice said to reporters on her plane to London.

This would be the mullahs who have run the country since the '79 revolution, the same ones who signed off on the deals GE and Halliburton made to work in the country we refer to as part of the Axis Of Evil. But that's not important now.

The NYTimes also had this today:

Preliminary election returns released Thursday by Iraqi authorities showed that 72 percent of the 1.6 million votes counted so far from Sunday's election went to an alliance of Shiite parties dominated by religious groups with strong links to Iran. Only 18 percent went to a group led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who favors strong ties to the United States. Few votes went to Sunni candidates.

We destroyed this country so we could engineer elections that, instead of favoring our guy Allawi, the former Saddam supporter and Baathist thug who was on the CIA payroll, led to the promotion of guys who are in tune with the Shi'ite mullahs in Iran. In case you forgot, the Axis Of Evil was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. So we seem to have invaded Iraq so we could ensure that it could remain a member of the Axis. Nice work.

Since we seem to be poised on the brink of invading Iran, does that mean we will need to re-invade Iraq? After all, we can't let it remain a member of the Axis Of Evil. We just don't seem to be doing that well so far. And I'm pretty sure the Iraqi folks who voted on the election aren't real happy with our plans so far.

One way, or another

David Leavitt has an amusing/outrageous Photoshop graphic on his blog today, Levity in Action: McCain Gonzales

Here's some of what he says:

We encourage all our Senators to stand up against torture by refusing to confirm Alberto Gonzales as the next U.S. Attorney General - the top law enforcer in the nation. Publicly, Gonzales says he is against torture; but privately, he insists that rapes and beatings aren't torture because they don't cause organ failure or death. His office distributed 50 page memos on how to avoid prosecution for torture - by redefining it. These led directly to the Abu Ghraib photos you've seen, and continue to ruin our reputation in the world.

We hope Senator John McCain, who was abused as a POW in Vietnam, will stand up against prisoner abuse and vote against Gonzales, but so far we've been disappointed. Meanwhile, military leaders strongly oppose Gonzales. We sincerely hope McCain doesn't belong in that photograph, and we're eager to revise it and apologize if we've misunderstood his silence.

You can contact John McCain's office at (202) 224-2235
and http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home.
You can easily reach any other Senator by clicking here.

Alberto Gonzales actually has a long record of helping criminals get around the law, instead of helping to enforce it. In today's news alone, U.S. courts have ruled again that holding Guantanamo prisoners without access to attorneys has been illegal - just the latest in a series of illegal and unconstitutional acts by a White House that has been relying on Gonzales's advice.

Also today, Gonzales is being added to an international war crimes case. The evidence against him includes his own testimony before the Senate this month! He still condones cruelty and abuse of prisoners, and evidently thinks the President is above the law. This testimony even convinced several Senators, who were planning to support him, that he couldn't be a worse choice for U.S. Attorney General.

Pretty good stuff. I think this poses a legitimate question for Senator McCain:

Whom do you support, the GOP, or the troops? Seems like a mutually exclusive answer is required.

I bless the rains down in africa

The irony is just too much. Every sentient creature on the planet knows that the tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan needs intervention, and that what's going in is virtual genocide. Amnesty International has this to say:

Over 70,000 people are believed to have lost their lives since the conflict in Darfur, Sudan erupted in February 2003. Systematic human rights abuses have occurred by all parties involved in the conflict, but primarily by the Sudanese government and government-backed Janjawid militia. Over 1.5 million civilians have been internally displaced by the conflict and 200,000 have sought refuge in neighboring Chad.

Bummer, dude. But we had that TV show that raised all that relief money...Oh wait, that was for something else. Well, the US government is sending...Oh yeah, that was for something else.

The UN appointed a commission to look at this whole picture, and they came back with this:

A United Nations commission investigating violence in the Darfur region of Sudan reported Monday that it had found a pattern of mass killings and forced displacement of civilians that did not constitute genocide but that represented crimes of similar gravity that should be sent to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

In a 176-page report, the five-member panel said that its finding that genocide had not been committed "should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region," and that "international offenses such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

Well, maybe not genocide, but still, I'm pretty sure that it's real bad. So we should really do something about this. I mean, if we can work up enough energy to care about the Tsunami in Indonesia, we ought to be really upset by man's deliberate inhumanity to man, as shown in Sudan.

But then again, no. Because:

The commission was appointed by Secretary General Kofi Annan in October to determine whether genocide had occurred in Darfur, in Western Sudan, where about 70,000 villagers have been killed and 1.8 million driven from their land.

It was also asked to determine how anyone convicted should be punished, and it answered by saying it "strongly" recommended that the Security Council refer the Darfur crimes to the international court in The Hague. It said the crimes in Darfur met the jurisdictional terms of the 1998 treaty creating the court.

That course of action is favored by most members of the 15-member Council, but the United States has said it will vigorously resist because it objects to the court.

So we really want to do something about this, because really bad people are behaving really badly against those poor, unfortunate folks. But, well, we can't because then we might be held accountable for some of the really really bad things our people do. Get this:

The administration proposed last week that the Darfur charges be sent to a new tribunal to be run jointly by the African Union and the United Nations and to be based at the war crimes court in Arusha, Tanzania, which is trying suspects in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Pierre-Richard Prosper, the United States ambassador at large for war crimes, briefed major countries at the United Nations on the American alternative, explaining afterward, "We don't want to be party to legitimizing the I.C.C."

So we don't want to legitimize the ICC, because it might find fault with US actions in foreign conflicts. And of course we can't allow the UN any legitimacy because it might find fault with US actions, etc. So we seem stuck, now, don't we.

Do we have any support for out position? Sure lots. We are joined in our objection to the ICC by such defenders of democracy as:

The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998.

That's good company we keep. Stalwart friends in the quest for, you know, freedom is on the march and stuff. Here's a bit more about our rush to comply with international standards of justice:

The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.

First, the Bush administration negotiated a Security Council resolution to provide an exemption for U.S. personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping operations. The administration failed in May to obtain an exemption for peacekeepers in East Timor. In June the Bush administration vetoed an extension of the UN peacekeeping mission for Bosnia-Herzegovina unless the Security Council granted a complete exemption. Ultimately, the U.S. failed in its bid for an iron-clad exemption, although the Security Council approved a limited, one year exemption for U.S. personnel participating in UN peacekeeping missions or UN authorized operations. The Security Council has expressed its intention to renew this exemption on 30 June next year.

Second, the Bush administration is requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements ("impunity agreements" or so-called "Article 98 agreements") is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction. They also lead to a two-tiered rule of law for the most serious international crimes: one that applies to U.S. nationals; another that applies to the rest of the world's citizens. Human Rights Watch urges states not to sign impunity agreements with the United States.

Thirdly, the U.S Congress has assisted the Bush administration's effort to obtain bilateral impunity agreements. The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:

• a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
• an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;
• punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);
• a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.

However, all of these provisions are off-set by waiver provisions that allow the president to override the effects of ASPA when "in the national interest". The waiver provisions effectively render ASPA meaningless.

So clearly we don't give a crap about any accountability for us. Makes it a bit difficult to proclaim that we care about any kind of international justice if we don't join in the discussion. It's one thing to point the fickle finger of international blame elsewhere, but we simply can't allow it to besmirch the reputation of the US. We, after all, are clearly beacons of liberty:

In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits.

. . .

Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing: Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

So clearly we should not support the ICC, because they would probably not support us. Makes me proud to be an American.

Ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive

Fish in a barrel, and me with a gun...I dunno, doesn't seem fair. But, if the fish paints a bull's eye on its back, jumps into the barrel and says "Hello, Sailor", then I'm pretty sure it's OK to take aim.

In that vein, we examine Elizabeth Bumiller's latest love note in today's NYTimes:

President Bush's opening statement at his news conference on Wednesday was striking for what it left out: any mention of the 31 Americans who died overnight in the crash of a Marine helicopter in Iraq, the largest number of American deaths in a single incident since the war began.

Coming from Mr. Sensitive ("I call upon all countries to denounce terrorism. Now, watch this swing"), it hardly causes any mental anguish. After, Freedom is on the marchTM! But wait...wait...here it comes. The most far reaching rationalization I've heard in a long time:

The president's words were part of an aggressive White House communications strategy this week and next to frame the risky Iraqi election - a critical test of his assertion that the country is on the path to stability - in the best possible light.

Wow! That's heavy. Did you follow that? Let me repeat it for our hearing impaired viewers:

OUR TOP STORY...sorry. I'll try again.

The President didn't mention the war in Iraq where folks are, you know, DYING, so he could put a rosy face on the bull**it elections happening on Sunday.

I see two possibilities here:

1. She's right, and he made a careful decision to spin the day this way.

2. She's wrong, and he is so devoid of feelings and is so disconnected from the reality based world that he has no empathy for the feelings of the families of the newly dead.

Well, as has been seen many many many times, the guy really doesn't do well extemporaneously. Anyone remember the debates? As coached as he was, in the moment, he choked.

So what happened today? My guess is that he wasn't able to skip around his prefab message because of his natural tendency to stumble, and also felt a need to present that message to the exclusion of all else. A normal politician would have prefaced his remarks with something indicating sadness and regret.

So the correct answer is both 1 & 2. What a class guy. Always there to comfort the anguished and devastated families in their time of grief. Not only does he look like Alfred E, Newmann, but he's adopted his slogan: "What, me worry?"

I fought the law and the law won

I heard John Yoo on NPR tonight. Remember him? Here's a bit of his bio:

Professor Yoo joined the Boalt faculty in 1993, then clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995-96. From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.

He has been a visiting professor at the University of Chicago and the Free University of Amsterdam. He has received research fellowships from the University of California, Berkeley, the Olin Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Professor Yoo also has received the Paul M. Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. He has testified before the judiciary committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and has advised the State of California on constitutional issues.

I dunno, clerked for Clarence Thomas, Fellow of the Olin Foundation, visiting scholar at the AEI...I think I'm detecting a trend here. I'm not sure, I'm just saying, he could have an agenda.

So he tells Terry Gross on Fresh Air that (and I'm paraphrasing):

The Geneva Conventions didn't apply to Al Qaeda detainees (have we ever proven that we have any? just asking) because they didn't wear uniforms, and were not state actors.

And as re: The Taliban (loved them when they opened for Santana at Woodstock), They kinda were protected by the Geneva Conventions because they were the de facto government of Afghanistan when we came crashing down on them, but maybe not, 'cause they didn't wear uniforms either.

Well, I'm no lawyer, although oft times I wish I were. But I found this in the text of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, that I think may offer some insight:

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.

So, even if the enemy is not a signatory, maybe we have to actually act like we are. Interesting.

And this:

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, if you are:

1. being commanded by a leader
2. have a fixed distinctive sign (like maybe arab garb as vs. American Army duds)
3. carrying arms
4. fighting, shooting, etc.

then you are accorded the Geneva Conventions, and all their protection.

And then there's these folks too:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

And this:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Makes me wonder what the British should have done with any Minutemen they captured. After all, the proto-American revolutionaries likely didn't wear uniforms, but were distinguished from the British by the absence of specific uniforms. And they likely didn't always follow specific commanders, since things were, well, in a state of war. Still, should they have been tortured by the minions of King George (how like today) or should they have been protected by some liberal idea of fair play?

I'm not equating the insurgents in Iraq with The Minutemen, at least, not perhaps until now. Imagine if the French had invaded the US to overthrow the British, and had then stuck around, throwing their weight around, and appointing Prime Ministers and staging suspect elections.

I think we might have gotten cranky, just a bit.

He hit me, and it felt like a kiss

I've been working on this for a while, and I'm not finished, but here it is anyway.

Many people are having trouble with Alberto Gonzalez's ideas on torture. While certainly we want to be more vigilant after 9/11, we ought not throw the Constitution out with the bathwater. We know now from the incredibly flawed 9/11 Committee report that virtually every mechanism for predicting and preventing the hijacking failed; the existing laws, practices & rules were not applied. So now do we need loads of new laws, or just, you know, people in power who actually do their job.

Gonzalez seems driven in his zeal to help GWBush get anything he wants. And somebody wants some severe kick ass. Among the many problems is that it probably won't work:

Torture of enemy combatants as done by American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan was probably not productive and probably not needed, even though there might be emergency, life-and-death situations where you would have to try it.

I was trained as an Army interrogator. I might try and write for you a short piece on field interrogation of combatants -- even though I was never in combat.

I do know a lot about interrogation, including that coercion, threats, and terror will -- as you might suspect -- often produce unreliable intelligence. People will say anything to get out of a dangerous situation, but they know "instinctively" that they don't owe the truth to anyone torturing them.

If you rely on coercion or torture -- or terror -- to induce information, you may well wind up bombing your own positions.

And torture of prisoners in custody will inevitably show the world that your side is evil.

Nice. As countless others have pointed out, that part of the world that previously thought the US might be a kind of Satan now has proof that the US is indeed The Great Satan. Right wingers would likely respond "so what? we don't care about any danged furriners!" but, what with the growing economies in the EU and China, and ours having a little bit of trouble lately, that's a tragically short sighted view.

Some really macho guys who I'm pretty sure have some experience with stuff like war and fighting have some interesting thoughts, too:

A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post.

The group includes retired Army Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The officers are one of several groups to separately urge the Senate to sharply question Gonzales during a confirmation hearing Thursday about his role in shaping legal policies on torture and interrogation methods.

"Today, it is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world," the officers wrote, referring to the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies.

In addition to Shalikashvili, other prominent signatories to the letter include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the Central Command; former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak; and Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, the Army's first female three-star general. Several, including Shalikashvili, supported the failed presidential candidacy of Democrat John F. Kerry.

Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who specializes in military-civilian affairs, said the letter is extremely rare, if not unprecedented.

I dunno, these guys might have something here. They seem fairly strong in their convictions. And, they have some familiarity with Armies and guns and stuff.

Here is some more military stuff we can look to to shed some light on torture and abuse, from the Air Force (note: much good info at this link): Here's another pertinent link, and here's the actual law:

928. ART. 128. ASSAULT

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or

(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon;

is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Here's more:


And some of the usual suspects in the wimpy leftie human rights communities also weigh in on this too:

“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding we have proclaimed every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value.” These were the words of President Bush as he took the oath of office for his second term. They fairly reflect the principle on which the United States was founded: all people, by virtue of their humanity, have inalienable rights under law.

Torture and calculated cruelty inflicted by the government cannot be reconciled with this principle. Such conduct strips those subject to it of their dignity, and deprives them of their humanity. It is for this reason such treatment has long been prohibited by the laws of the United States, and by treaties the United States urged the world to embrace.

Alberto Gonzales, the President’s nominee to be the United States’ chief law enforcer, is without question familiar with this first principle of human rights. An experienced lawyer, he has served successfully in private practice, as a judge and as counsel to the President. He has an inspiring personal history of struggle and opportunity that is, in many ways, uniquely American. But during the past four years, Mr. Gonzales has helped to steer America away from its commitment to human rights under law. For this reason, we must oppose his nomination.

So I'm starting to have a bad feeling about this guy. And this doesn't help:

Senate Democrats put off a vote on White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general, complaining he had provided evasive answers to questions about torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. But Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.

While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

So, what do we have, a true legal scholar who can help the US navigate the troubled waters of the 21st century, and make sure American citizens are safe in their own country, or a Texas Mafia consigliere, whose allegiance to Don George is fixed and unassailable?

You be the judge. All I know is, I don't want him to be.

The Letter

Armando at Kos has the right idea here:

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.
As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Convention, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

Please go there and sign on.

Blogger is fixed, all OK