Obsidian Wings

Still Not Surprised

by hilzoy

From Newsweek:

"An FBI agent warned superiors in a memo three years ago that U.S. officials who discussed plans to ship terror suspects to foreign nations that practice torture could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate U.S. law, according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK. (...)

In a memo forwarded to a senior FBI lawyer on Nov. 27, 2002, a supervisory special agent from the bureau's behavioral analysis unit offered a legal analysis of interrogation techniques that had been approved by Pentagon officials for use against a high-value Qaeda detainee. After objecting to techniques such as exploiting "phobias" like "the fear of dogs" or dripping water "to induce the misperception of drowning," the agent discussed a plan to send the detainee to Jordan, Egypt or an unspecified third country for interrogation. "In as much as the intent of this category is to utilize, outside the U.S., interrogation techniques which would violate [U.S. law] if committed in the U.S., it is a per se violation of the U.S. Torture Statute," the agent wrote. "Discussing any plan which includes this category could be seen as a con-spiracy to violate [the Torture Statute]" and "would inculpate" everyone involved.

A senior FBI official, who asked not to be identified because the issue is sensitive, said the memo was not an official bureau legal conclusion. (...) But another senior U.S. law-enforcement official familiar with the memo, who also asked not to be identified, said the memo reflects concerns among many agents and lawyers about "rendition." Intel officials estimate that more than 100 terror suspects have been rendered to foreign countries by the CIA under a classified directive signed by President George W. Bush after 9/11."

No surprises here either, although the extent to which this administration seems to have been determined to disregard the advice of anyone who disagrees with them is, as always, mind-boggling. But mind-boggling things are not necessarily surprising, these days.

The Rule Of Law

by hilzoy

Via a diary at dKos, ABC has this story:

"Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused. Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor. Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote. "Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable. "I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote. "I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission. After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer." Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.

The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department. Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.

"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote. "Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions. "You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said." (...)

But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts. He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.

"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.

Why am I not surprised?

The Failed States Index

by Charles

A joint project between Foreign Policy magazine and the Carnegie Endowment Fund for Peace put together the 2nd annual Failed States Index, ranking sixty countries in question, using twelve military, political and social indicators.  Surprising that there are sixty of them, although the top twenty (or bottom twenty as it were) are the real concerns.  The rest are "in danger" or "borderline".  I agree with their opening sentence:  "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones."  The actual index is here.

The  list is a who's who of unfree nations, the notable exception being China, and it confirms much of what we already know:

• Africa is a basket case.  Thirteen of the twenty "critical" nations are on the African continent, and roughly half (24) of all African nations are on the list.
• Hugo Chavez is steering Venezuela to failure.
• Iraq and Afghanistan are ranked 4th and 11th, respectively.  We have a ways to go.
• Bosnia-Herzegovina is the only western European nation on the list.
• Middle Eastern nations include Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain and Iran.  The only ones off the list are Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and a few no-name desert countries.
• 27 of the 60 failed states are Muslim majority or Muslim plurality (based on the CIA Fact Book).
• Libya and Bolivia are not on the list, which is a bit of a surprise.

Also eye-opening is this, which graphically represents what Nicholas Kristof is talking about:

Anyways, the index is another tool which helps quantify the states of the nations.  Other useful indices include the Human Development Index, civil liberties and political rights by Freedom House, the Index of Economic Freedom, the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Sans Frontieres.

My Take on Talk Radio: Part III

by Charles

[For a little background, check out Part I and Part II]

It's been a while since I wrote the first two parts, mainly because I lost interest, both in writing this series and in listening to talk radio in general.  I still listen frequently but the blogosphere is so much more informative, interactive, stimulating and enlightening, that I'd rather blog.  Also, the commercials on talk radio are killing me.  Like accruing mercury or lead poisoning, they've built up in my system to toxic levels.  They play the same ones, over and over, all day long, day after day, week after week.  Ugh.  What's more, I'm not interested in what they're selling.  At all.  I don't want to try hutia and gingko biloba or some other crackpot concoction, or listen to Larry King tout health products and grape juice (Larry King?!  Health?!  He's had more heart attacks than wives!), or buy gold, or incorporate in Nevada, or consolidate my debt, or get a credit report, or try exercises to improve my eyesight.  [To all station managers, are you getting this?  You're not attracting new listeners with this awful pablum.]  So anyway, I'm a little down on talk radio for now.

Energy Bill: Now With Weapons-Grade Uranium!

by hilzoy

Via a post by Russell Feingold at DKos: apparently, the energy bill that just passed both houses of Congress isn't just a shameful grab-bag of corporate welfare provisions that does next to nothing to solve our energy problems; it also weakens our nuclear non-proliferation policies. From the Washington Post:

"A provision tucked into the 1,724-page energy bill that Congress is poised to enact today would ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium, a lucrative victory for a Canadian medical manufacturer and its well-wired Washington lobbyists.

The Burr Amendment -- named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agree to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.

The amendment is just one of dozens of obscure special-interest provisions included in the energy bill, which the House passed yesterday and the Senate is expected to pass today. The amendment's supporters say it will ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes, which are used to diagnose and treat 14 million Americans every year, including patients afflicted with cancer, heart disease and epilepsy. But it will also be a boon to the world's leading producer of those isotopes, an Ottawa-based company called MDS Nordion, which would otherwise have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit its reactor for low-grade uranium.

Critics say the Burr Amendment will not only provide special perks for one foreign company but also encourage the proliferation that politicians in both parties have identified as a dire threat to national security in the post-Sept. 11 world. (...)

Opponents say the amendment would eliminate the financial incentives for foreign firms to switch. Since 1992, when then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) persuaded Congress to adopt the export restrictions, Argentina and several other countries have begun retrofitting reactors to use uranium that cannot be used in atomic weapons.

By contrast, Nordion already has enough highly enriched uranium to make one or two Hiroshima-size bombs, and its factories do not have to meet the same security standards as Energy Department facilities. It initially agreed to convert to low-grade uranium, but its executives changed their minds and helped finance a fierce lobbying campaign to loosen the restrictions."

Ah, yes: a fierce lobbying campaign. For loosening export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium. How delightful.

""It really is amazing," said Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "To get something as outrageous as this, that's skillful lobbying."

Since 2003, the Alpine Group's main energy lobbyists -- James D. Massie, Richard C. White and Rhod Shaw -- have contributed more than $25,000 to members of the energy committees, and nuclear medicine trade groups have donated tens of thousands more. They have also drummed up support from doctors; the computer signature on one letter to a senator, purportedly written by a radiologist, was actually White's.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Burr, said the senator's support had nothing to do with lobbyists, and everything to do with the 40,000 medical procedures that use isotopes every day. There are plenty of isotopes to irradiate tumors and help doctors see through skin without surgery, but industry groups warn that unless Nordion and other manufacturers can continue to use bomb-grade uranium, patients could suffer.

"Certainly, there are concerns about proliferation," Heye said. "But we're also concerned about people with breast cancer.""

News flash: if someone detonates a nuclear weapon in a city somewhere, women with breast cancer will probably be among the victims. Besides, our Energy Department, not normally noted for its hostility to industry, doesn't seem to think there's a problem:

"Senate opposition was led by Schumer and Republican Jon Kyl (Ariz.), who warned that "were something bad to happen, each one of us would be responsible." They cited the Energy Department's stated goal of ending the commercial use of weapons-grade uranium, and the department's public conclusion that there is no real shortage of medical isotopes. They also pointed out that uranium exported to any European Union country could be resold to another E.U. country without U.S. knowledge. (...)

Critics say that the danger of isotope shortages is highly remote but that the danger of terrorists seizing control of nuclear materials is quite real. During the presidential debates last year, President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) both identified nuclear proliferation as America's most pressing foreign policy challenge.

"I don't recall them agreeing on much else," Markey said. "You'd think we could all agree on this.""

You'd think. But you'd be wrong. The House passed this provision; the Senate rejected it; it found its way back in in conference; and the bill that contains it has now been passed by both houses of Congress and awaits the President's signature. Here's how it got back into the bill:

"The House and Senate still had to reconcile their energy bills, so Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the panel's ranking Democrat, John D. Dingell (Mich.), proposed compromise language. But Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said not to bother; Senate conferees would accept the amendment, even though the full Senate had rejected it."

I take it I don't need to waste time explaining why it's important to minimize both the amount of weapons-grade uranium at loose in the world and the number of independent organizations that control it; why the Energy Department's policy of trying to eliminate it's commercial use is a good one, and why this provision of the energy bill is therefore bad. It's obvious. But if it's obvious to us, it is presumably obvious to the conferees as well. Apparently, they didn't care. We should hold them accountable. As noted above, the provision's sponsor is Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, and Senator Domenici of New Mexico is largely responsible for the provision getting back into the conference bill. The main Republican conferee from the House was Rep. Barton of Texas. The full list of Senate conferees is here; the list of Republican House conferees is here; I haven't been able to locate a list of the Democratic House conferees, but that's less important, since it was a Republican provision in any case, and the Democrats had no power in the conference.

This episode also makes clear, yet again, why the Congress's rules should be amended to make it impossible for a 1725 page bill to be voted on by both houses within 36 hours or so of its being reported out of conference. No one can do a conscientious job of reading the bill in such a short time, nor can those of us in the general public find out about provisions we think are really wrong and try to make a fuss about them. If we valued the idea of having informed debate on important legislation, we would not allow this to happen.

Way Back in '65, Moynihan was Right

by Charles

A long article by Kay S. Hymowitz, but a good one, responding in part to the Class Matters series in the New York Times.  She starts with a report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan back in the days when he was in the Johnson administration, and she guides us through a little history on the entrenchment of poverty in black communities.  While the situation is a bit better today, it remains that 70% of black children are still born to unmarried mothers.  It'll take more than welfare reform and Bill Cosby to change this unfortunate dynamic.

Update:  Over at Redstate, streiff unearthed some statistics on out-of-wedlock births.

US Muslims Make it Clear

by Edward

we interrupt our self-imposed hiatus to bring you the following rant:

Despite the likes of the so-called comedian Michael Graham, who still refuses to apologize for calling Islam a "terrorist organization" on his radio show, US Muslims are responding to the growing tension since the attacks in London with restraint, maturity, and a very clear message about where they stand:

Top U.S. Muslim scholars issued a "fatwa," or religious edict, against terrorism on Thursday and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence.

The fatwa was part of efforts by U.S. Muslims to counter perceived links between Islam and terrorism and avert any negative backlash after this month's bombings by suspected Islamic extremists in London and Egypt.

"Having our religious scholars side by side with our community leaders leaves no room for anybody to suggest that Islam and Muslims condone or support any forms or acts of terrorism," said Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, one of the groups which announced the fatwa. I

brahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said it was the first time Muslims in North America had issued an anti-terrorism edict, although they had repeatedly condemned such acts of violence.

Specifically, the edict states:

It is 'haram' [forbidden] for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians," he quoted the ruling as saying.

Personally, I expect the rhetoric to get uglier before it gets better. There are folks who've been chomping at the bit to get dangerously binary about the issue, including this hack, arguing that subway riders shouldn't be inconvenienced for their own safety unless they fit his perceived profile:

[T]he New York Police Department has advised subway riders to be alert for "people" in bulky clothes who sweat or fiddle nervously with bags.

Well, a lot of people wear bulky clothes. A lot of people fiddle with their bags. And for that matter, a lot of people sweat. Could the Police Department be any more general in describing the traits of an Islamic suicide bomber? Could its advice be more useless?

Truth be told, commuters need to be most aware of young men praying to Allah and smelling like flower water.

Excuse me, sir. I don't understand what you're mumbling...are you praying to Allah? And what's that cologne you're wearing?

If there's one sure way to ensure more moderates join the radicals, it's ill-concieved, fear-mongering crap like this. America's Muslims are doing their part. The least the rest of the nation can do is agree to the minor inconviences that show our fellow citizens we're all in this together.

Our Clueless Congress Strikes Again

by hilzoy

Yesterday the House and Senate agreed on the final version of the energy bill, and today the House passed it. I gather that the energy bill contains some good provisions -- I'm all for "new efficiency standards for commercial appliances from air conditioners to refrigerators", for instance. And the conferees did manage to scrap a provision exempting makers of MTBE from liability. All in all, though, it's a dreadful bill.

First, it does very little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This would be hard to understand under any circumstances; now, however, when (I would have thought) the need to reduce our dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia is obvious, it's downright irresponsible. And it's not as though it's hard to figure out what steps to take: the obvious starting-point is raising mileage standards on cars and eliminating the SUV loophole. But did our Congresspeople so much as consider this? No. (It didn't help that the EPA decided to put off until after the bill's passage the release of a report showing "that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.") And then there's this: "A provision that had passed the Senate to require the president to find ways to reduce U.S. oil demand by 1 million barrels a year by 2025 was abandoned because of strong opposition from House Republicans and the administration." Great.

Second, it doesn't do much about global warming. It contains no caps or taxes on carbon emissions. The Senate version originally required that utilities derive 10% of their power from renewables, but that was stripped out in conference. On reflection, maybe I will buy property in Labrador or Greenland.

Third, it contains absolutely huge giveaways to energy companies. $14.5 billion, in fact. The New York Times writes:

"both houses conspired in some spectacular giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits produced by $60-a-barrel oil."

The Boston Globe:

"What is left is a candy store of tax breaks and subsidies for both the highly profitable oil and gas companies and the more struggling alternative energy producers. But the latter would do better if utilities were required to include renewables among their power sources or -- best of all -- if Congress were to tax or cap utilities' emissions of carbon dioxide."

I have never liked bills that give away my tax dollars to corporations that are making record profits without the government's help. But I particularly don't like them now, when our deficits have gone through the roof. The Bureau of the Public Debt's web site informs me that as of today, the federal debt stands at $7,871,882,751,780.48: 7.8 trillion dollars plus. That's a huge amount of money, and last year we had to spend 17% of government revenue just to pay the debt service on it. The last thing we need, under the circumstances, is another one of our Congress's spectacular giveaways.

We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil: it's a matter of national security. We need to start taking action on global warming immediately. And we need to stop acting as though we have infinite amounts of money to throw at wealthy contributors, whether or not that money will produce any actual policy results. Apparently, the Congress hasn't figured this out yet. You have to wonder what it will take to clue them in: a collection agent paddling up to the entrance of the Senate (now conveniently located on the Maryland coastline), sweltering in the 125 degree heat, ready to repossess the Capitol building in the name of the People's Republic of China?

Correction (Huh??)

by hilzoy

A few days ago I linked to a New York Times article that said that the Department of Defense had defied a court order to release the rest of the photos from Abu Ghraib. Anderson (in comments) points me to this correction by the Times:

"An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release."

The original article had the headline: "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos". Its first paragraph read: "Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal." This correction doesn't signal some minor mistake; it means that the reporter, Kate Zernike, basically got the entire story wrong. Sheesh.

In any case, I wanted to note the correction, and retract anything I wrote that relied on this story. I still want the photos to be released, however. And it would be nice to see someone -- anyone other than Kate Zernike -- explain what, exactly, is happening in the convoluted proceedings about their release.

Another Gloomy Iraq Post

by hilzoy

The BBC has a story I hope is wrong, but fear is true:

"Iraq's new police force is facing mounting allegations of systematic abuse and torture of people in detention, as well as allegations of extra-judicial killings. The minority Sunni community in particular claims it is being targeted by the Shia-dominated police force."

According to the BBC, Human Rights Watch has collected a number of similar stories, including a novel use for power tools that I hope I manage to repress as soon as possible:

"The camera focuses on marks all over his body including what appear to be drill holes. According to Salman al-Faraji, a human rights activist and lawyer, the use of drills is common. "Most cases are quite similar, the same methods are used," he said. "They torture them, breaking hands and legs. They use electric drills to pierce their bodies and then the killing is carried out at close range.""

One of several nightmare outcomes for Iraq has always been the emergence of a police state like Saddam Hussein's, but with different allegiances. It is, I think, marginally better than civil war, but that's sort of like saying that being tortured with an electric drill is marginally better than being tortured with a belt sander. And of course the two aren't mutually exclusive.

In the latest New York Review of Books, Peter Galbraith has an article about Iraq that is disturbing, though not surprising. I've posted a longish excerpt below the fold, but it's worth reading the whole article, since Galbraith is, in my opinion, one of the sharpest observers of Iraq around.