On a Last Chance Power Drive

Apparently, some dim bulb in the EPA Energy Star program got the bright idea that, in order to push efficient lighting, etc., it would be a great idea to make fun of alternate-fueled vehicles (you can see the video of the ad by clicking the links on the EnergyStar site). As described in news reports (as pointed out by Daily Kos):

In a 60-second version of the public service announcement, a woman named Suzanne says she is concerned about pollution and global warming, but laments the homegrown efforts of her husband, Mark, to cut emissions from the family car. Mark - nerdy, pudgy, harried - is shown rigging up their car, first with a sail, then a microwave contraption using huge satellite dishes, and finally a helium tank with a bulbous hose.

Now, speaking as a new Prius owner, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those clowns at EPA - I don't think that they did this as part of some plot to protect the auto industry from improved efficiency standards. But, I think the fact that this ad was even made, does show that we have some, well, ignorant people setting environmental policies these days.

Where the Bands Are

Now this is an idea I can get behind (from www.draftbruce.com):

Dear Bruce:

We the undersigned need you.

Our country's leadership is in desperate need of change.

On September 1, the Republicans will hold their convention in New York City and will nominate George Bush for President. Many people will see this event as it will be broadcast on all the major television networks. However, an opportunity exists at that time to make it clear to Americans that they can choose an alternative to George Bush.

I have put Giants Stadium on hold on September 1 in the hope that you will lead the music industry in coming together and perform in a concert for change. Once it is known that you are involved, many other artists will want to perform with you. Together your collective voices and music will send a clear message to all Americans that our country needs their vote to create change. The event is called VoteAid: "Concert for Change" and we think that it has the potential to become the largest concert in history. We would like the money that this concert generates to go to support voter registration and participation throughout the country, but more importantly your decision to play at exactly the same time George Bush is being nominated will focus all Americans on the importance in this election for their future as well as the future of the world.

Okay, maybe it's a little hokey, and an imposition on Mr. Springsteen to make such a demand. On the other hand, if you visit Bruce Springsteen's offical website, and click on the "News" link, he currently has reprinted Al Gore's speech of May 26 (which closes, for example, with "So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands"), describing it as "one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time". So, if you wish, you can visit www.draftbruce.com and sign the petition.

No One Here Knows How it Started

Does anybody remember why we invaded Iraq? Not the myriad reasons touted on cable shout-fests and by bloggering pundits, but the actual, official, legal reason approved by the U.S. Congress? The October 16, 2002 Joint Resolution, the basis for the President proceeding to invade Iraq in March of 2003, required as a condition that the President provide Congress with his determination that -

- acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

With WMDs being scarce, that terrorist connection became even more important to the Administration. Most recently, that was laid out by the Press Secretary:

Q: Why hasn't the administration made more of the U.N. inspectors' report that says Saddam Hussein was dismantling his missile and WMD sites before and during the war? And doesn't that, combined with the now proven al Qaeda link between Iraq -- between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization -- unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think in terms of Iraq and ties to terrorism, Secretary Powell outlined the former regime's support for and ties to terrorists when he went before the United Nations. Director Tenet has testified in open session before Congress about what we know about those ties. You heard the President talk about some of those ties earlier today in the Rose Garden when he was asked a question. So I think those ties are well known, and we have talked about them previously.

Certainly, when you look at someone like al Zarqawi, he was an individual who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go to war, and he is someone who remains in Iraq. And he is a senior al Qaeda associate.

Q: Is that why you went to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- Helen, I think we spelled out our reasons why we went to war.

Q: I think you did.

MR. McCLELLAN: And certainly ties between the regime --

Q: There were weapons of mass destruction.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- ties between the regime and terrorism was a very serious concern.

Today, what has been confirmed by the 9-11 Commission? (Link is a .pdf)

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudenese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

(Emphasis added) No connection whatsoever. When did the U.S. first realize this? Did we ever have any "credible evidence" that they were connected? Did the President ever provide any support for his determination that they were connected, which he was required to do?

A Restless Heart

Well, you've probably heard by now - Rush Limbaugh and his wife are ending their marriage (the third for both, apparently). Look, it happens to a lot of people. It's nothing to carry on about.

Nevertheless, it got me to thinking. I'm tired of hearing that the way to save "traditional marriage" is to ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions. I'm in a "traditional marriage", and I have never been able to figure out why it mattered at all to me if the couple next door were both guys. Sometimes I think that the whole "gay marriage" debate would be over, if every American realized that they do, in fact, know someone who is gay. It may be easier for some people to be against something desired by strangers, than someone you actually know.

Anyway, while a lot of Americans don't know a gay person, or realize that they know one, there are a whole lot who do know who Rush Limbaugh is. They invite him into their homes, cars and offices every weekday. They may listen to him with their children, and make approving comments about his opinions.

So, I have to ask the obvious question: What is a greater danger to traditional marriage - seeing two people entering and staying in a life-long relationship, or seeing someone you know and respect ending another in a series of marriages?

Some Folks are Born Made to Wave the Flag

A little good news/bad news on the Pledge of Allegiance front. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ninth Circuit declaring that reciting "under God" as part of the pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's decision was based on standing, however. That is, they decided that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, did not actually have a legal right to represent the interests of his daughter (who lives with her mother, who has sole legal custody). That leaves the substantive issue to another day.

But the good news, as pointed out by No More Mister Nice Blog, is that this removes the pledge as an "election-year wedge issue". The bad news, as noticed by Mr. Balkin at Balkinization, is the intimation in the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas that the Establishment Clause should not apply to the states.

I'd be more worried about the implications of the Thomas view of the law, than about whether the pledge includes "under God".

Don't Get Caught on the Wrong Side of That Line

As reported this week by the Rome correspondent John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter:

A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.

Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken.

According to sources, Sodano did not respond to the request.

"Not all the American bishops are with me", says the President. What would give him that idea?

We join with Pope John Paul in the conviction that war is not "inevitable" and that "war is always a defeat for humanity." This is not a matter of ends, but means. Our bishops' conference continues to question the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11. With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.

That was a statement from America's Catholic bishops on the eve of war last year. More recently, they've commented on the "Torture, what torture?" situation.

The gravity of the threats we face tempts us to tolerate an ends-justify-the-means morality. The inherent justice of our cause and the perceived necessities involved in stopping terrorism can lead to a minimalist morality that accepts a "permissive" interpretation of international law, the "inevitability" of mounting civilian casualties in Iraq, and the "realism" of an over-reliance on military responses to the problem of global terrorism.

The moral challenge at this moment is to address the horrendous cases of abuse in a way that proves to the world – and, most importantly, to ourselves – that our nation has not succumbed to these risks. The universal condemnation of what has taken place at Abu Ghraib is a hopeful sign that, despite the unspeakable evils done to us and the terrible threats we face, our nation is committed to acting in full accord with fundamental moral norms and America's cherished ideals of liberty and justice for all. In doing so, we will uphold international law, strengthen the moral fiber of our nation, and best honor the memory of the victims of September 11th and the soldiers and civilians who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, I know that the President was talking about other issues, such as same-sex marriage, when he seemed to ask that the American bishops get more "with" him. On balance, given the Catholic view on issues of war and peace, help for the poor, worker rights and the environment (to name a few), Bush may prefer for the bishops to keep quiet. Basically, the President seems to be all for having religious support to tell other people what to do, but can't be bothered with advice about how he should act. That just makes it more outrageous for him to be trying to claim that the "religious" vote should belong to him.

Or, as the good folks at Get Your War On have put it,

Remember when a reporter asked George W. Bush who his favorite political philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ"? Do you think Jesus would have rolled over in his grave, if he hadn't risen from it?

You Better Look Hard and Look Twice

With all the torture authorization revelations now tumbling out, I think it's time to revisit other episodes in our "War on Terror". Specifically, a matter I've commented on here before, the case of Captain James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was detained on, and then "cleared" of, espionage charges. Back in March, I had reviewed the details of the case and his release. At the end of that post, I noted the official statement on behalf of the then-commander at Guantanamo:

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, dismissed all charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified information pending against Army Chaplain James J. Yee, ending an investigation that began with his apprehension at the airport in Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Fla., in September 2003. Citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence, Miller decided to drop these charges. Miller made his decision after consultation with government lawyers and intelligence officials. Although Miller considered Yee's offer to undergo a debriefing in exchange for the government dropping the charges, granting him immunity and supporting his resignation, relevant law enforcement agencies could not support Yee's request for immunity.

(Emphasis added). Back in March, I had asked, "What 'relevant law enforcement agencies' wanted the Army just to drop this, and are they the same ones who told [the customs officer] to detain Captain Yee in the first place? And finally, will anybody in the news media bother to pursue any of these questions?" Now, however, a more pointed question must be asked: What did Chaplain Yee know about the treatment of the Guantanamo detainees, and were they trying to keep him quiet?

I am not normally prone to speculation like this. However, there are enough circumstances present to warrant including Chaplain Yee in the investigation. As noted in May:

The decision to jail Yee was made by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, then commander of Guantanamo's detention camp. He oversaw the espionage investigations of all four men. He has since been transferred to Iraq, where he is now engulfed in the controversy involving prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

When the Army dropped six criminal counts against Yee in March, military officials said they did so to avoid making sensitive information public — not because he was innocent.

If you remember, as previously reported, this is not the first time General Miller was sent to Iraq:

"The idea was to get a handle on what worked in Cuba and to apply it to Iraq," says one of the officials. "The trend [in Iraq] was negative, and they wanted that reversed, and they wanted Saddam's head on a platter."

Cambone tasked his deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, with traveling to Guantanamo Bay and assessing whether tactics employed there that had successfully produced “actionable intelligence” might be transferred to Iraq.

Within a few weeks, Boykin had dispatched Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the officer who had implemented Gonzales’ "new paradigm" interrogation rules at Guantanamo Bay, off to Baghdad to figure out how to crack captive insurgents.

“There was a realization that the U.S. needed to be much more methodical about getting at the insurgent networks in Iraq,” says William Arkin, an NBC News military analyst and intelligence specialist. “There was a well-known understanding that these thousands of Iraqis who were being detained needed to be exploited, and Boykin definitely dispatched [Maj. Gen. Geoffrey] Miller to figure that out.

And as also reported, General Miller's visit to Iraq in August of 2003 resulted in some changes there:

So Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the Coalition commander in Iraq, and his top intel officer, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, asked for a fixer. They got one in Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commandant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. military had held more than 600 detainees for more than two years without charges. A Texan with a jutting jaw and thinning hair, Miller was nothing if not self-assured, much like his ultimate superior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According to a subsequent inquiry by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, Miller's task was "to review current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence." Translated into English, that meant to beef up interrogation techniques so as to break prisoners more quickly. Or as Karpinski puts it, Miller's plan was to "Gitmo-ize" the place, to teach the soldiers manning Abu Ghraib his best psychological and physical techniques for squeezing information out of detainees. That included using Karpinski's MPs to "enhance the intelligence effort." At a meeting of top military-intelligence and MP commanders last September, Miller bluntly told Karpinski: "You're going to see. We have control, and [the prisoners] know it."

(Emphasis added) We now know more about the techniques which were authorized at Guantanamo, under the "Torture, what torture?" approach:

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally approved four special interrogation techniques used on two al-Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who then talked about the terrorist network and its plans, the commander of US forces in Latin America said today.

Army General James Hill, who heads the US Southern Command, declined to describe the techniques. He said other detainees might "figure out a way to resist those techniques" if they were disclosed.

But Hill specifically denied that police dogs have been used to intimidate detainees during interrogations at Guantanamo, contrary to a sworn statement by an Army intelligence officer under investigation in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

In the statement, as reported May 26 by The Washington Post, Col. Thomas Pappas, commander at Abu Ghraib when abuses of detainees occurred, said the use of dogs was urged by Major General Geoffrey Miller in a 2003 visit to Iraq.

We are also learning now that other new "techniques" were approved, for use at Guantanamo - which General Miller could also have brought over to Iraq on his 2003 visit:

According to people who have seen the interrogation matrix, according to the official statements of the Pentagon spokesman, the 24 or so techniques that Secretary Rumsfeld approved fall far short of anything that they would consider to be torture. Now of course we have to take their word for it because they haven't revealed what those techniques are. But according to the Pentagon spokesman, 17 of those techniques are ones that already are used in the army. They're part of the army's field manual on interrogation that's been in place for years. Seven of them are not... four of them require Rumsfeld's personal authorization before they can be used.

There are more details of the Rumsfeld approval issue, in a PBS NewsHour interview at this link (along with some enlightening transcripts of Attorney General Ashcroft's grilling in the Senate yesterday).

So, where are we? It seems that General Miller was authorized, directly by the Secretary of Defense, to use additional "techniques" on the Guantanamo prisoners. He is then dispatched to Iraq in August of 2003; we have seen what they did at Abu Ghraib, after General Miller's "visitation". That would warrant a further investigation at Guantanamo. As for Chaplain Yee, when he was arrested in September of 2003 it was reported that "the 'highest levels' of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee, who had counseled suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo for a lengthy period." He was detained for carrying out "classified material", but his case was dismissed when the government could not state what that classified material was.

Maybe Chaplain Yee was carrying sensitive information out of Guantanamo - in his head, based on what he saw, and was told by the detainees. Maybe Chaplain Yee has been silenced (for now) as a result of the Army's prosecution (including allegations of adultery and having pornography). Maybe other people know what was going on, and have seen what they did to Chaplain Yee. Maybe someone with some authority should look into this.

[Update on 6/16] I just noticed a news report from June 11:

Four Democratic members of Congress are calling on the Pentagon to investigate the Army’s treatment of a Muslim chaplain who was suspected of espionage and imprisoned for 76 days before all charges were dropped.
The Army’s decision to drop all charges against Capt. James Yee “raises important questions about the strength and legitimacy of initial assertions by Army officials that Capt. Yee had engaged in espionage and treasonous conduct at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and three other House members said in a letter to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

I wish them good luck.

Killing Just to Kill

From TalkLeft comes word that the Iraqi interim government will restore the death penalty in that country. The linked article contains additional details, not mentioned in the excerpt quoted by TalkLeft. For example, the Justice Minister who stated that the death penalty was being revived, is very clear about who the likely candidate is:

"Under Saddam Hussein, there were some 120 crimes punishable by death, but we are going to narrow it down to those who, for instance, were responsible for mass graves or plundering the country's oil wealth," the minister said.
. . .

The justice minister, less than a week after his appointment, was adamant that Saddam deserved no less than the firing squad.

"Some people ask me if Saddam Hussein can escape a death sentence. For me, his case is very simple. He was the head of the armed forces and he deserted.

Now, I would guess that any lower-down officers who deserted, or otherwise left the way clear for American forces to enter Baghdad, won't be subject to the same penalty. In any event, I don't know if this is just some way for the new government to show that it is "independent", or if this has some other implication (such as a potential return to the "good old days").

The US adviser to the Iraqi justice ministry forwarded a request from the coalition for the death penalty to be abolished, but Mr Hassan said he rejected it.

"I told him the social situation and the cultural level were not the same in Iraq and his country," he stressed.

"A sentence should contain a deterrent element. The harshness of a sentence and its deterrent element should be decided on the basis of local social values."

Look, this isn't about shedding tears for Saddam Hussein. The "new Iraq" is supposed to be moving forward, becoming a modern democracy. The trend in the modern world is to move away from capital punishment. The region's most democratic country, Israel, abolished the death penalty, as did the most progressive Muslim country, Turkey. A return to capital punishment in Iraq would be consistent with the approach of "traditional" Muslim countries. In an informative article published in 2000, Professor William Schabas noted: "Although essentially all Moslem or Islamic countries retain the death penalty in their domestic law, practice varies considerably from one to another. Some, like Iran and Iraq, are enthusiastic practitioners, while others, such as Tunisia, conduct executions in only the rarest of cases. The religious argument is invoked frequently, yet the diversity of practice would suggest there is little consensus even among Moslems as to the scope of capital punishment." If we're trying to get Iraq to transform, then this is not a helpful step.

We can't know how hard the Coalition Provisional Authority pushed (if at all) to prevent the return of the death penalty. Unfortunately, the desire for revenge may have resulted in this situation. My own personal opinion is that, in a country where there has been, and may continue to be, so much death, the government should set an example and reject violence and death.

Of course, that's advice that others could take, as well.

When Saddam was captured last December, the United Nations and the European Union voiced their opposition to the idea of restoring the death penalty, but Mr Hassan remained unimpressed.

"There are still many countries like the United States that resort to the death penalty. Why shouldn't Iraq have the right to do it?" he asked.

My Electric Surges Free

I took delivery of my 2004 Prius this past weekend. I realize that I'm now part of a cult, complete with online gurus.

As I mentioned to my neighbor, while I tell myself that it's eminently practical for the type of drivng I do, it's also "cool". I haven't put much of a dent in the gas supply yet, so I don't know what my actual mileage is - I'll report back. In the meantime, the coolest part has been being able to push the "Start" button, and drive away silently before the gas engine gets going.

Way cooler than those guys in the new Beetles or Cooper Minis, imho.

Sell it and They Will Come

According to the news (okay, so it's WorldNetDaily), "a group of Christian activists is in the beginning stages of an effort to have one state secede from the United States to become its own sovereign nation." As they further explain:

"Our Christian republic has declined into a pagan democracy," says Cory Burnell, president of ChristianExodus.org, a non-profit corporation based in Tyler, Texas. "There are some issues people just can't take anymore, and [same-sex marriage] might finally wake up the complacent Christians."

Burnell is leading the charge for a peaceful secession of one state from the union, and after originally considering Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina due to their relatively small populations, coastal access, and the Christian nature of the electorate, Burnell says South Carolina has been selected as the target location.

As they explain on their website: "The success of ChristianExodus.org will lead to an independent Christian nation where people may once again worship God under the protection of a friendly government. In addition, such a nation will be free of burdensome taxation and federal meddling in local affairs. Matter of factly, the liberties we have lost to liberalism over the past century will be restored in one fell swoop." At the site, interested people are asked to sign up, and indicate if they are going to move right away, or just promise to do so if things get too bad in the other 49 states.

This is actually a re-tread of an earlier idea pushed by Mr. Burnell, The Confederate State of America Project. This plan was also focused on South Carolina, as the first state to which like-minded Southerners (wherever they may be from) could move in order to start the next secession movement. Then, once that first state is independent, the dominos could start to fall, as it were, as argued by Mr. Burnell:

Our immediate or short-term scope should be independence for one specific state. We could then focus the vast majority of our resources in one direction and at one specific goal. I believe South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi to be the best candidates for immediate independence because of their relatively small populations, their dominant rural constituencies and their coastal access. However, we must choose only ONE as our immediate target, with the others biding time as objects of our mid-term goals. We can then establish our mid-term scope as independence for South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, rural Georgia and northern Florida.

Basically, the whole plan is rooted in the philosophy of the League of the South; although, perhaps because some in the League were less than enthusiastic about the idea, it's been transformed into sort of an "Outbound Christian Soldiers" concept.

Basically, the "Christian Exodus" proposal is a repackaging of a plan to create sort of a White Anglo Christian homeland in South Carolina. If anything, it will get Mr. Burnell a big mailing list of like-minded people.

The Weak Lies You Embrace

Everyone's favorite source of Iraqi information, Ahmed Chalabi, had this to say this past February:

During an interview, Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence.

"We are heroes in error," he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful.

"Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

Mr. Chalabi added: "The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if [President Bush] wants.

But, you know how things change with the passage of time (not to mention a raid or allegations of spying):

Chalabi told CNN, "We never provided false information, or indeed any kind of information. What we provided was defectors."

In May 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies requested his group's help in gathering information, and the INC led them to three defectors who "we believed knew about weapons of mass destruction," Chalabi said.

"They interrogated them. ... It is not our responsibility to verify this information. It is blame-shifting, again, by the CIA," he said.

Chalabi said it was "outlandish" to believe that "an exile organization, which was criticized and vilified by the CIA throughout the past decade, would provide information and the United States officials would take it as credible and go to war on its basis. That is ridiculous."

It's looking more and more as if the U.S. government was the chump for this guy, and whoever he was working for.

Checkin' Out the Weather Chart to See if it Was Safe

The President took a nasty spill while bicycling around his Texas ranch, but got away with just some scrapes. "It's been raining a lot. The topsoil was loose," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

Being a cautious man, I said to myself, "Really?" Then I found that you can get historical information from the National Weather Service's Waco Station (near Crawford, Texas). Turns out, it hasn't rained since May 14.

Making a List, Checking it Twice

I went through my reading list to the right, intending to prune (did not) and add a few more sites (actually, I'm supposed to be doing work and I'm procrastinating). The new listings are: Professor Juan Cole's Informed Comment site (he's a well-informed expert who seems to be getting more and more annoyed at the sheer incompetence of the Administration); Today in Iraq, a comprehensive summary of news about the war and related issues; and Slacktivist, because it's interesting and I wish I could write like that.

Blinded by the Light

Like many others, I've stocked up on CDs over the years, and have been neglecting to listen to my old favorite vinyl records. That's a shame, since that means that I rarely listen to a lot of the great rock and jazz albums which I collected all through my college years (other than those for which I acquired a CD replacement later on). This evening I was reminded of why I should not have neglected the phonograph needle, for the convenience of the laser. I was driving with my high school senior offspring, playing a new copy of the "Bruce Springsteen Essentials" CD. The first few songs are from the "Greetings from Asbury Park" album, and as "Blinded by the Light" played my progeny turned to me and said, "Is that a song he wrote?"

Now, I have dutifully taken the kids to see the E Street band in concert, and they've listened to everything I have on CD. But now I realize that I have neglected major portions of my personal musical history. So, it's either obtain more replacement CDs, or use the old turntable more (I wonder if they still sell refills for my "Discwasher" kit?).

Don't Make No Difference What Nobody Says

Following up on the post below, just how the heck could one, in good conscience, cast a vote to continue with the government's current policies?

A senior American cardinal in the Vatican has accused the U.S. administration of "moral failure" and deception in Iraq and warned the war had severely compromised future relations with the Arab world.
In an interview due to be published in the June edition of "Inside the Vatican" magazine, Cardinal James Francis Stafford also said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was the work of "barbarians." An advance copy was made available to Reuters.

Stafford, the former archbishop of Denver who has been working in the Vatican since 1996, said the reasons for starting the war in Iraq were a "moral failure" because there had been no conclusive proof of weapons of mass destruction.

"Why did the president, the vice-president and the secretary of defense say there was an immediate danger to the peace of American society by the proximate use of weapons that would come from Iraq, either directly or through al Qaeda?" he said.

"Why did they say that when they didn't have direct evidence?" Stafford said

The complete article is here (via Hesiod). We are not, unfortunately, living in an ideal world. We will use our values, especially those from our religious faith, in order to make choices in this imperfect world. Despite what some may argue, I refuse to believe that the only moral choice is to vote to keep the current Administration in charge.

Wielding Love as a Lethal Weapon

This post is about denying the Eucharist based upon political beliefs. More specifically, about why the Eucharist should not be denied based upon voting. The latest entrant in the contest is Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs, who has advised his flock that his position goes beyond simply denying the Sacrament to politicians. Instead, he is stating that a vote for the "wrong" politician subjects a Catholic to denial of the Eucharist. As he wrote in a recent pastoral letter (link is a .pdf):

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

Apparently, it doesn't matter what you do in your own life, or even how you support your faith community; and it doesn't seem to matter why you chose to vote for a particular politician, even if that choice had nothing to do with the issue of abortion. So, for example, the Bishop's position would deny the Sacrament to someone who voted for, say, pro-choice Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, over a pro-life primary opponent. I suppose it would especially apply to someone who not only voted for him, but actively encouraged others to do so as well:

Senator Specter's re-election is very important to our Party and our country. I know we can always count on Arlen Specter when it really matters.
…

Arlen is with us on the votes that matter to move our agenda forward for this President and for the country. I am proud to endorse Arlen Specter.

The enthusiastic Specter voter quoted above is Senator Rick Santorum. Does this mean that, according to Bishop Sheridan, even Senator Santorum separated himself from the Church, based solely on a vote in an election?

I'm sure that Senator Santorum could explain why he believed that Senator Specter was, overall, a better candidate in his view, and that it was not immoral to vote for him. But couldn't any voter also do that, especially in a constitutional democracy made up of people with different backgrounds and beliefs? Maybe it would be better if the sacraments are not used as political weapons at all. Then we could avoid theological disputes about which votes constitute the "greater sin".

A Little Revenge

I am unable to understand how anybody could try to minimize the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. We're supposed to be better than that, and yet every day there are more intimations of widespread cruelty by some of our troops. The guilty parties are endangering the troops in the field who are serving honorably, not to mention increasing the likelihood that the U.S. will be unable to get a stable government in place anytime soon. There should be an extensive investigation into who those guilty parties are, since responsibility clearly goes higher than with those who are seen in the photos.

For some reason, during the questioning of Secretary Rumsfeld last week, Senator Lieberman prefaced his support for an apology with this statement: "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq working to liberate Iraq and protect our security have never apologized." I don't know if this is some sort of "it's bad, but not that bad" sort of rationalization.

The Senator also mentioned the lack of an apology from "those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago". It's interesting that the Senator brought that up. The victims of the Fallujah atrocity were private security contractors. Such contractors are all over Iraq - even at Abu Ghraib prison, questioning detainees. According to news reports, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been detained during sweeps by American troops, especially in pockets of Sunni resistance - like Fallujah.

There is no excuse for the horrible attack on the four contractors. Not only that, but I don't think anybody has come up with an explanation for the attack, either. Okay, so here's the crazy theory of the day. Is it possible that security contractors were targeted because of the actions of their fellow contractors, who engaged in the abuse of detainees? And if so, is that a sign that this whole abuse scandal will have far greater repercussions?

You Know It's Never Over

About three weeks ago, we saw the Army's "exoneration" of Muslim Chaplain James Yee, from unproven charges including espionage. Sure, there wasn't exactly an admission that the whole thing was trumped up, but so what? It's all over, right?

Fat chance. In the news tonight, there's an Associated Press story about a "Justice Department investigation", into whether Muslim chaplains are properly screened. The actual report may not be available for a few days, but that doesn't stop the release of general information to the press, without any specific allegations, regarding Muslim chaplains. And what do you know, right in the middle of this story we find the following:

The Pentagon last year arrested a Muslim chaplain, Army Capt. James Yee, on suspicion of espionage and other crimes for allegedly trying to take classified material into the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The espionage allegations and other charges were dropped, and Yee was cleared of wrongdoing in April, when a military judge overturned an adultery and pornography reprimand against him.

So, it doesn't matter if you've been cleared, does it? Is Captain Yee doomed forever to be mentioned, whenever somebody feels the need to provide an irrelevant example of a "bad" Muslim?

Searching for a Little Bit of God's Mercy

As it says in this site's subtitle, this is a place for my "random thoughts". Occasionally there is a bit of a time lag between those thoughts (putting them into words, that is, not thinking them). This is also where I keep my main "reading list" (to the right). The people on that list are not there because I agree with everything they say, or believe; they're also not there to look for someone to argue with. I found them all by slogging through countless other sites, on a search for some sort of insight and perspective on current events. They're professionals and amateurs, insiders and outsiders, religious and non-religious (and some, irreligious). There are others who I probably should have on the list as well, and I guess I'll get to them eventually.

A number of the sites on my "reading list" have a Catholic perspective, either because they directly discuss religious matters, or as part of the lens through which they view the world at large. I learned today that I'm losing one of them - as it happens, one of the more unique and irreplaceable ones. Sursum Corda is "going out of business". There are a lot of "Catholic" blogs out there (often referred to as "St. Blog's Parish"). As the proprietor, Peter Nixon, states in his post here:

I know that I was sometimes a little out-of-step with the general zeitgeist at Saint Blogs. That was fine with me because I was being challenged and stretched in ways that might not have happened if I was surrounded by people who saw the world the same way I did. I hope it was fine with you. I think it’s helpful to get out of our own ideological or theological apartments on a regular basis and take a walk around the neighborhood.

Actually, that's what made him more interesting to me. I really hope he changes his mind, about removing what he has up now, and about never posting his thoughts again. If the posts are few and far between, I don't think we'll mind.

They're Ringin' the Flag Down

Does this make any sense at all?

Iraq’s U.S.-picked leaders approved a new flag for the country, making a dramatic change that dumps the Saddam Hussein-era colors and slogan “God is great” and introduces symbols of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, a spokesman said Monday. … But the dramatic change in a national symbol could raise some complaints — particularly since it came from U.S.-picked leaders seen by many Iraqis as American puppets. U.S. administrators have tried quietly in the past to change the flag by dropping the words “Allahu akbar,” but Iraqis have refused to abide by the change.
One council member said the Iraqi leadership should wait for an elected government before altering such a major national symbol.

The linked story shows the "new" flag. By the way, the old flag's colors are not "Saddam-era", they're from the Iraqi flag adopted in 1963. Saddam Hussein added the Arabic words “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great” to the flag, during the Iran-Iraq War.

Now, just to be clear, as of this date there is no plan, for turning over non-sovereignty to a government of as-yet unknown individuals. Also as of this date, our forces are engaged in putting down several uprisings, holding together an ever-dwindling "coalition" of allies, and trying to prevent a general Islamic front of opposition to our continued occupation of Iraq. Given all this, does it make any sense to have Chalabi and his gang run a new, WHITE national flag up the flagpole?

Oh, yeah, and it has blue stripes. Extra credit if you guess which other country in the area has a flag with blue stripes on a white background. Really bright idea, guys …

If Your Mind's Confused

In his speech yesterday, endorsing the renewal of the Patriot Act, President Bush keeps reading from the John Ashcroft script that misrepresents and cravenly shifts blame for their failures, to the "wall":

First, before September the 11th, law enforcement, intelligence, and national security officials were prevented by legal and bureaucratic restrictions from sharing critical information with each other, and with state and local police departments.

We had -- one group of the FBI knows something, but they couldn't talk to the other group in the FBI -- because of law and bureaucratic interpretation. You cannot fight the war on terror unless all bodies of your government at the federal, state, and local level are capable of sharing intelligence on a real-time basis. We could not get a complete picture of terrorist threats, therefore. People had -- different people had a piece of the puzzle, but because of law, they couldn't get all the pieces in the same place. And so we removed those barriers, removed the walls. You hear the talk about the walls that separate certain aspects of government; they have been removed by the Patriot Act. And now, law enforcement and intelligence communities are working together to share information to better prevent an attack on America.

Look, whether you are for or against the election of President Bush, why should we let him run using falsehoods?

Close Inspection of Who's Telling Who Lies

Apologies in advance, for the long post which follows. I get a little carried away with some long quotes from source documents. But, I really do think that John Ashcroft should be called to account, and asked to explain how his sworn testimony differs from the facts contained in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report from the summer of 2001.

The consequences of Attorney General Ashcroft's reckless disregard for the truth, took a serious turn in the past few days. As noted in a post below, from las Thursday, after Mr. Ashcroft sought (falsely) to assign blame to 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick for "erecting" a "wall" in 1995, which prevented intelligence officials from communicating with law enforcement personnel, there were a lot of shrill attacks directed at Ms. Gorelick. The latest reports now indicate: "Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks." So, with your indulgence, we will briefly review how Ms. Gorelick responded to Mr. Ashcroft's accusations. Then, we will look at a GAO report from 2001, which shows that Mr. Ashcroft's claims are false. Finally, we will revisit Mr. Ashcroft's sworn testimony, which loses all credibility in light of the facts, and can be seen as a craven attempt to deflect blame, resulting in threats against a 9-11 Commission member.

First, Ms. Gorelick has provided a detailed refutation of Ashcroft's allegations. In a piece published this weekend, "The Truth About 'the Wall'", she touches on the fact that it was Ashcroft's Justice Department, in 2001, which took steps to increase implementation of the "wall" (and which, quite possibly, misunderstood the whole point of it) :

[T]he memo I wrote in March 1995 -- which concerns information-sharing in two particular cases, including the original World Trade Center bombing -- permits freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines or the 2001 Thompson memo. The purpose of my memo was to resolve a problem presented to me: facilitating investigations on both the intelligence side and criminal side at the same time. My memo directed agents on both sides to share information -- and, in particular, directed one agent to work on both the criminal and intelligence investigations -- to ensure the flow of information "over the wall." We set up special procedures because of the extraordinary circumstances and the necessity to prevent a court from throwing out any conviction in those cases. Had my memo been in place in August 2001 -- when, as Ashcroft said, FBI officials rejected a criminal warrant of Moussaoui because they feared "breaching the wall" -- it would have allowed those agents to obtain a criminal warrant without fear of jeopardizing an intelligence investigation.

[N]othing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. Indeed, the guidelines require that FBI foreign intelligence agents share information with criminal investigators and prosecutors whenever they uncover facts suggesting that a crime has been or may be committed. The guidelines did set forth procedures, but those procedures implemented court decisions and, as noted, were reaffirmed by the Ashcroft Justice Department.

Now, should you just rely on Ms. Gorelick? Well, you don't have to, since you can also read a 2001 GAO report (link is a .PDF) on the effectiveness of the "wall". It turns out, the reason for the report and investigation was a concern that the FBI was not following the 1995 procedures. As recounted in the GAO report, there was a "core group" of officials who monitored how the FBI managed the flow of information, and which could give guidance on specific cases. There apparently was concern that procedures designed to protect criminal investigations were not being followed. But, not to worry, the Ashcroft people had taken over the job. As explained in the 2001 GAO report:

In April 2001, the acting Deputy Attorney General decided to reconstitute the core group and to give it a broader role for overseeing coordination issues. The core group, similar to the prior core group, is comprised of several officials from the Office of Deputy Attorney General, an official representing the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and the Assistant Directors of the FBI's National Security and Counterterrorism Divisions. Whereas the previous core group's role was to decide which of the FBI's most critical cases met the requirements of the Attorney General's coordination procedures and needed to be coordinated with the Criminal Division, the new core group's role is broader.

According to an Associate Deputy Attorney General and core group member, the new group is to be responsible for deciding whether particular FBI investigations meet the requirements of the coordination procedures and to identify for the Attorney General's attention any cases involving extraordinary situations where compliance with the guidelines requires the Attorney General's consideration. According to the Associate Deputy Attorney General, the FBI is to bring to the core group's attention any investigation in which it is not clear that the Attorney General's procedures have been triggered. For example, during an FBI investigation should it not be clear whether a criminal violation should be considered a significant federal crime, as indicated in the procedures, the FBI is to bring the matter to the core group for resolution. Thus, this is a much broader scope of responsibility than the prior core group's which only considered the need for coordination in those critical cases that were judgmentally selected by the FBI. Furthermore, the core group also is to be responsible for identifying for the Attorney General's attention those extraordinary situations where the FBI believes there may be good reason not to notify the Criminal Division. For extraordinary situations, the Associate Deputy Attorney General opined that it was expected that the number of such questions brought to the core group would be extremely few.
...

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration responding for Justice responded that on two of our recommendations, the Department has taken full or partial action. Concerning our recommendation to institutionalize OIPR's [the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review in the Justice Department] role and responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the Attorney General's coordination procedures, the Acting Counsel for Intelligence Policy on June 12, 2001, issued a memorandum to all OIPR staff. That memorandum formally articulated OIPR's policy of notifying the FBI and the Criminal Division whenever OIPR attorneys identify foreign counterintelligence investigations that meet the requirements established by the Attorney General for coordination. We believe this policy should help perpetuate OIPR's mechanism for ensuring compliance with the 1995 coordination procedures beyond any changes in OIPR management.

Basically, the Ashcroft Justice Department took steps to monitor and enforce a policy, which was partly based on the 1995 memo, but also based on prior court decisions, and later modifications of the policy. In light of these facts, Mr. Ashcroft's testimony (link is a .PDF), in which he claims that Ms. Gorelick's memo is the sole source of the policy, appears desparate, craven and false. Ignoring the facts about his own actions, he testified as follows:

But the simple fact of September 11 is this: we did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail. This Commission can serve a noble purpose. Your responsibility is to examine the root causes of September 11 and to help the United States prevent another terrorist attack. Your duty is solemn and sobering. But I, too, have a duty today. I have sworn to tell the whole truth, and I intend to fulfill this obligation.

That last sentence may come back to haunt him. But, to continue -

The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall. In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required. The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall "effectively excluded" prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail.

Now, as noted above, not only does Ms. Gorelick point out that she did not "erect" the wall (and in fact, she was trying to implement procedures to make sure that any "wall" did not inhibit investigations), but the GAO report demonstrates that Mr. Ashcroft is the one who strengthened it. Nevertheless, Mr. Ashcroft stated in his sworn testimony:

But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall. The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations." The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, quote: "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.

So, Attorney General Ashcroft, solely in the interest of full disclosure, declassifies a 1995 document, while neglecting to tell the Commission about refinements to the policy in 2000, or his own strengthening of the wall in April of 2001. And, in so doing, unleashed the attack dogs on Ms. Gorelick.

I don't think it's inappropriate to suggest that Mr. Ashcroft's veracity in this matter should be more closely examined.

You Let Your Walls Get in the Way of These Facts

No More Mister Nice Blog has a comprehensive wrap-up (and refutation) of the attacks which are being heaped upon Jamie Gorelick of the 9-11 Commission, as a result of John Ashcroft's move to pin the blame on her for the "wall" that, it is claimed, prevented the FBI from being able to pursue leads which could have resulted in the capture of the terrorists who perpetrated 9-11. What's especially galling is the fact that Ashcroft's claims are clearly deceptive, especially when considered in light of a July, 2001 GAO report on the "wall" (Note: link is to a .PDF). Entitled "FBI Intelligence Investigations: Coordination Within Justice on Counterintelligence Criminal Matters Is Limited", the report includes the position of Ashcroft's Justice Department, as to whether the 1995 memo and procedures were being followed. That report also details the years of subsequent review of procedures to ensure that criminal investigations would not be compromised. The report appears to indicate that the "wall", instead of hindering intelligence gathering, was something which affected the criminal investigation side of the FBI (if at all).

In any event, the existence of that report, and the contents, shows the level of deception engaged in by Attorney General Ashcroft in trying to fix blame on Ms. Gorelick for an intelligence failure.

Like Some Soldier Undaunted

A belated hello to my visitor earlier today from Army.mil, who found me with a "Google" search for "James Yee 'Article 15' dropped April 16 2004". While the Army has, finally, dropped all penalties imposed against Chaplain Yee, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the decision to bring the case against him in the first place.

There is also one piece of unfinished business, as Captain Yee's attorney noted: "We hope that higher authority will agree that an apology is overdue."

[Update] On whether the military owes Captain Yee an apology, even the Instant Pundit now says: "I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of the case, but it appears that they do." Although, for someone "not that familiar with the ins and outs", the IP was willing to join the initial smear campaign, when he wrote about the start of the case: "Sounds almost as if he were planted. Sadly, this will only produce more suspicion toward loyal Muslims." Maybe the IP could start the apology ball rolling?

The Words That You Used to Say

Some excerpts from the President's statements, with no comment. June 24, 2002:

As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. ... Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.

June 4, 2003:

As I said yesterday, the issue of settlements must be addressed for peace to be achieved. In addition, Prime Minister Sharon has stated that no unilateral actions by either side can or should prejudge the outcome of future negotiations.

December 4, 2003:

I also talked about the need for the Israelis to keep in mind that if they support a Palestinian state, which they have told me they do, that the conditions on the ground must be such for a Palestinian state to be able to emerge. And that's why we're continuing to talk to them about the illegal settlements and outposts -- illegal outposts and settlements, as well as the fence.

And finally, yesterday:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

This is the fellow who said, at the end of his press conference on Tuesday, "One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom. "