Month: October 2005

A useful summary of the state-of-play from Tom Maguire.

I’m not ignoring what looks like a big success. It’s just that in order to judge whether the Sunni vote really did split, which is the critical issue, we need more accurate data than we now have. I don’t want to be premature. But it’s encouraging simply to witness a largely peaceful exercise of mass democracy in an Arab-Muslim country. For the second time. That in itself is a positive sign.

She even succeeded in delaying her own story with the result that 100,000 copies of the national edition of the paper couldn’t include the package. Why hasn’t she been fired?

Could marijuana actually help long and short-term memory? New research offers some surprising clues. Meanwhile, in Bush’s America, marijuana arrests continue to spiral upwards. There are now more arrests for mere pot possession than for violent crime. The whole policy is insane.

THE TORTURE STRUGGLE: Here’s a simple question. Since, according to the president, the United States doesn’t torture anyone or apply cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment to detainees as a matter of policy, why would he threaten to veto a bill that merely outlines what is already illegal under our existing obligations? Hmmm. He doesn’t want his hands tied, so to speak? He means tied by the law and the existing codes in the army field manual? But why on earth would he ever need to circumvent those if he doesn’t endorse cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees? Meanwhile, of the nine pro-torture senators, three are on the House-Senate conference committee responsible for coming up with a final amendment to the military appopriations bill. The amendment is in dange of actually codifying torture in some respects, if those senators get their way. Marty Lederman explains why here.

There’s an important new piece in the Scottish Sunday Herald. It’s important because it has two on-the-record sources: the CIA’s Michael Scheuer, who set up the rendition program for alleged terrorists under Clinton and saw its evolution under Bush; and Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who saw the rendition program first-hand in one of its more notorious locations. Two points are absolutely clear. The United States under president Bush has a pro-torture policy. The U.S. now uses torture – both by its own officials and out-sourced to grotesque dictatorships like that in Uzbekistan. Money quote from Scheuer:

“You’d think I’m an ass if I said nobody was tortured. There was more of a willingness in the White House to turn a blind eye to the legal niceties than within the CIA. The Agency always knew it would be left holding the baby for this one.”

The reason for the original White House memos, redefining torture into meaninglessness, was precisely CIA resistance to White House pressure to torture captives. The CIA torturers wanted legal and political cover. They got it. The second point is that torture was invariably useless as an intelligence extracter. As Scheuer confides, “[W]e never expected to get anything from interrogations. Al-Qaeda are trained to fight the jihad from their jail cells, they are masters of counter-interrogation. They’ll give you old information or false information. The CIA never felt it would help to torture these people.” The decision to allow torture was not a rational one; it was irrational. The British ambassador to Uzbekistan outlines what went on:

“In Uzbekistan, it works like this. Person X is tortured and signs a statement saying he’s going to crash planes into buildings, or that he’s linked to Osama bin Laden. He’s also asked if he knows persons X, Y and Z in the UK who are involved in terrorism. He’ll be tortured until he agrees, though he’s never met them.”
The confession is sent to the CIA where, according to Murray, it is ‘sanitised’. Before sanitisation the report “will have the guy’s name on it, the date of the interrogation, where it took place – and might still be bloodstained. The CIA then issues a debriefing document, which does not name the individual. It does not say he was tortured. It only says that it is a detainee debriefing from a friendly overseas security service. This will set out the brief facts, such as ‘we now know person X in London is in Islamic Jihad and plans to blow up Canary Wharf’. This goes to MI6 – the British and Americans share everything – and then it goes to MI6’s customers: the Prime Minister, the defence secretary, the home secretary, the foreign secretary, and other key ministers and officials. I was one of these customers too because I was the ambassador to Tashkent. I’d look at these reports and, to be frank, I realised they were bollocks. One talked about terror camps in the hills near Samarkand. I knew the precise location being talked about and it wasn’t true.”

We sold our soul for nothing. Nat Hentoff has more to say here.

HECHT VERSUS HECHT: The man closest to Harriet Miers has different views, depending on whether he’s talking in private to fellow conservatives or in public. Quote One:

“What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, “Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?”

“Absolutely,” said Judge Kinkeade.

“I agree with that,” said Justice Hecht. “I concur.”

Quote Two:

Justice Hecht also said he couldn’t predict how Ms. Miers might vote on a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

“If you’re asking, ‘Is she going vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, or Lawrence v. Texas [a 2003 decision striking down Texas’ law against same-sex sodomy], I don’t know that you can ask anyone that because you don’t know until you are there.”

So which is it? Time to ask Mr Hecht again, no? (Hat tip: Info-theory.)

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “I’m not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller. I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her … She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies,” and “tried to stampede it into the paper.” – former NYT contract reporter, Craig Pyes, in a 2000 memo to NYT editors, after working with Miller in Iraq on a story about WMDs.

At least Ramesh is honest, with somewhat forced cheeriness, in the NYT. Limbaugh’s “state-of-conservatism” piece reads like something an aide to Andropov might have written in the waning years of the Soviet Union. We still get exhausted, dead-as-a-parrot cliches like this one:

The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.

How many ways does this sentence not make sense? Limbaugh later details how “the left” is actually divided in a hundred ways. If it is split into warring factions, why is it so monolithic a few paragraphs earlier? And the relationship between the Supreme Court and the expansion of government spending and power is, shall we say, strained. If anything, the Court has been the only brake on the Bush administration’s astonishing expansion of government power. Maybe the memo never made it to Rush, so let’s see if we can get this through to him: it was the “held-in-contempt” Bill Clinton who reduced the size of government; it is your president and the conservative movement that has expanded it at a faster clip than at any time since FDR. That’s not an opinion. It’s what is called a fact. Deal with it. Or you too will never haul yourself out of the past.

Where has he been these past two months? And is he really coming back? Some speculation on my part here.

“‘I voted then, for Saddam, of course, because I was afraid,’ said Jabar Ahmed Ismail, 75, living on a $100-a-month pension from a lifetime as an oil pipeline repairman. ‘But this time, I came here by my own choice. I am not afraid anymore. I am a free man.'” – the New York Times today. This, of course, is bigger news than Judy Miller’s pathetic self-defense. If the turnout reaches 65 percent, this will have been a real triumph for the forces of sanity and self-government. More tomorrow, when there’s more data to analyze. But I can see only progress so far.

The comments I’d recommend are Mickey’s and Arianna’s. Funny how the shrewdest journalists on the case are geographically furthest away from D.C. I’ve now read the two NYT articles twice carefully, and all I can say is that, without all the evidence the Grand Jury is hearing, it seems to me some of the most plausible conclusions are

a) Miller is pulling a Clinton when she says she cannot recall who gave her the name “Valerie Flame.” So she is either protecting Libby or someone else entirely or her own reporting. What is she hiding and why?

b) Fitzgerald should never have agreed to restrict his questioning of Miller to the Libby conversations and the Wilson matter. (Score one for Bob Bennett!) The critical and lamest Miller argument is that the reference to “Valerie Flame” was somehow separated in her notebook from the notes she took from a conversation with Libby in the same notebook. The only way to really judge whether the notes back up her assertion of the name being unconnected to Libby – with no sign of whence it came – is to look at the notes. The best people to interpret the notes are other journalists who do the same thing that Miller does. But we find out that “Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes.” It also appears that Miller was at best misleading and at worst lying to her editors when she said no to the question of whether she was one of six reporters leaked to in the case. Wherever her loyalty lies, it is obviously not to the New York Times. Why did her editors not insist on having her turn over the notes? Are they not NYT property? Or is she somehow in a “star-reporter zone” outside of normal editorial control? I thought the Raines era was over.

c) Libby’s cryptic letter to Miller persuades me, at least, that he was trying to influence her testimony. Even Miller cannot wriggle out of that obvious Occam conclusion. But if Libby and Miller were completely innocent of discussing anything illegal and believed so themselves, why would Libby need to influence her testimony at all? In other words, there are two plausible reasons for Miller’s defense of source-confidentiality, even though Libby waivered it. The first is that source confidentiality is sacrosanct, period; and Miller believed Libby was being “pressured” to cooperate. But if neither of them had anything to hide, why was it “pressure”? Why wasn’t it a chance to clear the record for good? And why would she think he would fear her testimony? The second plausible explanation is that Miller and Libby did indeed have something to hide, and were both responsible for spreading discrediting information about Joe Wilson’s wife, because they had become jointly wedded to a cause: exonerating themselves on the WMD fiasco. Whether either of them knew Plame was undercover or whether it will be possible to get an indictment on such grounds, is another matter. But a fair reading of what we know so far certainly suggests to me that protecting a mini-conspiracy of sorts between a reporter and her source is more credible an explanation for Miller’s jail-time than Miller’s histrionic display of First Amendment righteousness.

d) If all of this is true, I still find it hard to believe that Libby would be dumb enough to send Miller a letter of the kind he did. Why not just wait it out till October 28? The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he was genuinely upset that his co-conspirator and friend was stuck in jail, that all the other witnesses had exonerated him, that he had exonerated himself, and so she could go in and cover for him. The coast, in other words, was now clear. Except that Miller’s notes did not exonerate Libby. So Miller had to have a convenient memory loss about the central issue in the whole case.

e) I find it incredible that critical notes from Miller relating a key conversation with Libby were only recently “found”.

As I say, I don’t know what the Grand Jury knows. A lot of what I’ve just surmised might be undone by more evidence elsewhere that we all know nothing about yet. All I’m trying to do is use common sense in reviewing what has now been reported. I haven’t had much interest in this case so far, and have tended to admire Judy Miller’s work in the past. It’s also relevant that the mass of evidence now suggests that Libby and Miller were right: Saddam had long been interested in getting uranium from Niger. But, once again, the follow-up (cover-up?) to the original issue has now become something bigger than the issue itself. And what we now know about that seems pretty stinky to me. It certainly suggests that Miller long ago ceased being anything like a reporter whose first loyalty is to give as much information to her editors and readers as possible, within reason. (There’s a place for people like that, but they are not as news reporters at the New York Times.) And it suggests that there was indeed a coordinated administration strategy to discredit Wilson by slipping into the media ether that his wife was a CIA woman and that he should be discounted on nepotistic grounds. (Forget, for a minute the hilarious idea of anyone in the Bush administration trying to discredit anyone else because of nepotism and cronyism.) Who coordinated that strategy? From reading the NYT report, I’d say that Fitzgerald is very interested in finding out if Cheney is at the heart of it. Uh oh.

ROVE AGONISTES: My Sunday Times column is now up.

YGLESIAS AWARD NOMINEE: “I’m filling out my absentee ballot, and I’ve been trying to find a reason to vote no on 77, Arnold’s effort to create a non-partisan redistricting process in California. And I can’t think of any. I’m not sure why busting the current incumbent-protection racket would be a bad thing, why creating competitive districts and forcing incumbents to be more responsive to their constituents than the current 70-80 percent partisan districts require.” – Markos Moulitsas, putting democracy before party.

As readers know, I don’t believe in forcibly outing other gay men and women. But I do strongly believe that those gay men and women now in powerful positions in the Republican party have a pressing moral responsibility to be out to their bosses and colleagues and public. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerrerio, has just written a stirring call for these people to realize that they have a unique responsibility at this point in history:

During this moment in the culture war, we face a fight that will determine how LGBT Americans are treated for decades to come. Those who choose to be missing in action are running from the most critical fight of our generation. During these historic times, the closet is not only a place which suffocates personal dignity, it is also a place which suffocates the powerful force of personal integrity that can change the hearts and minds of even the most conservative Americans and most conservative politicians. Coming out doesn’t have to mean putting a sticker on your car, flying a rainbow flag from your front porch, or marching in a parade. Coming out means different things to different people. It may be as simple as putting a picture of your partner on your desk at work, sharing your personal story with your boss, or speaking up when someone says something anti-gay. For others, it may be as difficult as offering a letter of resignation instead of implementing or assisting with an anti-gay campaign strategy.
For many conservatives, coming out will come with real and profound sacrifice.

Imagine that. Sacrifice for something more important than your own comfort level. No one should be forced into a decision he or she feels uncomfortable with. But that doesn’t mean and shouldn’t mean that the Republican gay closet is morally defensible. It is increasingly a failure to do what is simply right at a time when so many in the GOP are intent on doing wrong.

THE TROOP STRENGTH DEBATE: Striding Lion considers the past and present alternatives.

CHEER-UP TIME: Two emailers address my pre-apocalyptic gloom:

I think your analysis of flu-terrorism-technology-etc. is spot-on; and the only cheer I can offer is long, long term, and grows out of Robert Wright’s analysis (brilliant, I think) in “Non-Zero.” I think, as you suggest, terrorists will sooner or later succeed in exploiting ever-more-accessible and ever-more-sophisticated technology to inflict immense damage. This will, once repeated enough times, prompt most people and governments to recognize that the only effective counter (for management — cure is out of the question) is greater interdependence, greater trust, greater cooperation, greater devolution of power to ordinary people. “Flat” management a necessity for self-preservation. If ordinary folks are to be entrusted with more power, they will have to be given a stake in the mutual polity — i.e., they will have to be assured a decent standard of living and a real vote, even in developing countries. In short, we will have to choose between dying and becoming our brothers’ keepers.
Some governments will try Orwellian totalitarianism, but it won’t work — there will be too many Brownies in charge.
How soon? Dunno. Long, long time. Many, many people suffering and dying first.
Feel better now?

Thanks a lot. If you haven’t read Bob Wright’s book, “Non-Zero,” you really should. For some reason, it didn’t take off the way his first book did – but it’s a superb examination of, er, the whole of human history. Since I have a possibly even gloomier view of human nature than Bob, I’m unconvinced. Then along comes anther email-therapist:

I’ve thought about the problem of the escalating force multiplier for a long time now and haven’t been able to conceive of more than the obvious solution: the End of Privacy. I see a world where, in fifty years, everyone has the ability (and the right) to see what everyone else is doing-physically, financially, whatever-in real time. Computers will analyze everyone’s behavior and identify those whose actions and transactions are suspicious, dangerous, or unapproved. It doesn’t have to be as Orwellian as it sounds–government itself will be just as transparent.

Given how lttle privacy we already have, maybe the trade-off may not be so bad. either way, the golden age of freedom may be heading toward an eclipse.