Obsidian Wings

Another Reason to Ban Signing Statements

by publius

I agree with everything Hilzoy says about the latest disgusting revelations from OLC. I just want to quickly note that the NYT article illustrates all too clearly just how pernicious Bush's signing statement accompanying the McCain "anti-torture" Amendment was. The NYT says:

At the administration’s request, Mr. Bradbury assessed whether [McCain's] proposed legislation would outlaw any C.I.A. methods, a legal question that had never before been answered by the Justice Department. . . . In the end, Mr. Bradbury’s opinion delivered what the White House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr. McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in the C.I.A.’s practices, according to officials familiar with the memo.

That, in turn, explains this signing statement from Bush:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act [i.e., the McCain Amendment], relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

They all knew exactly what they were doing -- especially Bush, the great Christian idealist.

New Improved Torture Memos

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

Here's what we're talking about:

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective. (...)

Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: “These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature — can they be combined?” Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”"

Discussion below the fold.

The Iowa Cascade

by publius

It’s true that a Hillary Clinton victory isn’t yet inevitable – but it’s sure getting close. She’s got strong, commanding leads in the polls. Lots of money and institutional support. Tons of experience, etc. In short, she’s got all the things that inevitable nominees tend to have. The catch, though, is Iowa.

Personally, I think Iowa is the only thing standing in her way. And so the million dollar question at this point is how the other states will react to Iowa. It’s impossible to predict, but I’m going to take a stab at it by using information cascades.

What makes Iowa such a wild card is that it can trigger instant information cascades – or “herd behavior.” The basic idea is that cascades happen when people rely on the visible actions of others rather than their own imperfect or limited information.

For instance, imagine you are at a fancy-pants dinner with lots of people and don’t know what fork to use. Let’s say you’re 55% sure that the small fork is for salad. But, you see two other people before you pick up the longer fork for the salad. You get nervous and discount your own private information, opting for the big fork instead. Imagine too that the guy next to you is even more confident that the small fork is for salad. But, with three people opting for the big fork, he does the same. And on it goes until everyone is using the wrong fork. Thus, the cascade. (For more formal statistical discussions, see here - pdf).

We see the same thing happen with bubbles, financial panics, etc. But we also see it following Iowa. And that’s the problem.

Beyond Parody

by hilzoy

Honestly: you can't make this stuff up. Michael Ledeen at The Corner:

"The Left hates Rush, above all—as in the case of Thomas—because of the quality of his mind and the effectiveness of his work."

The quality of his mind? The quality of his mind???!!

I mean, we are talking about Rush Limbaugh, right?

Actually, I may be the only liberal who has ever disliked Rush Limbaugh for the quality of his mind. Once upon a time, back in the late 80s, I used to listen to right-wing talk radio for fun (I know, I'm weird.) One day, whoever I usually listened to was sick, and they brought in Rush Limbaugh to substitute. He was just beyond dreadful, and I remember thinking: that guy is just too big an idiot to make it, even on right-wing talk radio. (There's a reason I'm not a talent scout.)

For that one moment I actually did dislike Rush Limbaugh because of the quality of his mind: more specifically, because he was a complete moron. I don't think that's exactly what Michael Ledeen meant, but nonetheless: his claim was briefly true of me. That was largely because I didn't know much about Rush Limbaugh, though. Since then, I have acquired a whole host of other reasons to dislike him, most notably the fact that he wouldn't know the truth if it sat down next to him and introduced itself, and the fact that he is mean, contemptible, vile, and in general a despicable human being. The kind of person who would call soldiers who don't support the war in Iraq "phony soldiers", misrepresent what he said when he was called on it, and then comparing a veteran who criticized him to a suicide bomber:

"You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Honestly, the quality of his mind doesn't really come into it anymore.

In honor of Michael Ledeen and the blowhard he inexplicably regards as an intellectual colossus, here's the best response to Limbaugh's remarks I've seen (via FDL):

And here's a link to an email campaign to get Limbaugh taken off Armed Forces Radio. To quote Wes Clark, who started the campaign:

"Tax dollars are used to fund Armed Forces Radio, and that money is not intended for radio show hosts to spout insults at our soldiers. These "phony soldiers" have simply exercised their right to free speech, as Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis. Simply because a majority of our troops who return from Iraq disagree with Rush on Bush's failed war policy does not give him the right to dishonor their service."

Exactly.

Discriminating Against Transgendered People

by hilzoy

From the SF Chronicle:

"Leading gay rights organizations, with the pointed exception of the Human Rights Campaign, withdrew their support Monday from a landmark gay civil rights bill after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., pulled transgender people from the legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination.

The intense backlash by the gay community surprised House Democratic leaders, forcing them to postpone what had been intended as a big House vote this week to include gays and lesbians in the nation's job discrimination laws for the first time in American history.

The debate playing out between gay rights activists and two of their biggest supporters in Congress raises a classic political question: Are activists better off compromising and accepting progress or continuing to fight for everything they want?

Gay rights groups have been waiting for a decade for the bill to pass, and many say a few more months to try to build support for including gender identity would be worth the wait. They say transgender people will have little chance of winning protection from discrimination if they aren't included in this bill.

Pelosi and Frank, however, fear the inclusion of gender identity will kill the overall bill - again denying gays and lesbians protection against job discrimination.

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, issued conflicting statements Monday in reaction to the turmoil. The first declared her personal support for including transgender people in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but asserted she would stick by her decision to drop them from the bill to give it a greater chance of passage.

About three hours later, the speaker issued a new statement saying, "After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage" of the bill, committee and floor votes on the bill had been postponed to "allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.""

If I were a Congressperson, I would be genuinely torn about what to do. On the one hand, according to Barney Frank, whom I trust, whip counts show that the bill will fail if it includes a ban on employment discrimination against transgendered people, but will pass otherwise. If that's right, then there's a serious case to be made for banning discrimination against gay men and lesbians now, rather than leaving the entire LGBT community exposed to legal workplace discrimination. On the other hand, I loathe the idea of not banning discrimination against transgendered people, especially if that would mean that no such ban would be passed for the foreseeable future.

Luckily, however, I am a blogger and a citizen, not a Congressperson. And that means that my duty, as I see it, is clear. First, I should write my Representative, urging (in the case of my Representative) him to support the version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that secures the rights of transgendered people. And second, I should use my blog to argue my case. That argument, which is aimed at those of our readers who don't know much about this topic, is below the fold. People who do know about it should feel free to add further information in comments. (Note: for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to stick to people who think that their biological gender is flatly wrong, and leave aside people with more muted gender issues.)

Political Parties - Take 'Em or Leave 'Em?

by publius

The Almighty Nine opened shop today, hearing arguments on whether Washington’s open primary violated the First Amendment. The more cynical framing of the question is whether the First Amendment provides cartel-like protections to the major political parties. That, in turn, leads to the broader question of whether our current two-party structure is a good thing. On that last question, my views have evolved considerably since I first started blogging, thanks in no small part to Bush. Strangely enough, the modern GOP has restored my faith in the two-party system . . . I think.

But first, the case. The backdrop here is a case called Jones from 2000 that struck down California’s “blanket” primary. It was an open primary -- voters could vote for any candidate, and any candidate could align with any party. The catch though was that voters as a whole determined the party’s official nominee for the general election. For instance, the self-proclaimed Democrat with the most primary votes became the official Democratic candidate regardless of what the Party itself wanted. If Cocaine McPedophile declared himself a Democrat, then (in theory) Republicans could vote for him, placing him on the ballot for the fall. The Court found that this type of forced marriage violates political parties’ association rights. Fair enough.

Washington, however, had a different idea. It also proposed an open blanket primary, but allowed the “top two” candidates to move on (rather than the top vote-getter within each party). The catch here (again) was that any candidate could declare herself aligned with any party. The parties didn’t like that -- in this sort of pre-runoff primary, they wanted only their own preferred candidate to have the “D” or “R.” [See Rick Hasen for more.]

I certainly sympathize with the parties -- you don’t want loonies (or Mike Gravels as I call them) confusing voters. That said, I don’t see why the Constitution protects them here. It’s one thing to force a candidate on to the party like California did. It’s quite another thing to forbid candidates from declaring their own party preferences in a “top two wins” election.

The broader point is that this is simply one of the many structural legal protections that national parties currently enjoy. Whatever you think of Ralph Nader, he’s right that significant barriers to entry exist outside the two-party structure. In the Washington case, for instance, the First Amendment would protect the parties by allowing the institutional leadership to maintain more control of the nomination process. Without this protection, Lieberman and Schwarzenegger-type candidates (nominal Dems or Republicans with considerable cross-appeal) could win “the nomination” without institutional backing.

Whether that last scenario is good or bad is the million dollar question. In theory, open primaries create more “centrist” candidates. Rather than vying for the median party voter, candidates are vying for the median voter. Further, the less that “serious” candidates rely on the institutionalized party, the closer to the median they can be. The result would be people like the Governator and Lieberman.

Too Weird

by hilzoy

I'm sorry: this is just too strange not to post on. John Fund in the WSJ:

"The fact is that people inside the Giuliani campaign are appalled at the number of times their candidate has felt compelled to interrupt public appearances to take calls from his wife. The estimate from those in a position to know is that he has taken such calls more than 40 times in the middle of speeches, conferences and presentations to large donors. "If it's a stunt, it's not one coming from him," says one Giuliani staffer. "It's an ongoing problem that he won't take advice on."

And in trying to explain his odd behavior, Mr. Giuliani has only dug himself in deeper. On Friday he told David Brody of CBN News that since 9/11, when he and Mrs. Giuliani get on a plane, "most of the time . . . we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other." He admitted he had taken calls from his wife "before in engagements, and I didn't realize it would create any kind of controversy." That's hardly possible. Giuliani staffers say he has been warned over and over again that the phone calls are rude and inappropriate and have alienated everyone from local officials to top donors to close friends.

Consider a spring incident in Oklahoma City. Mr. Giuliani spoke twice at the Oklahoma History Center, first at a small private roundtable for $2,300 donors and then to 150 people who donated $500 apiece. Ten minutes into the roundtable, Mr. Giuliani's phone rang. He left the room to take the call, apparently from Mrs. Giuliani, and never returned. The snubbed donors received no explanation. "The people there viewed it as disrespectful and cheesy," says Pat McGuigan, a local newspaper editor who was asked by the Giuliani campaign to moderate the roundtable.
An hour or so later, Mr. Giuliani was speaking to the bigger group of donors when his phone rang again. While he spoke with his wife, he invited her to say hello to the assembled crowd. "It was remarkable, and was not viewed by the audience in a positive way," public relations executive Brenda Jones told me.

I've been told of many other incidents, from a California fund-raiser to a Florida speech to a gathering with top donors at Bear Stearns in New York. At the Bear Stearns meeting, Mr. Giuliani took a call from his wife and then noting the strained faces of his supporters, he sheepishly tried a joke. "I've been married three times," he explained. "I can't afford to lose another one. I'm sure you understand." (Mr. Giuliani's media office didn't return a call I made to them on Friday afternoon.)"

Kevin Drum suggests five possible explanations. One -- that he doesn't realize it's rude -- is contradicted by the story. Another -- that he thinks it's a good political move -- seems profoundly unlikely. The last -- that "he doesn't think the ordinary rules of common courtesy apply to him" -- is Kevin's favorite, but I don't buy this as an explanation. If his staff have told him it's not going over well, then you'd think that whatever he thinks of the rules of common courtesy, he'd either stop answering his cell phone in meetings or continue because he disagrees with them, in which case the second explanation, not this one, is right.

The two remaining explanations are that he is so infatuated with his wife that he can't bear to miss her calls, and that he's so scared of her that he doesn't dare. If either is true, then we need to know a whole lot more about the present Mrs. Giuliani, since she seems to wield enormous power over a potential President. What if she decides that Rudy just has to nuke London, or abolish the Environmental Protection Agency?

Fund seems to suggest that the right explanation is Fear of Judi:

"Staffers have been fired, advisers shut out of meetings, schedules changed based on her whim. But it was her idea for Mr. Giuliani to suggest on national TV that he might let her attend cabinet meetings. (...) The staff remains "terrified" of her, according to a former staffer. "Mollifying Judith is at the top of the to-do list for far too many people on the campaign," one person close to Mr. Giuliani told me. Another says: "The biggest concern is that if not corrected it will stir up questions about his judgment closer to when people vote--either before the early primaries or before the general election. It's a ticking time bomb.""

And, since someone has to say it: if Rudy Giuliani can't tell his wife not to call him during speeches, how on earth will he be able to stand up to Osama bin Laden?????

Yikes! I Was Eaten Alive By My Life!

by hilzoy

Sorry for being out of touch: life was busy. However, now that the conference is over, the talk has been given, my cousin is well and truly married to his wonderful bride, and I'm back from Maine, I can actually contemplate the internets again. Of course, I actually have to read the newspapers first: I was very out of touch over the weekend, and have no idea at all what happened. For all I know, we invaded Canada. (Although, on reflection, that news would probably have seeped down to Maine.)

In any case, consider this an open thread, brought to you by my sense of guilt for being a Bad Bad Blogger.

The environment is there for political reform

by Charles

But first, let's start with the title of this recent Los Angeles Times article:  Petraeus admits to rise in Iraq violence.  The message that the reporter and her editors are sending to their readers is that they know the "truth", and Petraeus was finally cornered in Baghdad and had to 'fess up.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, acknowledged today that violence had increased since Sunni Arab militants declared an offensive during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

That is the most important news of the day?  Anyone who has followed the news of the Muslim world since 9/11 has to know that Ramadan, although a holy month, is a violent time of year and that Iraq has been no exception.  LA Times reporter Alexandra Zavis should have known this.  Wolf Blitzer did, and he doesn't have a Baghdad dateline.  It is apparent to me that Ms. Zavis is spinning the news to put Iraq in a worse light, especially when you consider that civilian casualties plummeted in the month of September.

The graphs are taken from Dr. John Wixted, who gets his data from the Iraqi Coalition Casualty Count, which gets its information from independent press reports.  More from Ms. Zavis:

"Certainly Al Qaeda has had its Ramadan surge," Petraeus said in his first comments to reporters since he returned from Washington to give lawmakers a status report on the war in Iraq. But he said the level of attacks was "substantially lower" than during the same period last year.

The Army general said he saw no need to revise the projections he presented to Congress this month for a gradual withdrawal of the additional forces deployed to Iraq as part of the troop buildup. He did not provide figures.

The implication is that we can't believe anything Petraeus says because he didn't back his statements up with numbers.  Not that you can believe his numbers anyway.  It would take the willing suspension of disbelief to think that they're true.  But if you compare the civilian casualties reported by Petraeus with those from the Iraqi Body Count, the numbers and trends are similar, especially in the last five months.

The September numbers from the IBC aren't yet available.  Part of the reason for the fewer civilian casualties is that execution-style killings in Baghdad are way down.

Part of the reason for that drop is because Muqtada al-Sadr announced in late August that he would stand down the Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) paramilitias under his control.  Another reason is that many Sunnis have left neighborhoods that are controlled by Shiite paramilitias, so there are fewer military-age males to kill (the New York Times has an article on where Iraqis are migrating, and the picture is somewhat more complicated).  Another reason that I see is that the current counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy is providing a more secure environment and making it more difficult for the various paramilitant groups to engage in sectarian attacks.  As an example, American forces are making inroads against Iranian-backed Special Groups.

Another last complaint about Ms. Zavis' underwhelming journalism is how she reported a couple of bombings that took place yesterday, failing to mention that they were suicide bombings.  As anyone should know by now, suicide bombings are the trademark of al Qaeda and like-minded affiliates, and it is important to convey the nature of the attacks, not just that they took place.  There is no evidence that I've seen of Shiites (including Hezbollah) or ex-Baathists being responsible for suicide bombings in Iraq.  In terms of al Qaeda's strategy, they've executed their own surge in 2007.

In September, al Qaeda was much less lethal but they did get away with a few spectacular attacks, one of them being the suicide bombing of a "reconciliation meeting" between Sunni and Shiite political groups.  [Update:  Below is a month-by-month picture of suicide bombings since January 2006, using IBC data.  The drop in in September is stunning.

/End Update] Given the increasing widespread rejection of al Qaeda by the various Sunni "awakening" movements, it may be fair to say that al Qaeda is losing in Iraq, but they are still a menace and still capable of finding Islamists who will blow themselves up for Allah.  Finally, although military operations are still highly kinetic, military casualties have fallen for the fourth straight month.

On the political front, there's not much news in terms of national legislation.  At Small Wars Journal, Linda Robinson tries to look ahead, noting what has taken place politically at all levels of government, including tribal.  Given the current security environment, the moment is ripe for the national politicians to make some progress.  Whether it happens, who knows, but this is an opportune moment.

Disclaimers:  No, I don't think we are winning or that we have "turned the corner" in Iraq, nor am I convinced that Iraq is "irretrievably lost".  I believe the current surge strategy is the best plan available, and I range from mildly optimistic to mildly pessimistic that it will succeed.  It may very well have been implemented too late, but I'm giving it 'til year end before I make a judgment on whether we should stick with the current strategy or opt for Plan B (orderly, phased withdrawal of American troops).  In his testimony last month, the Petraeus-Crocker team bought themselves a Friedman unit, so it looks like the current strategy is going to last at least through March 2008.

Political progress has been made at the tribal, municipal and province levels, but little has been done on the national stage.  Until we see the legislature approve an oil revenue sharing bill, and until we see some advances on de-Baathification and power-sharing, and as long as progress is being made on the security environment and other measures, we can't say that Iraq has turned around.