Reflections on a stalemate

By Carol Gee

Senator Barack Obama D-IL, and Senator John McCain R-AZ, will have their legislative records exposed during the 2008 Presidential campaign. And it will be their Senate records that will be compared. Each of them has served only in the Senate, never in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, since the Democrats have gained control (?) of the Senate, it has remained almost in a state of stalemate. That is because Senate rules are allowing "the tyranny of the minority." Those rules were originally instituted to protect the rights of the minority against "the tyranny of the majority." But that has now been turned on its head by an obstructionist Republican cohort unprecedented in history, combined with a weak Democratic Majority leader.

I will not discuss Senator Hillary Clinton's legislative record because I doubt she will be competing in the general election. So the comparisons, if made at all, will be between McCain and Obama. What would such a comparison look like on this primary election day in West Virginia? Which candidate should have to run on his record in the general election? Which record is superior. Which Senator acted in good faith, given the majority/minority distortions currently in play? Did Republican obstruction hurt Democrats ability to make a record?

A quick scan of Senator McCain's long voting record (1986-present) at Project Vote Smart reveals that Senator McCain misses a lot of votes ("NV") when he is running for President. Another useful tool at this site is the "Interest Group Ratings" page that scores the candidates on their voting records. A scan of these lists, compiled by issue, reveals that Senator McCain is really very far to the right on many issues. There is further evidence of this in the excellent voting records section (summary) at the Washington Post. This WaPo website also does the homework for you on Key Votes, Missed Votes (since 1991), Voting with the Party (or against his party since 1991) and Latest Votes (on summary page).

A quick scan of Senator Obama's legislative and voting record in the U.S. Senate since 2004 at Project Vote Smart also reveals Senator Obama's, naturally more limited because of his short tenure, missed votes record, his "Interest Group Ratings" page scores relatively liberal, as well as his "Issue Positions" (refused Political Courage Test). At the Washington Post website, you can see Obama's records on Key Votes, Missed Votes, Voting with his party (96.7% of the time), and his Latest Votes (on summary page).

The facts of a candidate's' legislative and voting history alone can, on the face of it, be deceiving. For example, Senator Obama has a very short tenure in the U.S. Senate, but served for some time in the Illinois legislature. Should that record "be a part of the record" upon which he is judged as a leader? Is Senator McCain really a maverick, and with which issues is he out of step with his own party? Can a very long legislative record be a sign of legislative quality. What if it flies in the face of most of what you believe, philosophically? Does Hillary Clinton's lackluster legislative history mean she cannot be a good Majority leader? Does McCain deserve to become the peoples' choice merely on 20+ years experience vs. Obama's mere four years, two under Republican leadership.

I ask these questions because the media does not. It will take some digging -- following the above links -- but the results will be worth your time when you are in the voting booth in November.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Maverick

By Capt. Fogg

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Keep movin', movin', movin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them doggies movin'
Rawhide! ...

Samuel A. Maverick (!803 - 1870) had a life filled with adventures too numerous to list, but in his later years as a rancher who refused to brand his cattle, his name entered the American vocabulary as a non-conformist; a person of independent thought and action. That's hardly descriptive of John McCain, a man who followed in the family tradition of military careers, used family connections to get into the Naval Academy (and nearly flunk out) and whose political career is and has been marked by the influence of lobbyists and special interest spokesmen of dubious allegiance. The cattle at this Maverick's ranch seem to have dubious markings on them and maybe it's time someone did brand John McCain's cattle.

Some of the old doggies in the McCain corral; two of his campaign staff that is, seem to have spend time grazing in Burma in the pastures of the criminal Junta currently letting huge numbers of people starve while stealing their food. What advice has John the Maverick been taking from them?

Charlie Black, McCain's campaign chairman, ran a lobbying firm that represented vicious dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire ; even terrorist rebel Jonas Savimbi in Angola. What advice has Cowboy John been taking? How well does he examine the backgrounds of his advisers, or is it that these are the kind of people he prefers to associate with and take advice from?

Black was also an adviser to Achmed Chalabi a man who may have been working as a double agent for Iran and whose mendacious advice to the Bush administration fed their lust to invade Iraq, has also been affiliated with Blackwater Worldwide, the firm that has made a colossal killing (pun intended) from the war.

And then there's campaign co-chair Tom Loeffler, who has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - need I say more?

For a man who is supposed to be independent of the influence of others and disdainful of lobbyists, it's a bit strange how the others who influence him seem to be former lobbyists for repressive dictators and oil interests and others who see the US as a cash cow to be milked dry and then perhaps led to slaughter.

Maybe it's time to round them up and move them out; the whole damned lot of them.

Cross posted from Human Voices

"In convention"al wisdom

By Carl

Curious thing about this story: Why didn't Obama win this state?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton arranged to meet with uncommitted superdelegates on Wednesday following her lopsided win in the West Virginia primary, as her supporters argued that her appeal to some traditional Democratic voting blocks may change some opinions despite the continued long odds that she can secure her party’s nomination.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, said “superdelegates have to have second thoughts” after West Virginia, speaking in an interview Wednesday morning on CNN.

Conventional wisdom said that Hillary Clinton should have mopped the floor with Obama and given the nature of the electorate in West Virginia, I concur. She should also wipe the floors of Kentucky with Obama.

But....

Conventional wisdom, for some reason, begs the most obvious question: Why?

Obama has the nomination all but sewed up, according to every single pundit who can't see past the hors d'oeurve table at Obama headquarters.

Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and a slim lead in superdelegates.

It's all over but the shouting, I mean. Right?

Except here's Obama losing by 40 points! to Hillary Clinton, a woman whom everyone is saying is done for, finished, finito, kaput.

If it's really all over, why didn't West Virginia send a message to Clinton: "Get out."

If it's really all over, why didn't Obama use that as a theme to put up even a modest campaign in West Virginia, one that he could claim was "healing the wounds" he has helped create in the Democratic party? After all, wouldn't beating Senator Clinton in a state that was, to quote Bill Richardson, "tailor-made" for her be a sign to her that even her supporters thought she was done? Enough?

Was West Virginia not "good enough" for this effort, Senator Obama?

Aren't the "typical white voters" you poo-poo worth the effort to persuade to your coalition? Or have Reverend Wright's words sunk deeply into your mind and worse, your heart, Senator?

The overriding issue here is, if this election is over, then why isn't it over? Why hasn't Obama dealt the Clinton campaign the humiliating defeat that should have been dealt by now to a campaign struggling to stay afloat?

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

The GOP in disarray

By Creature

The real election news today is not Senator Clinton's symbolic win in West Virginia, it's Democrat Travis Childers special election win in Mississippi. The GOP threw a ton of cash, and Dick Cheney, at Childers and he still reclaimed a House seat that has been red since 1995 and sits in a district that voted 62 percent for George W. Bush in 2004. Amazing.

The political landscape is changing and, yes, the GOP is in disarray. Almost makes you feel sorry for Crusty McSame. Almost.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Stupid quote of the week

By J. Kingston Pierce

George W. Bush is always braying on about how Americans have to make sacrifices, even though he asked absolutely nothing of the nation’s wealthiest citizens when he committed the United States to an invasion of Iraq. In fact, he gave them a handsome tax break, while pushing off the real costs of his warmongering onto the shoulders of our grandchildren. But now Dubya insists that he, too, has sacrificed for the “war effort.” How? He tells Politico reporter Mike Allen that he’s given up golf. Says the prez:

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf--I think I was in central Texas--and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”

Oh, boo-fuckin’-hoo. When we see you send your two daughters off to fight in the Middle East conflict you provoked with your lies, Mr. Bush--a conflict to which other American parents have willingly sacrificed their own children--then and only then will you be making an honest commitment to your war of choice.

(Cross-posted at Limbo.)

READ MORE: “Bush Makes the Ultimate War Sacrifice,” by David Terranoire (A Dark Planet); “We Call Bullshit,” by Warren Street (Blue Girl, Red State).

All you need to know about tonight's primary results

By Creature

Tortured Thinking, Part III, the Last Witnesses

By Carol Gee

The House Committee on the Judiciary/Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, held an important hearing on "Detainee Interrogation Rules" May 6. Today's post wraps up a series detailing what I think are the most significant aspects of that hearing.

What we learned is that, from very early on the lawyers at the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Legal Counsel were tasked by their bosses to figure out how the law could be construed to immunize interrogators of U.S. detainees from torture charges. That is a serious accusation, but that seems to be what went on shortly after the first suspect was captured and was discovered to be uncooperative. Many in the administration, if not most, were convinced that another attack was imminent, and they were desperate to prevent that. Unfortunately that desperation seemed to mean "at almost any cost" to the integrity to the U.S. rule of law.

The first two posts in my recent series were:

1. Tortured Thinking, Part I -- the Players; it focused on the committee members and the hearing agenda. The hearing was chaired by New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler. His House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, sat in and skillfully supported the very pointed questioning from all members. I also covered the way the Republican Members generally approached the agenda with considerable seriousness, and a relative minimum of politics. The agenda was to find out more about the various memos defining extreme interrogation (what many of us call torture), written by Bush administration officials during the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001.


2. Tortured Thinking, Part II -- the Witnesses, focused on two of the four witnesses' sworn testimony, that of British law Professor Phillipe Sands and Georgetown Professor David Luban. Sands has spent a year interviewing almost all of the people involved in this emerging scandal for his excellent historical analysis book, "The Green Light." He wrote a fascinating related article published in this month's Vanity Fair, referenced below. David Luban specializes in legal ethics; he pulled no punches in his testimony.
   

The last two witnesses, whose testimony is covered here, were former Reagan and Bush administration Counsel's Office lawyer David B. Rivkin and Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. Their approaches to questions stood as contrasting bookends within the judgments of the four witnesses. Cohn used the term "war crimes" as opposed to Rivkin's statement, ". . . attorneys were subjected to great criticism, villified, even though the Supreme Court has upheld the key tenets of the policy saying that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to members of al Qaeda."

Professor Cohn:
Witness prepared statement: Marjorie Cohn
Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
President of National Lawyers Guild.

Professor Cohn was asked by Chairman Nadler about criminal prosecution for a lawyer's giving his client advice. She posited that "conspiracy involves a common plan of wrong-doing." She added that this law does not have a statute of limitations. That statement must have put the professor in the spotlight with Republican committee members, who questioned her repeatedly. I paraphrase and summarize the most significant of the interchanges, in my opinion:
To Ranking Rep. Franks' assertion that water-boarding is "controlled and only for a short time, and that some of our own soldiers were water-boarded," Cohn replied that the statutes regarding handling techniques involve the severest things we can do and that torture is illegal. She added that the information given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida was useless. Cohn asserted that relationship-building yields better results in the long run.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California stated that he supported a ban on torture, and that "I do want to get this right and move on with that bipartisan decision made earlier" [later vetoed]. Issa asked Cohn if it is fair to lie to prisoners. She stated that interrogators cannot lie with threats against those close to the prisoner, "killing their wives, for example."
Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa asked Professor Cohn if there had ever been a case of successfully saving lives through relationship building and gaining the trust of a prisoner. She named "Saddam Hussein, a rich source of information, who was treated with kindness by admirable soldiers, not interrogators who were mercenaries."
Bobby Scott, D-VA, asked Professor Cohn about the power of international law. It was pointed out that the Supreme Court has referred to ratified treaties in opinions. Cohn said, "There is no justification for torture under three different U.S. ratified treaties. There is no retroactive immunity allowed for torture, even when good information is obtained."
Mel Watt, D-NC, asked Professor Cohn to explain the concept of universal jurisdiction among nations over prosecutions of foreigners for heinous crimes around the world, such as the prosecution of Adolf Eichman. She encouraged foreign prosecutions for torture, if the U.S. does not.

David Rivkin
Witness prepared statement: David B. Rivkin, Jr.
Partner, Baker & Hostetler, LLP.
Former Reagan administration attorney David Rivkin also worked for the Bush White House. As such he received almost as many questions as Professor Sands and regularly interceded during the hearing with counter arguments to the other three witnesses' testimony. What follows is what struck me about Rivkins' testimony:
To Rep. Franks' interchange with Professor Cohn [above] regarding the effectiveness of severe interrogation vs. relationship-building with prisoners, Rivkin characterized it as "naive, a moral cop-out. Coercive techniques need to be debated, but nobody wants to define them. What about psychological coercion? And there is a temporal element to pain and suffering -- 10 minutes and 10 hours are different. It just can't be protracted pain. There is plenty of case law on this."
Chairman Conyers, D-MI, commended all the witnesses, "This is a good way to get at the truth. We will use the legislative coercive process of subpoena to get others to testify." He asked Rivkin to submit a "pain" definition for the record.
Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana made the point to Rivkin about "keeping all this secret so terrorists can't train to resist us." The attorney posited that "Psychological coercion might work. Unlawful combatants are different. Coercive techniques do work. And this needs to be decided in the light of day." After Professor Sands comments about the Brits' conclusions regarding how to fairly treat members of the IRA, Rivkin asserted that, "Some Brits disagree. Actually the Brits 'squeezed out' 700 IRA operatives, and the British lawyers were not prosecuted." Rivkin finished this discussion by defining al Qaeda as an "existentialist threat" as contrasted with the IRA.
Another southern Democrat, Artur Davis, debated with Rivkin's assertions, using as examples the different lawful methods used in Vietnam, and Israel under the Geneva Conventions. Davis defined torture as "medieval, barbarous, and from the terrorists. Torture is illegal in Israel, even if they are under daily siege and face an existential threat." Rivkin responded that "Israel made the decision to take very high risks." Davis asked Rivkin about a presidential pardon for members of the administration and the attorney answered "he may need to consider the reasons to do so, perhaps a blanket pardon."
Republican Darrell Issa wanted to know about the fairness of lying to prisoners to obtain information. David Rivkin said that the Supreme Court has ruled it is OK to lie to them "that their partner has already confessed, or to make threats of widening the arrest net. " Rivkin mentioned that "Andrew Fastow [Enron] was subjected to threats -- horrible pressure."
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, wanted Rivkin to explain to him "what works?" Rivkin said that with coerced information,"In most situations, you can check out their claims. You usually have time to check out false leads." Ellison asked him for an example of a successful intervention involving the "ticking time bomb theory." Rivkin attempted the example of capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as noted in a National Review article by Stewart Taylor, calling it "as close as you can get." Rep. Ellison did not buy his argument, nor did Professor Cohn.
Rep. Mel Watt, D-NC, asked Attorney Rivkin, "What should the committee do next?" Rivkin urged him to"just find out the narrative of what happened, exercising prosecutorial discretion." He termed Congress' pursuing prosecutions, "madness, given the facts involved."

In conclusion, Chairmen Conyers and Nadler are absolutely on the right track. The committee has issued a number of subpoenas for those more directly involved in this episode. David Addington, VP Cheney's Chief of Staff, has been ordered to appear at the next hearing on June 26. Stay tuned.

References:

• The Gavel - Speaker Pelosi's excellent blog hearing summary: "Judiciary Hears Expert Testimony on Administration Torture Policies" May 6th, 2008 by Jesse Lee
  
  

  From the Judiciary Committee: Judiciary Committee Examines Administration Torture Policies, Many Questions Left Unanswered
  Subcommittee Authorizes Subpoena for Addington

  
  

• South by Southwest: "Extreme Interrogation, revelations gain momentum"


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

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Stickings to be back soon

By Creature

Hello, Reaction readers. Michael asked me to let you all know that he has not forsaken you. He's dealing with some personal stuff and promises to be back tomorrow, or so. In the meantime, do not despair, our great collection of co-bloggers will keep the content and the conversation flowing.

As always, thanks for reading and being a part of The Reaction community.

"Insufficient evidence" for De Anza rape case to proceed

By LindaBeth

*trigger warning*

This incident took place in March 2007. 3 female soccer players found an unconscious woman girl (she was 17) being gang raped in a room by a group of 9 male basketball players. When they tried to enter the room, the door was repeatedly shut on them by a guy all three were able to later identify. Originally, the DA's office said they weren't bringing charges at all. That changed after public outcry, but this past Tuesday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the grand jury came back saying there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the case.

Some key problems with this case:

• The three females who witnessed the rape were never called to testify in front of the grand jury.

• The victim was said to have "no memory of the incident" but this was because she was unconscious!! Read the details from the softball players here.

• The article states that:

"were unable to provide consistent, useful identifications of the persons they observed engaging in sexual contact with Jane Doe," authorities said. [...] Grolle and Chief Elk, though, said all three former soccer players could identify a young man who held the door shut and repeatedly refused them entry into the room after they had spotted the alleged victim lying on a mattress surrounded by a group of men. One of the men was forcing the 17-year-old to orally copulate him, the two women said.

• Apparently the guy preventing the 3 women from rescuing the victim and stopping the rape isn't guilty of anything. And that's bullshit. As one attorney said,

"Anyone who holds the door closed while other men commit rape is equally liable for that rape," Hammer said. "There's always a weak link - perhaps the guy holding the door. With enough pressure, somebody can be forced to say what happened."

Even further, the women claim, "[He said] 'Mind your own business; she wants to be in here' and slams the door," says Grolle. Doesn't sound to me like he didn't know what was going on.

• And three of the guys were given immunity...but no testimony against the others?

It's hard enough getting evidence in a rape case. This one had 3 witnesses, who can positively identify one of the group, who took the victim to the hospital where evidence was collected (including testing that determined that the vomit in the victim's mouth was not her own). And there's not enough evidence to proceed?! And as Cara at The Curvature writes:

In short, rape apologism shifts. When it’s a “date rape” people will say “how do we know she didn’t consent? It’s not like she’s covered in bruises.” When she’s covered in bruises, the victim in question will simply “like it rough.” When the woman is unconscious and therefore can’t just “like it rough,” she will be accused of misidentifying her attacker, or people will argue “well, she didn’t say no.” When she does say no, it’s “why didn’t she fight? He didn’t have a weapon.” When she did fight back or he did have a weapon, it’s “well there’s no DNA evidence.” When there’s DNA evidence, it’s “well he probably did it, but it’s not like there were any witnesses...” When there are witnesses, three of them in fact, who are willing and eager to testify? When there are witnesses, they just won’t be allowed up on the fucking stand.

And as one of the women who found the victim said:

"It makes us think that no girl is ever going to want to come forward and say they were violated as this girl was, because they're going to think it doesn't even matter," says Chief Elk. "But it does."

Incredible.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me)

Michigan will vote

By Carl

In what is the clearest acknowledgement by Barack Obama of his deep troubles in the general election, the Senator has begun actively campaigning in a state that he has stridently sought to disenfranchise:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will visit Michigan on Wednesday -- his first visit to the state since last July.

The Obama campaign announced today that the Illinois senator will make two stops, in Macomb County and in Grand Rapids. More details on the trip are expected later today.

Obama has refrained from campaigning in Michigan because of a dispute over Michigan's Jan. 15 primary, which violated Democratic Party laws. He also removed his name from the ballot for the primary.

In other words, Obama caved in on his promise because he's about to get a mud hole stomped in his campaign tomorrow in West Virginia and he has to make some inroads in the "bitter white vote".

Obama has also announced campaign swings through Florida.

Now, granted, he's all but sewed up the nomination and really has no choice but to start mending fences, but I wonder how he's going to handle the enormous heat regarding his vehement opposition to seating any delegation to the convention floor in these states?

"Sorry, I don't think we need more bitter white folks in the Democratic party"? "Um, well, you people don't count"? "I wanted to seat you before I didn't want to"?

A preview of the rules fight on the convention floor, headed by Clinton capaign strategist (and the guy who wrote those rules) Harold Ickes was unveiled over the weekend:

The campaign "certainly might" accept a compromise that seats half the states' delegates, based on their disputed January primaries, said Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe. A former chair of the Democratic National Committee, McAuliffe made the case that the DNC should only have penalized the states half their delegations, as Republicans did when Michigan and Florida violated both parties' rules on scheduling primaries.

"The rule is 50 percent," McAuliffe said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Had they done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Another Clinton aide, chief spokesman Howard Wolfson, repeated on Sunday the campaign's new position that clinching the nomination requires 2,209 delegates -- the total including Michigan and Florida. The party and the Obama campaign set the magic number at 2,025, excluding the two disputed states.

A number Obama cannot possibly achieve, even if he wipes up the superdelegate map going forward.

Meaning the vote would go to a second round, and Clinton makes her case in front of the convention about how Obama's early victories needed to be revisited anyway, given the revelations of his blatant elitism and anti-patriotism towards the base of the party that skewed to the right to take back the House and Senate in 2006.

It's a long shot, to be sure, but I'm always reminded of Al Gore in 2000 and how angry all of us got at him for not fighting it until the bitter end, caving in simply because it was "the right thing to do."

He was wrong, and so would Hillary be if she dropped out.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Après le déluge, rien.

By Capt. Fogg

Political and economic repression probably bother the Burmese less of late than the problem of staying alive in the mud along with the rotting corpses of man and beast. It's a natural disaster of bigger than average proportions and some estimate the death toll will be over a million when the toll of disease and malnutrition is paid. The earthquake in Sichuan seems almost inconsequential in comparison and so do the hurricanes, school shootings and lead paint scandals of recent times, yet the "Hillaryobama" chant continues to dominate all three rings of the 24 hour American news circus.

If the magnitude of the tragedy is lost on most of us, the significance of the event is clear to the Apocalypse fans. It's more evidence of the end times. It's more evidence of the the human sacrifice demanding Yahweh "who so loved the world" getting warmed up for the big one. To some, possessed of a more informed and wider view of history, it's just another small incident in a billion years of much worse. To others, it's a demonstration of the perils of overpopulation and poverty. To the more fashionable, it's the alarm bell of the Global Warming warning system. To the religious leaders to whom America listens while condemning Reverend Wright, it probably shows clearly the perils of not accepting their processed Jesus product and at least hints of various sexual improprieties of the oriental sort.

To me? Well I just knew you'd be interested. To me it all means nothing. It means we live very briefly in an unfathomably huge, ancient and hostile universe in which we and all we do are supremely insignificant except to each other. It means we waste our brief and often miserable lives by pretending it's otherwise.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Extreme Interrogations -- Revelations Gaining Momentum

By Carol Gee

The more we learn about what happens to those whom our government takes into custody as threats to our national security, I increasingly have the urge to wash my hands more frequently. This news will set the tone to which I refer.

Senator Kit Bond is floating something that would tell the government, what it could not do in the way of torture. Headlined, "GOP Senator Floats Compromise Torture Measure," it was written by Paul Kiel - May 8, 2008. He includes this AP quote:

Rather than prescribe what the intelligence agency is allowed to do in an interrogation, Bond wants to write into law only what the CIA cannot do: force detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; have hoods or sacks placed over their heads or duct tape over their eyes; be beaten, shocked, or burned; threatened with military dogs; exposed to extreme heat or cold; subjected to mock executions; deprived of food, water, or medical care; or waterboarded.

Fellow "handwashers" -- I am doing a little Round-up of "Torture Stories" for your reading pleasure today. I must give grateful credit to my unflagging sources in the Blogosphere, others willing to feel uncomfortable with the material contained in many of the current national security stories coming out: "mcjoan" at DailyKos, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker, "emptywheel" at Firedoglake, Ryan Singel at Wired: Threat Level, and Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. If I am away from the story for a few days, I can always count on one or more of these dedicated bloggers to keep their hands in.

"CNN, the Pentagon's "military analyst" program and Gitmo," is the title of a Glenn Greenwald post at Salon.com on May 9. Greenwald's source was a NYT-forced release of thousands of pages of Pentagon communications regarding the analysts program. Adding another twist to this messy scandal now coming out more fully, his comprehensive piece details how the true situation at the Guantanamo detention facility was white-washed during a Pentagon sponsored trip for the analysts to Cuba in 2005. Related to my recent "Tortured Thinking" posts Part I and Part II, I quote one of the key tidbits:

Demonstrating how controlled by the Pentagon were these "analysts," Shepperd's email to "help" was forwarded to top Rumsfeld aide Larry Di Rita, who replied (7470): "OK, but let's get him briefed on Khatani so he doesn't go too far on that one" -- referring to the so-called 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Khatani, whose Guantanamo interrogation had been particularly brutal, as he "was stripped naked, isolated, given intravenous fluids and forced to urinate on himself, and exercised to exhaustion during interrogations that lasted 18 to 20 hours a day for 48 of 54 days."

"The FBI's Hands Off Approach to Torture," was also written by TPM Muckracker's Paul Kiel - April 24, 2008. FBI Director Mueller appears to have been unable to have a hand in derailing the torture programs propelled by the DOD and DOJ attorneys' sullied legal opinions.To quote the key passage:

. . . what the FBI's reaction to the CIA's use of waterboarding and other forms of torture in 2002 had been: keep FBI agents out of trouble. But when House Democrats pressed as to why the FBI hadn't investigated the abuses, Mueller said his hands were tied. The CIA and the Defense Department had the green light. "There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice."

Taken in hand by the TSA? The following information might be useful to you before your next airport terminal interrogation. Headlined, "Court: Government Must Reveal Watch-List Status to Constantly Detained Americans," by Ryan Singel, April 24, 2008, you should be able now to find out your watch list status. To quote from the opening of the story:

Eight Americans of south Asian and Middle Eastern descent who were repeatedly detained at the border for questioning will be able to learn if they are actually on the government's terrorist watch list, a federal court in Illinois ruled last week, marking the first time that citizens have been able to learn whether they have been added to a sprawling and error-prone list used for screening at borders and traffic stops.

The government invoked the powerful state secrets privilege in the case, arguing that letting the plaintiffs know if they are or aren't on the list would harm national security since that could alert them to the fact they have been under government scrutiny.

. . . The Terrorist Screening Center, which runs the list, says it has been pruning the list and removing errant entries, even as the list grows by an estimated 20,000 names a month. While the TSC says the majority of the names on the list are foreigners, most of the people compared against the list are Americans, who are checked against the list when they are stopped for a traffic violation, enter or leave the country or fly domestically.

The hand writing is on the wall -- Republican Senator Kit Bond thinks a list of "not-do's" is the answer to preventing torture. Knowing this group of interrogators with seemingly limitless inventiveness, however, they might just handily circumvent the list with any number of "other measures." If Guantanamo is closed there is no telling what secret locations might be the destiny of the detainees. And it seems that the Mainstream Media will continue to rely on their "military analysts" to keep us informed. Most people will never know how many of these retired military hands are dirty with conflicts of interest because the MSM will not even report that scandal. But at least, pretty soon we should all be able to find out if we are suspected terrorists or not.

Excuse me; I'm going to wash my hands now.

(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.)

At the intersection of Hopes and Success

By Carl

The single greatest challenge in solving world poverty is getting cheap electricity to communities that are far off the grid, who are not fortunate enough to live in a society where the government will subsidize the extension of the grid to these communities, often hundreds of miles from civilization.

See, conservatives? Big government gets the job done!

Here, however, is an amazingly simple yet practical solution for at least some of the world's poor:

Unleash the Power For the People Foundation is a charitable organization that raises money for the purpose of enabling people to help those that are truly impoverished in the world. Channeling the power of people to provide power for people.

Corp-speak for "We'll help poor people generate their own electricity, which will drive machines which will provide a living, which will help lift them out of poverty."

Portable solar panels with DC/AC transformers built-on, windmills, and other renewable energy sources will be provided to communities (the rough nut to provide is about $20,000 per every 50 people in a community, so we're talking lunch money for the Iraq invasion forces for one day to provide millions of people with free energy). The primary goal will be to bring fresh drinking water to these communities: these power sources will drive pumps and desalinization plants.

America is fairly unique in that the richest among us live nearest the shore. This is not the case in less developed nations.

With water comes sanitation, cleaner food, fresher food, better health. As the community strengthens, excess capacity (and there will be plenty) can be diverted to wiring for lighting, computers, and other machinery that will allow the citizens access to information and markets.

With renewable energy comes a cleaner environment, less carbon release, healthier people who live longer and are more productive and able to provide for themselves and their families.

But there's a deeper issue here, one that can be extended to even a nation as powerful and wealthy as America: distributive power generation.

The fatal flaw in the US grid is, unlike the Internet, electricity is interdependent on every other node in the grid: if one goes, likely many will go before the drainage can stop, and it requires hands-on rejiggering to reroute around a trouble spot.

Think of a big city traffic jam: that's the model the electrical grid works on.

By pushing power generation down to the community level, you're giving local populations an option: generate as much power as you can, and take from the grid what you need beyond that. Should your generator go down, the grid is your backup.

Should the grid go down, all you need to do is to power down nonessential uses until it comes back up.

Too, you'd be cutting the costs of electrical generation substantially, as well as providing jobs as diverse as wiring to the new generator (and maintaining that wiring locally) to economic development of this new resource.

Who said going green would kill the American economy? If anything, it brings money back to the people.

Which brings us back to unleashpowerforthepeople.org.

One thing poor people around the world have in common is a lack of access to power, and by that I mean, political. It's easy to overlook people who have no voice, who cannot contact the people who nominally represent them. By providing them with electrical power, you provide them with a voice, an economy, and a say in what directly affects them.

Look at Myanmar, for example. Even before the cyclone, we heard stories about the terrible regime there, Aung San Suu Kyi's imprisonment, the Buddhist uprising.

Why? Because there was access to the rest of the world, through the media and the Internet.

Imagine how much faster the world could have responded to Darfur if this program had been in place when the crisis was just beginning? Imagine if images of the Janjaweed's rapes and murders had been posted by someone with a videocamera (provided by Peter Gabriel's charity, Witness) had documented and uploaded video in real time?

Imagine. Just imagine. And all that, just from a few solar panels or wind turbines...

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Recent sports articles remind us that female athletes are (sexual and maternal) women first

By LindaBeth

First, from Feministing:

The Chicago Tribune online story with this headline:

"WNBA offers advice to rookies: Trying to expand fan base by marketing its players, the WNBA for the first time offers rookies lessons in fashion and makeup"

Yes, you read that right. According to the story, one-third of the WNBA rookie orientation offered makeup and fashion tips. Other seminars included "financial advice, media training and fitness and nutrition".

"I think it's very important," said Candace Parker, the Naperville product who was the league's No. 1 draft pick out of Tennessee. "I'm the type who likes to put on basketball shorts and a white T, but I love to dress up and wear makeup. But as time goes on, I think [looks] will be less and less important."

[...]

NBA rookies go through a similar orientation, although their off-court conduct is stressed far more than their wardrobe or physical appearance.

What's unfortunate is it's true. Female athletes are not only judged as athletes but are also judged for their adherence to conventional "femininity" (as I've written about elsewhere). Some of this happens in the way women's sports is reported and discussed, and some of it is brought on by the ad campaigns female athletes participate in. While part of their participation in objectifying ads is likely for the income opportunity, I think part of it too is as a way for female athletes to "prove" (via social validation) that despite their physical strength and athletic bodies, they are still "sexy" and "feminine". Since, of course, being sexually desirable according to socially prescribed standards is the ultimate standard of a woman's worth.

From the Tribune:

Susan Ziegler, a Cleveland State professor of sports psychology, said disparity in wages and media coverage between male and female athletes, along with a battle against perceived negative stereotypes, are factors in marketing female sports figures for their physicality rather than their athletic assets.

Need examples? I could look up tons, but the Tribune article has several handy:

Tennis player Anna Kournikova, who never won a professional singles tournament, was the poster woman for marketing her sexuality in lieu of her athletic credentials. But far more accomplished female athletes are also marketed on the basis of their appearance.

Tennis player Maria Sharapova was the second youngest woman to win Wimbledon in 2004, which prompted Sports Illustrated to put her on its cover wearing a white tennis outfit under the words "Star Power." She appeared in Sports Illustrated again in 2006, this time wearing a variety of string bikinis on a beach for the magazine's swimsuit edition.

Last month, race car driver Danica Patrick became the first woman to win an IndyCar event. She made a name for herself posing in FHM in a red bustier atop a yellow Mustang and by starring in provocative TV commercials for GoDaddy.com. One such GoDaddy commercial was rejected for airing during this year's Super Bowl.

Softball pitcher Jennie Finch, who plays for the Chicago Bandits, set an NCAA record with 60 consecutive victories in college at Arizona and won an Olympic gold medal in 2004. She wore gold again in '05, posing in a metallic bikini for Sports Illustrated.

This has been so disappointing to me, as athletic achievement by women has/had such a potential to dispel gender stereotypes about what women's bodies are useful for, what their capabilities are, and as an overall way to present women's bodies as something that does things and not just something to be sexual or to look at. Indeed, I see women' sports in terms of Judith Butler's notion of repetitive parodic performances of gender in and through the body that have the capacity to disrupt ideologies of the gendered body (see her Gender Trouble, ch.3-iv). Sports is an especially effective way, in my view, to challenge traditional ideas about women's bodies since sports achievement is of such a high value in American society. But unfortunately, the effect (so far) of women in professional sports has been less than desirable; female athletes are critiqued based on their physical attractiveness or on their femininity (think of the way WNBA players are talked about in terms of femininity vs. a graceful athlete like a female tennis player; this article by feminist scholar Judith Lorber covers this). It's no wonder so many female athletes feel pressure to say "hey, I'm still a sexy (thus valuable) woman!" by all sorts of objectifying photo spreads and beauty-focused ad campaigns. Rather than challenging the gendered body, this behavior reiterates it.

It's bad enough that the sports industry and the lad-mag industry sees female athletes in this way (and see this earlier post for some of my thoughts about how the SI swimsuit issue contributes to the devaluing of female athletes). It's absolutely disheartening that the WNBA is caving into this mentality. As Jessica at feministing said,

Marj Snyder of the Women's Sports Foundation, says, "The problem is if only 8 percent of the coverage is on women, and the vast majority of the time we're talking about who they're married to, what clothing they're wearing, what kind of parents they are, there's not much room left to say, 'What a great athlete.' " But instead of fighting back against this superficial focus, the WNBA is embracing it.

And from the Chicago Tribune:

"It's all contributing to how to be a professional," league President Donna Orender said of the orientation classes. "I do believe there's more focus on a woman's physical appearance. Men are straight out accepted for their athletic ability. That's reality. I think it's true in every aspect of the work force. This is all about a broader-based education."

Wow. So since society as a whole has sexist double standards, the WNBA thinks it should cave into them and embrace them instead of demanding that those in their own industry treat female athletes as athletes! If anyone is in a position to demand accountability for sports reporting it's the sports associations themselves. Instead, they are choosing the path of least resistance.

I think it is the very disruptive potential of female athletics to gender assumptions about women and the female body that makes me so incredibly disappointed in how female athletes have been received culturally. But it's also really no surprise as I have previously written about how women in general are women first (both woman-as-person and woman-as-body) and are assessed in terms of their womanhood/femininity in light of their sports, politics, etc. Men have the luxury of being the ex-nominated gender-- when was the last time you read an article about whether people are voting their gender if they vote for John McCain? Or about how a football player maintains his masculinity in light of his athletic participation?

From the Tribune:

Renee Brown, the WNBA's vice president of player personnel, said the league aims to show its players as "mothers, daughters, sisters, nieces and entrepreneurs" and their "womanhood" is important to promote the league.

"You're a woman first," Brown said. "You just happen to play sports. They enjoy dressing up and trying on outfits, where back in the day, everyone just wore sweats.

"Call it what you want. We're just celebrating their womanhood."

Unfortunate, yet unfortunately true in our society.

Which leads me to the next sports story, this one via Thomas at Feministe.

The article Thomas discusses was about a female weightlifter that ran in the New York Times sports section. However, the article was more about the woman as wife and mother (of an autistic child) than about the woman as a weightlifter.

In this story, family and spouses are highlighted to a degree that they aren’t in stories about men. It’s as if some explanation is needed for why/how she is able to live as a "successful (traditional) female" outside of other traditional gender expectations.

Whereas earlier I was saying that women objectify themselves outside of their sports activity as a kind of femininity apology. In this story, the femininity apology is about motherhood rather than sexuality (as they are the two social values for women's bodies), in the form of “I may be an athlete, but really, I’m also a good mother”.

As Thomas wrote in the post,

If a man of 31, an international class athlete, were headed to the Olympic trials after a career of triumph, injuries and comebacks, with three kids and a spouse, it would also be true that it took a village to get him there. But I don’t think it would get much attention. I think everyone would just call it normal. But when a woman has kids, how she negotiates the demands of the rest of her life is The Big Question, the one that prompts several paragraphs in a major newspaper. It’s not just the way the role of mother is presumed to take over a woman’s life; it’s especially that this presumption goes unexamined.

And it wasn’t just the reporter. Her coach’s juxtaposition of “average everyday woman” (clearly a pejorative there) with high-level competition and positioning her ambition as “selfish” is exactly the problem. When men compete, they represent. The village isn’t just supporting them, they are bringing the triumph home for their family and friends, communities, nations, etc. But this guy is telling his lifter that she’s doing it all for herself. Way to motivate, coach!

Further, this plays on the idea that once a woman is a mother, anything she does for herself is critiqued as to its "selfishness". Women who work outside the home? Selfish. Women who think their careers are of equal importance to their partner's? Selfish. Women who want orgasms as standard practice? Well, you get the idea. Now in a world when women as mothers are expected to put everyone else first, I suppose I can see why her coach might want to encourage her, telling her she's doing something "for herself". But to term doing something for oneself as "selfish" feeds all sort of negative stereotypes about women who "dare" to do anything outside of their motherly/wifely role.

Lastly, this good bit of news: feministing posted about a report that says girls are participating in sports in record numbers. My only hope is that we can create a sports culture that's more friendly to female athletes and doesn't force onto them the requirement of embodying ideal, traditional femininity too.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me)

A gruesomely destructive message

By Creature

Looks like Bob Herbert didn't get the memo that the Clintons will be running a kinder, gentler campaign as the clock runs out. This from today's NYT:

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years. [...]

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I too believe the landscape has changed. I may be wrong, a lot of people may be wrong, but it's a chance I and millions of others are willing to take. I'd rather bet on the best of human nature than the worst (I believe that's what makes me liberal, after all). Hillary Clinton has based her campaign, since Iowa, on the worst. The difference between now and her pre-North Carolina and Indianapolis rhetoric is that now she has ditched the dog-whistle and picked up a bull horn.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Well, this is ugly!