Month: August 2009

Being Vague Is A Crime?

by Patrick Appel

Daphne Eviatar asks if intentionally vague torture guidelines by Yoo et al could be criminal:

If the Justice Department lawyers who approved those guidelines knew they left substantial room for misinterpretation but approved them anyway, they could be implicated in encouraging the interrogators’ transgressions. Whether that’s a criminal offense, an ethics violation or just sloppy lawyering, it directly implicates the Justice Department in the CIA’s actions.

This seems more likely to be raised in defense of the CIA interrogators than against the lawyers. An investigation of the relationship between the OLC and the executive might turn up criminal wrongdoing, but bad legal work isn't prosecutable on its own. Otherwise, The Washington Independent is doing an impressive job of picking apart today's torture releases.

The View From Your Recession

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

My "recession" started in 2001 when the tech bubble burst. It was tough finding work, so I went back to school, figuring I would temp while finishing my BA. I am now registered with five temp agencies and willing to take just about anything that comes along. They all know I am skilled, reliable and honest – something that  seems to be in short supply in the temp world. But I am at the mercy of employers, who can ask to have me moved for any reason. Two different recruiters have told me that not only are potential employees seeking very specific skill sets, they are also specific about education now. It's no longer good enough to type quickly and accurately and know several software packages to work in an office environment. I now have to have a degree in a specific field, even if the job is data entry for three weeks to get an office caught up.

Torturing The Right Way

by Patrick Appel

Glenn Greeenwald is not a fan of the investigation Holder announced today:

As a practical matter, Holder is consciously establishing as the legal baseline — he's vesting with sterling legal authority — those warped, torture-justifying DOJ memos.  Worse, his pledge of immunity today for those who complied with those memos went beyond mere interrogators and includes everyone, policymakers and lawyers alike:  "the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees."  Thus, as long as, say, a White House official shows that (a) the only torture methods they ordered were approved by the OLC and (b) they did not know those methods were criminal, then they would be entitled to full-scale immunity under the standard Holder announced today.

This quite likely sets up, at most, a process where a few low-level sacrificial lambs — some extra-sadistic intelligence versions of Lynndie Englands — might be investigated and prosecuted where they tortured people the wrong way.  Those who tortured "the right way" — meaning the way the OLC directed — will receive full-scale immunity.

Andrew feared this type of investigation calling it "much worse than doing nothing."

Teach a Woman to Fish

by Conor Friedersdorf

Ann Friedman is against saving the world's women:

When I tweeted last week that the "we Westerners must save women!" phrasing rubbed me the wrong way, a few folks piped up to offer alternatives. Emily Douglas suggested, "How about getting out of the way so women can save the world?" I like that perspective much better.

The international women's rights groups that have worked on these issues for years (WEDO, MADRE, AWID, etc.) are absent from the article. And, consequently, so is their framing that in order to build a better world, women need to be empowered to be an active part in making that change. The U.S. swooping in to "save" them will not actually fix things in a sustainable way. International women's rights groups, most of whom are working in collaboration with women on the ground, emphasize the importance of supporting grassroots movements and change that is driven by women rather than imposed on them.

It's a good insight — one that is usefully applied to efforts at helping disadvantaged people generally.

The Document Dump II

by Chris Bodenner

Ugh:

CIA interrogators threatened to kill the children of one detainee at the height of the Bush administration's war on terror and implied that another's mother would be sexually assaulted.

I wish I could say I am shocked, but when one of the chief architects of the torture memos testifies that the president has the inherent constitutional right to crush the testicles of a child, none of us should be.

The Document Dump

by Patrick Appel

Ackerman got ahold of the CIA Inspector General's 2004 torture report. Marcy Wheeler is already reading through it. As she writes, this paragraph is striking:

With respect to two detainees at those sites, the use and frequency of one EIT, the waterboard, went beyond the projected use of the technique as originally described to DoJ. The Agency, on 29 July 2003, secured oral DoJ concurrence that certain deviations are not significant for the purposes of DoJ's legal opinions.

The View From Your Sickbed

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I have asthma — I have since I was 7. Along with it, I have allergies and a host of other problems from taking steroids for so long when I was younger. I work in an industry that doesn't provide health insurance; you more or less have to work as a freelancer. If you've worked long enough, you can sometimes get into unions or guilds that help provide health care, but these also cost money to get into. I cannot find insurance that covers my pre-existing conditions, meaning that I spend almost half of my monthly income of $1600 on medical bills and insurance coverage.

And this is without anything catastrophic happening. I can't afford to take the medications that would really prevent my asthma from being a problem — the daily inhaled medication that helps me most, Advair, would cost me nearly $300 out of pocket per month. So, instead of being able to spend that, I end up getting really sick a couple times a year and, if I can get the doctor to bill it as bronchitis, I can afford a nebulizer treatment every now and again.

I work full time, I'm not frivolous with my money, I can't afford to be. Surviving in LA on $1600 a month is a hell of a feat for people who don't have to pay medical bills, but it's enough that I don't qualify for any government assistance. If I didn't have to pay my medical bills, I'd be able to save or invest or look into starting my own business, but I have to work paycheck to paycheck because of a completely treatable disease that could be prevented from affecting my life if I could afford to do so.

It's pretty tough to be only 25 and face the fact that unless I am extraordinarily lucky, I can't afford to do anything but just get by. How will I be able to save up to retire? How will I be able to afford children? To travel? To take risks in my career? Yes, I have a chronic condition, but I'm not sick, I'm extremely smart and capable, why should my life be defined by something that is so minor?

I think people lose sight of the fact that good health is something that benefits everyone. If more people are healthy, more quality work can get done. If I could afford preventative care then I wouldn't lose the days I do when I get really sick. And it's like this for so many people with chronic conditions, asthma, diabetes, depression, the list goes on. People could be much more productive members of society if they could afford to treat themselves.

Filtering The Front Lines

by Chris Bodenner

Stars and Stripes reports that all embeds in Afghanistan are subject to screening by the Rendon Group:

[The PR firm] gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion. Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives […] U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter “refused to highlight” good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.

Typical liberal bias from an elite, East Coast rag like the Stars and Stripes.

(Hat tip: Andrew Belonsky)