Category: Old Dish

Here’s an interesting graph on debt accumulation in the last few decades and the presidents under whose watch it occurs. Here’s an adjusted graph, putting the debt as a percentage of GNP. Draw your own conclusions.

Any bets that James Dobson and Karl Rove vetoed? Any bets why?

I have neither the expertise in Texas electoral law nor the kind of knowledge that a Grand Jury would have to judge the validity of the indictment of Tom DeLay. It looks to me like a money-laundering scheme of sorts to circumvent Texas electoral laws:

The indictment charges that DeLay entered “into an agreement” with Colyandro and Ellis to circumvent the state’s ban on corporate contributions by arranging for the donations to be sent first to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington, and then back to Republican candidates in Texas named on a written list prepared in Texas.
According to the indictment, DeLay, Colyandro and Ellis conspired to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas Election Code for the benefit of candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. Colyandro formerly directed the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, known as TRMPAC.

I guess the law is designed to prevent corporate buying of electoral candidates, so you can see why someone like DeLay would want to get around it. Of course, I’m reserving judgment on the ultimate verdict, and DeLay deserves the benefit of being regarded as innocent before being found guilty. But I will say this: there is a clear stench of corruption coming from the Republican power-structure in Washington. It’s been there for a while now. The Abramoff case illustrates it perfectly. With their incoherent big-spending policies already exposing them as conservative frauds, and with each day finding another ethical problem with the GOP leadership, the conditions are ripe for a Democratic come-back in 2006. The only question is whether the Democrats are still too pathetic to take advantage of this.

O’FLANIGAN, TORTURE-ENABLER: Below, you’ll find the role of Timothy E. Flanigan in devising the policies that led to the systematic use of abuse and torture in the U.S. military in Iraq. That alone should bar him from being anywhere near the Justice Department. But he is knee-deep in the Abramoff scandal as well. Surely this is one nomination to which the Senate can calmly say: no.

AVIAN FLU WATCH: National Geographic has now devoted an entire issue to it. Get informed.

This story yesterday in the New York Yimes, hammering a memo once written by John Roberts on libel, is right about everything, except that Roberts didn’t write the memo at all. It makes Stanley and Krugman look almost as accurate as, say, your average blogger.

The torture end-game is approaching – and Rumsfeld and Cheney know it. What is now being done to the hero, Captain Ian Fishback, who braved 17 months of obstruction, threats and intimidation by military brass to keep quiet, is a national disgrace. Fishback has now been sequestered at Fort Bragg under orders restricting his contacts (the pretext is that he is a key witness in a criminal investigation and that he should not be in contact with outsiders while it continues). My sources tell me that he has been subjected to a series of long, arduous interrogations by CID investigators. Predictably, the CID guys are out to find just one thing: they want to know the identities of his two or three NCO corroborators. The CID folks are apparently indifferent to the accounts of wrongdoing – telling him repeatedly not to waste their time with his stories. Fishback knows if he gives their identities up, these folks will also be destroyed – so he’s keeping his silence, so far. The investigators imply that he failed to report abuses, so he may be charged, or that he is peddling falsehoods and will be charged for that. They tell him his career in the Army is over. Meanwhile the peer pressure on him is enormous. I’m reliably told that he has been subjected to an unending stream of threats and acts of intimidation from fellow officers. He is accused of betraying the Army, and betraying his unit by bringing it into disrepute. His motives are challenged. He is accused of siding with the enemy and working for their cause. And it goes on and on. This is not surprising. My email in-tray tells me each day that I am a supporter of Islamo-fascism, a traitor, someone who should be deported and so on, for insisting that legalized torture in the U.S. is one of the most important issues we now face. But I’m a free man and they cannot silence this blog. Fishback, whose courage deserves a medal, is not. They are slowly smearing and breaking him. But I have a feeling we have finally found a man with the integrity, faith and patriotism to stand up to the culture of fear and brutality he is now enduring.

RUMSFELD WANTS HIM BROKEN: Another source informs that the word is around that Rumsfeld has taken a strong interest in this. He is quoted by some as saying “Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly.” And no doubt about it, that may be just what they are doing. Expect some trumped up charges against Fishback soon, similar to what they did to Muslim Chaplain Captain James Yee, whom they accused of treason with no solid evidence and then, when those charges evaporated, went on to accuse him of adultery. The bottom line, as the NYT reports today, is that the military and the Bush administration are determined to stop any real investigation about how torture and abuse came to be so widespread in the U.S. military. The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies that go all the way to the White House. It’s a disgusting cover-up and it rests on breaking the will and resolve of decent servicemen and women brave enough to expose wrong-doing.

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING: Anyone with their eyes open knew all this already. But now, the administration is essentially conceding the reality. Here’s the Washington Post editorial today:

How can it be that an officer of the United States armed services, concerned about detainee mistreatment that he has personally witnessed, could struggle in vain for 17 months to learn the standards of humane treatment the military is applying? The answer to this question appears starkly in the written responses to questions from senators by Timothy E. Flanigan, President Bush’s nominee to serve as deputy attorney general: The Bush administration has no standards for humane treatment of detainees. Capt. Fishback is looking for something that doesn’t exist.

Mr. Flanigan was Alberto R. Gonzales’s deputy when the attorney general served as White House counsel during Mr. Bush’s first term, and he was therefore deeply involved in forming policy on matters related to detainees. Like Mr. Gonzales, he has piously repeated the administration’s insistence that it does not engage in torture. Yet, also following the administration’s disgraceful line, he has refused to say that conduct just short of torture — which is banned by treaty and is a stain on American honor — is either illegal or improper when inflicted on foreigners overseas.

Mr. Bush has promised that all detainees will be treated humanely. Yet, when asked how he would define humane treatment, Mr. Flanigan declared that he does “not believe that the term ‘inhumane’ treatment is susceptible to a succinct definition.” Did the White House provide any guidance as to its meaning? “I am not aware of any guidance provided by the White House specifically related to the meaning of humane treatment.”

Mr. Flanigan could not even bring himself to declare particularly barbaric interrogation tactics either legally or morally off-limits. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) asked him about “waterboarding,” mock executions, physical beatings and painful stress positions. Mr. Flanigan responded: “Whether a particular interrogation technique is lawful depends on the facts and circumstances,” and without knowing these, “it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the legality of the techniques you describe.” And he reiterated that “inhumane” can’t be coherently defined.

All of which is to say that anything short of outright torture goes — or, at least, that nothing is absolutely forbidden.

What more do you need to know? We have administration memos allowing for de facto torture of “enemy combatants” if “military necessity” demands it; we have new, Bush-approved legal definitions of torture that nevertheless allow all the kinds of horrors we have seen at Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, Bagram, Guantanamo, Basra, Camp Mercury and dozens of other sites in the war arena. We have decorated captains testifying at great risk to themselves what has been happening – and we have a clear record of the administration’s attempts to silence and initimidate them. I wonder what is required for this to become the national outrage it should be. A first step must be for the Senate to vote down Flanigan’s pending nomination to be deputy attorney general. We already have a man who signed the torture memo heading the Justice Department. His name is Alberto Gonzales. Yes: a man who has approved torture of people without trial is now in charge of this country’s justice system. The second must be for Rumsfeld to resign immediately. The third must be new legislation forbidding any cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of military prisoners, with clear guidleines as to what is allowed and not allowed (legislation that Cheney is adamantly opposing and threatening to veto). Lastly, we need an independent – non-military – investigation which has access to every civilian and solider involved, with subpoena power and immunity for anyone testifying. If criminal charges be brought against Rumsfeld, so be it. And ultimately, this goes to the Oval Office. Bush has brought the deepest dishonor imaginable on his office. The last president was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil lawsuit. Our current one has legalized torture in the U.S. military, and is thereby responsible for the deaths from torture of scores and the staining of the military’s honor for ever. Which crime is worse?

The Washington Post, which has been exemplary in its coverage and editorial policy on this, reprints Fishback’s letter today. Read it. It’s posted in full below. Read the Human Rights Watch report. Stop looking the other way. Fight back. Demand new legislation to stop this. Demand an independent investigation that can find the real culprits, not the scapegoated grunts. The Democrats, by and large, have been useless. Only McCain can save us now:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the “spirit” of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General’s office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda’s, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President’s ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is “America.”

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

— Capt. Ian Fishback

1st Battalion,

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,

82nd Airborne Division,

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

The overwhelming majority of our soldiers are as decent and as honest and as moral as this hero. They have been betrayed by incompetence, brutality and treachery at the very top of this administration. And those responsible must be brought to justice. But we also owe them new legislation to draw a line between the stain of the Bush era and the future. We cannot undo the profound damage this president has done to this country’s honor and military. But we can stop it now. And we must.

MORE EVIDENCE: This blog broke the story of more Geneva Convention violations recently: the posting of mutilated and dead Iraqis photographed by U.S. soldiers on a website also devoted to porn. Now, there’s an investigation. No other blog, to my knowledge. followed up. (Update: at least one did.) (Update II: As you can see from my original posting where I gave full credit and a link, the corpses-for-porn story was in fact first noticed by Eric Muller. I’m sorry I forgot this. Here’s the link again.)

It’s embarrassing. Daily Kossers in the comments section expose his combination of moral condescension and ignorance of basic statistics. He’s reduced to saying that he cares about racism and sexism (which I don’t doubt) but that I, and others in the reality-based community, don’t. For the record, I believe with every ounce of my being that discriminating against an individual on the basis of race or gender is deeply, profoundly immoral. (That’s why I oppose affirmative action, by the way; and why I favor equality in marriage rights.) But Armando’s view that women are somehow being discriminated generally in higher education makes no sense at all. As anyone on any major campus will tell you, and as Glenn Reynolds points out today, women are now outnumbering men on most campuses. Is that a function of anti-male sexism? Or merely a recognition of individual merit?

“Sometimes in my dark moments, I think [George W. Bush] is ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ designed to discredit all the ideas I believe in.” – David Brooks, TimesSelect hostage, on Meet The Press, Sunday. Read the link for the full context, where David also has hopeful words to say about the president. But let me just say this: for my part, those dark moments keep growing in number.

It doesn’t surprise me that the newest hero in the American armed services, Capt Ian Fishback, is a devout Christian. Fishback tried for 17 months to get his superiors to address systematic, condoned torture and abuse of military prisoners. His superiors knew they had the green light from the very top and did nothing but intimidate Fishback. He persisted. Why? He has a conscience. As he put it: “We are America. Our actions should be held to a higher standard. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is ‘America.'” Part of his courage, however, came from faith:

[F]or Fishback, who friends describe as a deeply religious Christian and patriot who prays before each meal and can quote from the Constitution, his ordeal may be just beginning. Army officials have temporarily furloughed him from Special Operations training school at Fort Bragg, N.C., to make him available to the Criminal Investigation Command as it sorts through his allegations.

The Bush administration policy of allowing cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners is about as deep a moral crime as one can imagine. It violates every central tenet of Christianity, and the hard-won honor of the U.S. military, which is why some evangelical Christians, to their credit, have spoken up about it. These last few days, however, I have waited for others to take note of what Fishback has testified to, at great personal risk. I have waited for his courage to be hailed, especially on conservative Christian blogs. There are few moral evils worse than torture. So why the silence? Why?

Another mass-murderer gets his come-uppance. Some mild rejoicing is in order. There is evidence that we are making some gradual progress against the insurgency, although so much depends on the political developments of the next few months. My hope is that the experience of voting might prompt many Sunnis to abandon the Jihadist and Baathist insurgents. My fear is that the new constitution is too tough on the Sunnis – especially with regard to oil revenue – and that if they vote in large numbers but still fail to reject the current deal, they might sour on the new Iraq even further. But the bottom line in Iraq is that any move to democracy under even optimal circumstances would require a grueling campaign against the minority who once ran Iraq with appalling brutality and will not go quietly. Better for other Iraqis to battle them than us. But as long as we can, we need to train and fight alongside the defenders of the nascent Iraqi state. Now is not the time to cut and run. Now is the time to stay the course, while constantly adapting tactics. And by ‘stay the course,’ I envisage some American military role for at least five more years, and probably longer.