Obsidian Wings

Two Films, Two Visions of Family

by Edward_

Personal note: Not sure how long I'll be able to blog again, but will try for as long as my current circumstances hold out. It's very nice to be able to, all the same.
e_

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We went to see two films over the holiday weekend. One is highly controversial and, we knew before we went in, incredibly sad. The other we thought was going to be a much needed dose of comedy to lighten our mood after the first one, but turned out to be incredibly thoughtful as well. We didn't realize that the second film offered the near opposite vision from the first for what it means to be gay in America. The films were "Brokeback Mountain" and "The Family Stone." I don't think I'll forget either one for many years to come.

The "gay cowboy" movie as our pathetic excuse for a national media has taken to calling it is, as you've read or seen for yourself, incredibly beautiful. If your heart doesn't ache at the end of this film, you might just be dead.

"Brokeback Mountain," in and among other themes of longing and true love, explored the worst of being gay in America. The loneliness, the duplicity, the violence, the self-loathing, the heartbreak, the bigotry, and the wasted years. I know there are many Americans, like Larry David (you have to read this, it's amazing), who refuse to go see this film. It's their loss. They're denying themselves one of our country's most exquisitely told, most human of tales.

"The Family Stone," in and among other themes of the power of family and familial love, explored the very best of being gay in America. The gay son (and his lover) wants to adopt a child, is as welcome as any other of the four siblings with their significant others in the parents' home, and in one incredibly well-written scene that exposes the soft bigotry that underlies so much of the so-called "tolerance" toward gays in this country, is told by his mother in front of everyone that he is more "normal" than any other person in the house.

I don't want to spoil either film if you haven't seen them, but I do want to discuss how these films work to dispel the myth that gay marriage is somehow "anti-family."

Abramoff Nailed

by Charles

Finally, Abramoff has worked a deal with federal prosecutors.  In exchange for reduced sentences, he will be a "cooperating witness" against former business associates and political colleagues.  In a riveting true-life tale by Matthew Continetti, Abramoff's business partner comes across as a one-step-removed mobster, Representative Bob Ney looks like an Abramoff toady, Tom Delay doesn't look much better, and Abramoff looks like the sleazebag that he is.  No conservative should have any business defending the slimy practices of Abramoff and those who were bent to his influence.  Doesn't matter the party, if they broke the law, it's fine by me if prosecutors nail their asses.  Speaking of Republicans and conservatives, Josh Trevino offered a prediction for 2006 that I hope comes true, and one that I hope does not:

• The Republican base will react to Democratic gains by demanding more conservatism.
• The Republican leadership will react to Democratic gains by providing more leftism.

The Harriet Miers mess catalyzed the separation between conservatives and the Republican leadership.  Republican leaders circling their wagons in Abramoff's wake will just further that separation.  As one of the Ankle Biting Pundits stated, throw the bad Republicans under the bus.  Even if Tom Delay is acquitted, his days in the leadership should be over.

Update:  Josh would've been more accurate in his prediction if he wrote that the Republican leadership will react to Democratic gains by acquiescing to them, because I think that's where he really going.  Segueing a bit, Augustine wrote a piece on the "do what's right" Republicans and the "do as you're told" Republicans, which to me well describes the schism between conservatives and Republicans today.  Too many in the current establishment are in the latter category, and many of them are going to get burned by Abramoff.

Fight The Power! (Special NRO Edition)

Check out this post, from the NRO's Bench Memos, on Bush's signing statement on the McCain and Graham amendments:

"At the lefty legal blog "Balkinization," Washington attorney Marty Lederman has a post on the signing statement that conveys the good news that the president is not taking the McCain amendment lying down, and may plan to make the most of the Graham amendment. Of course, Lederman doesn't think this is good news, but it is."

Let me get this straight: when a President announces that he will be bound by a statute he is in the process of signing into law only to the extent that he feels like it, that's not "violating his Constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", or "asserting that he's above the law": it's "not taking the McCain amendment lying down." And when he announces that he will follow another part of that statute only in keeping with an interpretation that's inconsistent both with its plain meaning and with the intent of those who drafted and passed it, that's "making the most of the Graham amendment." Moreover, the fact that our President is doing this is "good news".

I had not previously thought that obeying the law was just "taking the law lying down", or that it's a good thing to be willing to fight back when the law requires that I do something. But now that Matthew J. Franck has enlightened me, I can see all sorts of further good news in the offing. I, for one, might decide not to take the tax code lying down: lots of good news there! Or maybe I'll just "make the most of it" by interpreting "taxable income" to mean "income derived from construction work", and discover that -- hey! -- I had no taxable income in 2005. Muggers and rapists aren't just criminals: they are people who have the guts not to take the laws against assault and rape lying down! And that group of angry-looking people converging on Matthew J. Franck's office: they have decided to make the most of the laws banning kidnapping by interpreting them as allowing the kidnapping of idiots!

Truly, the possibilities are endless. I just wouldn't have thought that a self-described "conservative" would have thought they were all that attractive.

Oh No! Not Barbie....

by hilzoy

Via AmericaBlog, here's the Concerned Women for America:

"The iconic Barbie Doll has become another tool for promoting gender confusion among children. On the Barbie Web site, www.Barbie.com, there is a poll that asks children their age and sex. The age choices are 4-8, but as Bob Knight, Director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute, notes children are given three options for their choice of gender."

On the audio link from the web page, which contains a faux news piece on the subject of Mattel's perfidy, they say:

"And this is directed at children aged four through eight. Those are the only age options in this poll. that's a really young age to be directing something along the lines of bisexuality, gender confusion."

Guess what the third option is? Do they give children the option of saying they're androgynous? Hermaphrodites? What one of the guys in the biker bar I used to work at called "She-males"? The horrifying answer is below the fold...

Sandy Levinson on Alito

by hilzoy

Sandy Levinson has written two very good posts about Alito on Balkinization (1, 2). An excerpt from the second, which concerns this Washington Post story:

"The most important paragraph is the following:

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

Important to whom, one might ask? The first answer is "internal": I.e., one might well view this as supporting the view that Department of Justice lawyers, including lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, which is at least as important as any given Federal Court of Appeals, should look to presidential undersanding when interpreting statutes. Only, presumably, in the absence of a signing statement, should any attention be paid to legislative history. Of course, if one is a strong Scalian, then it is not clear why a presidential signing statement should have any more authority than a committee report. Neither, according to Scalia, should be paid the slightest attention. This may suggest that Alito is less of a Scalia clone than has been suggested and that he is in fact more dangerous, at least if one fears Executive supremacy.

The second answer is more "external": I.e., what should courts do when faced with conflicting legislative and executive understandings, assuming that one doesn't ignore both a la Scalia. The answer, presumably, is to give priority to the President. If that's not what Alito means, it's hard to figure out exactly what he does mean to say. If one combines this rule with a version of James Bradley Thayer's "clear mistake rule" for exercising judicial review over presidential actions, then this is clearly a go-ahead for a basically unfettered President. (...)

The ultimate question, of course, is what happens when the Court tells the President that there is indeed something that he/she cannot do, however much the President believes, in entirely good faith, that it is "necessary" (in some sense of that slippery word) to safeguard some important public value, including national survival. I don't know that Judge Alito has ever spoken to this question directly. It should be enough, though, that there is now fairly dispositive evidence that he was, while in the Reagan Administration, a full-scale adherent of what might be termed the "liberated" (and possibly "unfettered") Executive, and it would be astonishing if the Justice-pickers in the Bush Administration did not believe that this represents his view today."

I'm posting this both to recommend the pieces, and also because Sandy Levinson taught me civil liberties when I was an undergraduate, and (as I said in a comment to post #1) is as responsible as anyone for the fact that attempts to do end-runs around the Constitution don't just disturb me in some abstract way, but make me furious. He was an inspiring teacher (drop-dead brilliant, too), and what he inspired me with was an absolute devotion to the Constitution and the system of government it sets up. I did not end up thinking that it was perfect (cough, electoral college, cough cough), or sacred, or even clear. But I did end up thinking that it and our system of government, together with the kind of allegiance they enjoy, are a considerable human achievement, and one that should not be tampered with lightly; and I mind, in a completely visceral way, attempts to undermine or circumvent it.

(I have no idea whether he meant to produce this effect, or would approve of it. I do recall disagreeing with some of his views. A lot of them, actually. But that didn't matter, since he never struck me as the kind of teacher who was after agreement.)

So to all you professors and would-be professors out there: if it ever occurs to you to wonder whether teaching ever has any sort of impact, just think: one of your students could go off, enter a completely unrelated field, lose touch with you entirely, and then, decades later, end up writing whole series on habeas petitions by Guantanamo detainees, largely because a course she took from you mattered to her.

So: Thanks, Professor Levinson. I'm not sure I mentioned any of this at the time, being a sophomore and all. But I should have.

Promises, Promises...

by hilzoy

Remember this?

"Having helped to liberate Iraq, we will honor our pledges to Iraq, and by helping the Iraqi people build a stable and peaceful country, we will make our own countries more secure."

Or this?

"America pledged to rid Iraq of an oppressive regime, and we kept our word. (Applause.) America now pledges to help Iraqis build a prosperous and peaceful nation, and we will keep our word again. (Applause.)"

Or this?

"This government is determined to hear the call from the Iraqis, and the call is they want a society in which their children can go to school, in which they can get good health care, in which they're able to live a peaceful life. It's in the national interest of the United States that a peaceful Iraq emerge. And we will stay the course in order to achieve this objective."

Or this?

"In a lot of places, the infrastructure is as good as it was at pre-war levels, which is satisfactory, but it's not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region."

Andrew Sullivan does:

"Once again: a memory check. Do I recall being told that a critical element in winning over Iraqis would be a massive Marshall-Plan-type effort to rebuild the economy? Was I then reassured that America's military strategy would be primarily to protect infrastructure and to rebuild the shattered energy and electricity grid?"

And Think Progress seems to recall a National Strategy for Iraq, released a month ago, that included extensive discussion of a three-track strategy for victory. One of these three tracks was the economic track; of it, the Strategy document said:

"• The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

- Restore Iraq’s infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
- Reform Iraq’s economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
- Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis."

Later in the Strategy document, there's a lot more detail on what we plan to do, and why it matters that we do it.

Or perhaps I should say: why it mattered one short month ago. For despite the extensive explanation of the "Strategic Logic Behind The Economic Track" (pp. 22-3) and the impressive list of "Continuing Challenges In The Economic Sphere" (pp. 24-5), today we find out that the Bush administration has abandoned an entire third of its strategy:

"The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people."

And we're not anywhere near our original goals:

"In two of the most crucial areas, electricity and oil production, relentless sabotage has kept output at or below prewar levels despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of American dollars and countless man-hours. Oil production stands at roughly 2 million barrels a day, compared with 2.6 million before U.S. troops entered Iraq in March 2003, according to U.S. government statistics.

The national electrical grid has an average daily output of 4,000 megawatts, about 400 megawatts less than its prewar level. Iraqis nationwide receive on average less than 12 hours of power a day. For residents of Baghdad, it was six hours a day last month, according to a U.S. count, though many residents say that figure is high.

The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding.""

We could have tried to maintain order after Baghdad fell, rather than abandon the country to looters. We could have run the reconstruction effort competently, instead of sending job applicants to the Heritage Foundation to perform crucial tasks and then being surprised when things went wrong. We could have done any number of things with some minimal degree of competence, rather than choosing political expediency and cronyism at absolutely every turn. But we didn't.

And now the Bush administration is preparing to abandon Iraq without bothering to announce or defend what they're doing. They will continue to say that Democrats are the ones who favor cutting and running, while they themselves do exactly that, after having created the mess to start with.

Thanks, guys.

Bush "Signs" McCain And Graham Amendments

by hilzoy

Via Marty Lederman at Balkinization: On Friday, the President signed the law including the McCain and Graham Amendments. However, he did so with several large caveats. I'm going to put most of this post below the fold, since it's long. However, here's Marty Lederman's short version:

"I reserve the constitutional right to waterboard when it will "assist" in protecting the American people from terrorist attacks."

And my even shorter, Cartmanesque version:

"Respect Mah Authoritah!!!!!"

Victor Davis Hanson Rewrites History (With Special Pesh Merga Addendum)

by hilzoy

Victor Davis Hanson thinks -- and I use that term generously -- that those of us who believe that the war in Iraq is going badly do so only because we have no sense of history and are unwilling to accept success when it stares us in the face:

"The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousands of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election — at a cost of some 2100 war dead — he would have been dismissed as unhinged.

But that is exactly what has happened. And the reaction? Democratic firebrands are now talking of impeachment.

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.

Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle."

Also, we thought we weren't going to take any casualties at all:

"After Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the three-week war to remove Saddam, we decreed from on high that there simply were to be no fatalities in the American way of war. If there were, someone was to be blamed, censured, or impeached — right now!"

Let's just pass over the last point in silence -- the idea that anyone thought that the war in Iraq would not involve casualties is too ludicrous a straw man to waste time on. Let's also pass over the fundamental incoherence of Hanson's basic argument, which as best I can tell goes like this:

(1) Liberals expected the war to go badly.

(2) It didn't.

(3) Liberals are very disappointed, because, having no sense of history, they expected everything to be perfect.

(Huh?)

Let's talk, instead, about who in this debate has a good sense of history and its disappointments.

Narrowing the Issues on FISA

Having read dozens of discussions on the recent NSA/FISA/Monitoring issue, I have seen all sorts of responses--both measured and wild.  I think it would be helpful to try to narrow the issues.  To help do that, I'm going to posit some hypotheticals and see if we can get agreement on them.  I'm labelling them alphabetically, and my intention is to start with the easiest issues and get harder as the list progresses.  For reference, here is the FISA authorization.  Here is the AUMF.

A)  The NSA taps phone conversations from known Al Qaeda leader Zawahiri in Afghanistan to calls inside Afghanistan.  Zawahiri is a known Egyptian national. 

B)  The NSA taps phone conversations from known Al Qaeda leader Zawahiri  in Afghanistan to known Al Qaeda member Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.  Zawahiri is a known Egyptian national.  Zarqawi is a known Jordanian national. 

A and B are fully authorized by the AUMF.  Both Zawahiri and Zarqawi are directly covered under "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."  Since "all necessary and appropriate force" against them would almost certainly include shooting them with a sniper, it also covers listening in on their phone conversations for the purpose of finding out about Al Qaeda and/or their current locations. 

Neither A nor B are forbidden by the FISA authorization.  Neither Zawahiri nor Zarqawi are "a United States person" under section 1801 (i).  Neither A nor B require oversight from the FISA court.  Any information from A or B could be used as the basis of a later warrant. 

C)  The NSA taps a satellite-phone conversation from Zawahiri in Afghanistan to a person unknown in the United States which can later be tracked to a pay phone.

D) The NSA taps a land-line phone conversation from Zawahiri in Afghanistan to a person unknown in the United States which can later be tracked to a pay phone. 

Both cases are clearly authorized by the AUMF.  Neither case falls under the definition of "electronic surveillance" covered by FISA in section 1801 (f).  The target is Zawahiri, not a person in the United States.  Neither C nor D require oversight by the FISA court. 

E) A person unknown in the United States calls Zawahiri in Afghanistan.  The NSA monitors the phone call. 

F) A known illegal alien in the United States calls Zawahiri in Afghanistan.  The NSA monitors the phone call.

Both these cases are authorized by the AUMF because the target is Zawahiri a known member of the group which conducted the September 11, 2001 attacks.  In neither case is this in the class of "electronic surveillance" covered by section 1801 (f) because the target is Zawahiri, not a United States person.  Furthermore in case F) the person in the United States does not qualify as a United States person. 

G) A phone call is placed from a US Senator's office on Capitol Hill to Zawahiri in Afghanistan.  It is intercepted because all calls to Zawahiri are monitored. 

One could argue that this call isn't from a known US person because we don't know who placed the call from the US Senator's office.  But that is stretching it a bit.  In any case, monitoring all incoming calls to Zawahiri is authorized by the AUMF.  The Senator (and his office) were not the target of the tap nor were all the senders and recipients in the United States.  This is not electronic surveillance covered by the FISA statute.  No FISA oversight is needed. 

H) A phone call is placed from the residence of a known Al Qaeda member who is located in the United states to Zawahiri in Afghanistan.  That Al Qaeda member is a US citizen.  The call is picked up because all calls to Zawahiri are monitored. 

This is just like case G.  The US person is not the target of the tap. 

I) A log is maintained of all calls to or from Zawahiri in Afghanistan to attempt to later identify his contacts outside of the United States. 

This is clearly authorized by the AUMF and requires no oversight from FISA because no US persons are involved.

J) A log is maintained of all calls to or from Zawahiri in Afghanistan to attempt to later identify his contacts both inside and outside of the United States. 

This is clearly authorized by the AUMF.  This requires no oversight from FISA because no US person is the target of the tap on Zawahiri's phones.  See 1801 (f)(1) "...a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person..."

K) A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who also called Zawahiri if origniated outside the US. 

This is clearly authorized by the AUMF.  FISA is not implicated because this involves no US persons in the US.  No FISA oversight is needed.

L) A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who also called Zawahiri from any origin--including the US, so long as the calls are made internationally. 

This is clearly authorized by the AUMF.  FISA is not implicated because these calls do not fall under "if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States".  No FISA oversight is needed.

M) A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who also called Zawahiri from any origin--including the US, and including all such calls whether made internationally or within the United States.  The identity of the caller is not known at the time the log was created. 

This is authorized by the AUMF.  FISA is not implicated because the target is not a particular US person.  No FISA oversight is needed. 

In all of these cases it is clear that NSA monitoring is authorized by the AUMF and FISA oversight is not needed.  The harder cases are below. 

N)  A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who Zawahiri called including those in the United States.  The identity of the caller is not known before the log was created.

This is authorized by the AUMF.  It isn't targetting a specific known US Person and thus a FISA warrant is not necessary.  As a matter of best practice, it might be wise to have FISA monitor this to be sure that the NSA isn't actually targetting US Persons. 

O) A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who also called Zawahiri from any origin--including the US, and including all such calls whether made internationally or within the United States.  The identity of the caller is known before the log was created and that person is a US citizen. 

This is authorized by the AUMF.  FISA authorization might be relevant.  It involves a US person under 1801 (i).  The question is whether or not the US person is the target of the tap.  It is arguable that Zawahiri and/or his network is the target.  That argument can't extend indefinitely (in a seven degrees of Kevin Bacon fashion) but I'm willing to buy it when someone makes a call directly to Zawahiri. 

P)  A log is maintained of all calls made by numbers who Zawahiri called including those in the United States.  The identity of the caller is known before the log was created and that person is a US citizen. 

This is authorized by the AUMF.  I'm less willing to extend the argument from O) above because calls made from Zawahiri are less suspicious than those made to Zawahiri.  (He could be calling to order a jade figurine from QVC, while calls going to him are less likely to be innocent).  From my perspective this is still targetting Zawahiri and Al Qaeda and does not require a FISA warrant, but FISA oversight would be wise to ensure that US persons aren't the ultimate targets. 

Q) Same as P and the information detects a large volume of calls with another US person.  On further inspection this information reveals that the other person is a drug dealer.  This person is prosecuted on evidence based on the monitoring.

This is not authorized by the AUMF.  The AUMF authorizes force "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." 

Cases N, O, P, and Q could also exist at degrees of remove from Zawahiri.  I'm not sure at which point I would say that you have gone beyond targetting Zawahiri into something else.  I suspect I would put it at 2 or 3 degrees (in the US).  FISA would of course not be implicated at any degree of separation for non-US persons outside of the US though for purposes of practicality you should certainly have a limit. 

It should also be noted that once taps of Zawahiri reveal other persons to be members of Al Qaeda, those people who be subject to starting the chain of monitoring as a different step. 

A somewhat different question would be maintaining a log of all calls from number to number (perhaps world-wide) so you could later examine it once a particular number was positively linked to Al Qaeda or a terrorist group.  This would almost certainly not be covered by FISA (no intentional targetting of a particular person as to the creation of the log).  I think the government should do that kind of thing when fighting Al Qaeda.  I am not, however, thrilled with the idea of the database just being out there.  Bush should set up an appropriate oversight mechanism to make sure that such a database is not misused.  If he has set up such a program without doing so, it is indeed a black mark against him, though probably not an act of illegality. 

Move Over, Buddhist Temple: Here's A Real Scandal

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents."

NaftaSib is a Russian oil and gas company about which the American Foreign Policy Council wrote (back in 1997, before people seemed to feel the need to conceal that it paid for Tom DeLay's trip to Moscow):

"The Moscow portion of the DeLay trip is sponsored by A.O. NaftaSib, a Russian oil company tied to Chernomyrdin. NaftaSib describes itself as "a major shareholder" in Gazprom, and says that two of its "largest clients" have been the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). According to its promotional literature, "NaftaSib met all of the needs for oil products for the Black Sea Fleet, the Baikal Military district and the 14th Army located in Moldavia [sic] from 1992 to 1995." One of the escorts in Moscow is NaftaSib Executive Vice President Marina V. Nevskaya, whose NaftaSib biography describes her as having taught at the Military Diplomatic Academy. The Military Diplomatic Academy is a training school for GRU military intelligence." (h/t Matt Yglesias at TAPPED. Yglesias helpfully adds: "The Russian Interior Ministry doesn't run parks like our Department of the Interior; it's a domestic security agency which oversees paramilitary and intelligence forces.")

So: we have a Russian firm with close ties to the Russian military and domestic intelligence services funneling a million dollars to Tom DeLay's charity. What does this charity do? According to the Post, not much:

"But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House.""

Buckham is an ex-DeLay staffer. His firm paid DeLay's wife around $115,000 to find out the favorite charities of members of Congress. When that story came out, I did some math:

"There are 535 members of Congress, and 1095 days in three years. By my calculations, Christine DeLay had to find out roughly one member's favorite charity every two days. How much work would it take to find out? I would guess: one phone call. Maybe two or even three, if a member of Congress suddenly decided that not returning phone calls from the Majority Leader's wife was a good idea. Let's be generous to Mrs. DeLay, and suppose that she had to make twice as many phone calls as there are members. In that case she was making over $3,000 a month for making one phone call a day.

Nice work if you can get it."

But the money paid to DeLay's wife is chicken feed compared to the sums the American taxpayers paid for the IMF bailout for Russia. And any impropriety involved in Christine DeLay being paid $5,000 a phone call is insignificant compared to the staggering impropriety of a charity controlled by DeLay, which apparently did little except rent rooms ofr him to use and target his political opponents, getting a million dollars from a firm connected to Russian intelligence. (Anyone want to argue that Nevskaya taught at a training school for GRU military intelligence without herself being an intelligence officer? I didn't think so.) It's only made worse if it's true that the purpose of the gift was to influence DeLay's vote on the IMF bailout.

Corruption of any sort is despicable, but corruption in the service of the intelligence agencies of a foreign power is vastly worse.

I've left out the parts of the Post story detailing contributions to the charity from manufacturers on the Mariana Islands, various tribal clients of Abramoff, etc. But the whole story is worth reading.