Obsidian Wings

Papers, Please

by Gary Farber

Children.

Who we hates, we do, because their parents are illegal immigrants. 

And in Alabama, this is now happening: 

FOLEY, Alabama -- Many of the 223 Hispanic students at Foley Elementary came to school Thursday crying and afraid, said Principal Bill Lawrence. 

Nineteen of them withdrew, and another 39 were absent, Lawrence said, the day after a federal judge upheld much of Alabama’s strict new immigration law, which authorizes law enforcement to detain people suspected of not being U.S. citizens and requires schools to ask new enrollees for a copy of their birth certificate. 

Even more of the students -- who are U.S. citizens by birth, but their parents may not be -- were expected to leave the state over the weekend, Lawrence said. 

"It’s been a challenging day, an emotional day. My children have been in tears today. They’re afraid," he said. "We have been in crisis-management mode, trying to help our children get over this." 

Foley Elementary has the area’s largest percentage of Hispanic students, about 20 percent of its student body. 

Under the new immigration law, schools must check the citizenship status of any student who enrolls after Sept. 1. 

The students must present a birth certificate. Those who cannot do so have 30 days to submit documentation or an affidavit signed by a parent or guardian saying that they are here legally. 

Why?  Federal Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackwell.  

GOP's Radical Breakage Continues

by Gary Farber

Who is "Wisconsin's most dangerous professor"?  He's William Cronon.  Who he?  He's this incredibly threatening man:

[...] In 1991, Cronon completed a book entitled Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, which examines Chicago 's relationship to its rural hinterland during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1991, it was awarded the Chicago Tribune's Heartland Prize for the best literary work of non-fiction published during the preceding year; in 1992, it won the Bancroft Prize for the best work of American history published during the previous year, and was also one of three nominees for the Pulitzer Prize in History; and in 1993, it received the George Perkins Marsh Prize from the American Society for Environmental History and the Charles A. Weyerhaeuser Award from the Forest History Society for the best book of environmental and conservation history published during the preceding two years. 

[...]

In July 1992, Cronon became the Frederick Jackson Turner Professor of History, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin ­Madison after having served for more than a decade as a member of the Yale History Department. In 2003, he was also named Vilas [pronounced "Vy-lus"] Research Professor at UW-Madison, the university’s most distinguished chaired professorship.

Cronon has been President of the American Society for Environmental History, and serves as general editor of the Weyerhaeuser Environmental Books Series for the University of Washington Press.  [...]  He has served on the Governing Council of The Wilderness Society since 1995, and on the National Board of the Trust for Public Land since 2003. He has been elected President of the American Historical Association for 2011-12.

Born September 11, 1954, in New Haven , Connecticut, Cronon received his B.A. (1976) from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He holds an M.A. (1979), M.Phil. (1980), and Ph.D. (1990) from Yale, and a D.Phil. (1981) from Oxford University. Cronon has been a Rhodes Scholar, Danforth Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, and MacArthur Fellow; has won prizes for his teaching at both Yale and Wisconsin; in 1999 was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society' and in 2006 was elected a Fellow of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He is obviously a Maoist of the worst Marxist-Leninist sort! 

How do we know?  Because the Republican Party of Wisconsin wants him investigated.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin has made an open records request for the e-mails of a University of Wisconsin professor of history, geography and environmental studies in an apparent response to a blog post the professor wrote about a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Professor William J. Cronon, who is the president-elect of the American Historical Association, said in an interview Friday that the party asked for e-mails starting Jan. 1.

The request was made by Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In his request, Thompson asked for e-mails of Cronon's state e-mail account that "reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell."

Most of the names are Republican legislators. Marty Beil is the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union and Mary Bell is the head of the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

Cronon said the university had not yet complied with the open records request. The e-mails would be subject to the state's open records law because they were written on an university e-mail account.

The university has an e-mail policy that states, "University employees may not use these resources to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum.”

Cronon said he did not violate the policy in any way. "I really object in principle to this inquiry," Cronon said of the party's open records request.

Thompson was not available for comment. But in an statement, Mark Jefferson, the party's executive director, said, "Like anyone else who makes an open records request in Wisconsin, the Republican Party of Wisconsin does not have to give a reason for doing so. [...]"

What was Cronon's offense?  He wrote an Op-Ed piece for the terrorist-loving New York Times.

Their urge to betray - and ours

WRITTEN BY Thomas Nephew, of Newsrack, NOT BY Gary Farber

Until recently, Peter Benjamin was the chairman of the Washington, D.C. area Metro transit system's Board of Directors. A former mayor of Garrett Park, he brought an avuncular personality and long experience with Metro affairs to the table. While in correspondence with us about the bag search issue I've written about before, he dismissed some of our assertions about the program's drawbacks -- for example, he didn't believe it would cause much decline in ridership. But he seemed to take seriously the civil liberties issues involved.

Still, sometimes I think if I had a dollar for every time I've heard or read "I'm a supporter of the ACLU, but..." I could afford the richer, more refined lifestyle I truly deserve.

 

And sure enough, when push came to shove at a February 10 discussion of the bag search issue, Mr. Benjamin delivered what may be the new low standard in that genre. Beginning with the heart-sinking words "I am a long term member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Many of my friends consider me a civil liberties nut," Benjamin was giving the lie to those words within roughly twenty seconds. Even though asserting that the rights we have as citizens are "why we are the great country that we are" and personally believing that "bag checks are a violation of those rights, and ...the beginning of a process that moves towards us having fewer and fewer and fewer of those rights," Mr. Benjamin continued:

The Wisconsin Waltz

by Gary Farber

As flames of revolution spread across the Mideast, the fight against anti-union bills is spreading across the American Midwest.

David Dayen, aka dday, points out that Ohio, Indiana See Protests Against Anti-Union Bills:

Wisconsin remains the main battleground for the broader assault on worker’s rights. But elsewhere in the Big Ten states and across the country, these battles have moved forward. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich is pushing pretty much the exact same bill as Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Known as SB 5, the bill would strip collective bargaining rights from Ohio public employees. SB 5 is a piece of legislation, so Kasich isn’t trying to implement this under the cover of a budget bill. However, he has said that if he doesn’t get what he wants out of SB 5, he will put those items into the next budget bill. Alternatively, this could go to the ballot. So SB 5 won’t be the last showdown. The Governor, aping Scott Walker, claims this is a fiscal issue, but nobody can explain how much money SB 5 would save.

Many Ohio Republican legislators are already looking askance at SB 5. With pressure rising from state editorial boards and organized labor, the State Senate may not have the votes to get this thing out of committee.

A Kind Of Moderation

Guest post by Thomas Nephew, longtime blogger, posted by Gary Farber.

Gary has been kind enough to invite me to post here, and I'm overcoming some real jitters to give it a try.  

Obsidian Wings!  One of the top blog sites and one of the top online communities of the past decade, hence pretty much of all time.  Writing that could make you simultaneously rend your garments and thank the gods somebody, somewhere had the guts and the gift to say it - whether as writers like Katherine, Publius, Lindsay, Hilzoy, Eric, or G'Kar/Andrew, or commenters like Nell, KCinDC, or Gary.  (Just to name a few, and not to overlook the rest.)  Still not sure I'll belong.

Aside from jitters, though, I was also not sure how I'd fit with ObWi's recognizable "voice" -- probably basically hilzoy's, but somehow the whole site's as well. 

I have my own little blog, which I named "newsrack" once upon a time, and "newsrackblog.com" now.  I imagined I'd cover the ebb and flow of news from all over, but I couldn't do it: the Twitter-like pace of a Willis, a Reynolds, a Sullivan, a Marshall awes me and completely eludes me.  

I nevertheless think I've sometimes written some fairly good stuff there, usually when I stick to a topic for a while, learn more about it, research it, and finally start to get across to *myself* what the heck interests me about it.  

I call those "jags", and I've been on a few:   Iraq.  Iraq. (More on that in a moment.) Torture.  Bankruptcy bill.  Texasgate. Impeachment.  Executive power.  Civil War/Reconstruction.  Wal-Mart.  Fair Share Health Care.  Feingold 2010.  FISA Amendment Act.  License plate scanners.  A general sense of disgust with the media. Disappointed In Obama.  D'oh!

One Way To Connect

by Gary Farber

ONE WAY TO CONNECT can be this:

This is America:

This is something we can do:

To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor:

The city of Rio de Janeiro is infamous for the fact that one can look out from a precarious shack on a hill in a miserable favela and see practically into the window of a luxury high-rise condominium. Parts of Brazil look like southern California. Parts of it look like Haiti. Many countries display great wealth side by side with great poverty. But until recently, Brazil was the most unequal country in the world

Everything connects:

No Escape

By guest poster Gary Farber.

Prison rape jokes abound every time a heinous trial or crime is in the news. 

I don't need to repeat any: you've heard them.  Heh, heh, I'm not going to feel sorry for that mass murderer/rapist/con artist/thief, and what's coming to him.

Of course, few of us think we'll ever wind up in jail, let alone prison, and most of us won't. 

Prison rape is what happens to The Other. 

Which is where the laughing and the righteous vengeance arise: it's not so funny if you imagine yourself, or one of your loved ones, trapped in an injustice system, unjustly thrust into captivity, and subject to brutal sexual and violent abuse.

Last week, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09.

As you imagine, it's not enjoyable reading. 

The Most Powerful Lobby in Washington

by von

I have a policy:  avoid debating Israeli policy via blog.  I have some experience with deeply-contested histories (obliquely referenced in my St. Patrick's Day post, below).  Contested histories are nuancy.  But the blog format isn't long enough, or interactive enough, to allow for any nuance.  Reduced to spurts of 200 or 500 words, everyone becomes a caricature.  And I'm not interested in debating, or being, a caricature.*

Obviously, with that lead up, I am now going to violate my policy in spectacular form.  Moreover, for maximum effect, I'm going to violate my policy with a headline that is 100% certain to be misunderstood. (This is called assuming the risk, and then raising it one.)

We start with Abe Foxman of the ADL, who claims:

Israel should immediately battle a charge emerging in the US that its actions are endangering the lives of US soldiers, because it is a particularly “pernicious” argument that “smacks of blaming the Jews for everything,” Anti-Defamation League National Chairman Abe Foxman said on Monday.

Andrew Sullivan responds:

The man with the fax machine has declared that Petraeus' recent comments on Israel "[smack] of blaming the Jews for everything.”  Yglesias yawns. ...

....

Reality is meeting a lobby. In Washington, that usually means the lobby wins. But this time, we are at war and America's vital interests are at stake. This will be a struggle - but that there is a struggle at all is progress in a way. I'd be more worried if no sparks were flying.

Two points need to be made here.  First, it is not clear that Foxman is responding to Gen. Patraeus' recent testimony.  That linkage is assumed by Sullivan, Yglesias, and Ackerman -- and then deployed for maximum effect -- but it's not in Foxman's reported comments.  Rather, it seems more likely from the context that Foxman is responding to Biden's comment last week.  Biden's off-the-cuff statement was a good deal stronger than Patraeus' prepared testimony (and Biden may have been misquoted). 

The second point, however, is possibly more important.  Sullivan frames this debate as "Reality is meeting a lobby [e.g., AIPAC]." Let's be perfectly clear on one point:  The most powerful lobby in Washington is not AIPAC, Abe Foxman, the Weekly Standard, "neocons," their allies, or any combination of the foregoing.  The most powerful lobby in Washington is the United States Military.  And it's not even a close call.

That is the true import of Patreaus' measured statement.  If the Department of Defense concludes that a particular Israeli strategy is likely to injure or kill US troops, no one on Capitol Hill is going to stand up for that Israeli strategy.  No one will argue that a settler should build a new home in East Jerusalem at the expense of an American life.  That game is over.  No number of faxes will change it.  And everyone knows it, which is why any gentle pressure from Patreaus will alter US policy more than the harshest words from the usual combatants.

Whether you find this terrifying or exciting depends on your views on the Netanyahu's current governing coalitiation.  And, perhaps, your views of Gen. Patreaus.

Finally, for what it's worth, I think that Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting has been spot-on throughout these recent contretemps.   I also think that Goldberg is absolutely correct that Obama's long-game is to force Netanyahu to ditch the far right parties that make up his coalition.  A goal that I support, by the way.  (Indeed, my second policy is:  The first thing to do is, ditch the crazies.) 

*The exception to my first policy is Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has somehow found and/or created a way to talk about complicated things on a blog.

Just Wars and Detainees

by Robert Mackey

A post I did a few days ago on the argument for manned nuclear bombers, much like any freewheeling discussion on most blogs, soon turned to an interesting cul-de-sac of discussion on the nature of warfare, those whose job it is to both fight and conduct warfare (two quite different things), and what defined a combatant and non-combatant.  I'd like to address the latter and will discuss the former over the next few days.  Comments are always welcome!

The idea of just war, as most of you are well aware, began in the early Christian Era in the West, by old St. Augustine.  No need to ride that old pony for much, other than to note that the idea of war for something other than greed is a relatively new concept in human history.  Of course, like any other good idea, all it takes are a few greedy men to find the loop holes and discover new and interesting ways of making a pacifistic religion into a tool for conflict (see the Crusades and the Thirty Years War for details).

My doctoral work, along with my first book, The UnCivil War, focused several chapters on the outgrowth of the just war concept--the treatment of captured prisoners of war.  In my case studies, I found that officers in the Union Army ran into a very large, and very difficult problem at the beginning of the conflict:  What do you do with captured 'unlawful combatants?'  Federal troops were capturing guerrillas who ostensibly were part of the defense forces of the Confederacy, but did not possess uniforms, flags, and other accouterments of conventional armies, and tended to fight using the method of the irregular warrior--ambush, hit-and-run raids, and waylaying small groups of stragglers--all of which were anathema to the Union Army leadership.  If this sounds familiar to anyone who has happened to keep track of world events since 2001, good for you--it is literally the same problem and issue.  How do you define a combatant and a non-combatant?

The solution was found in Lieber's Code, published in the Union Army as General Orders Number 100, in 1863.  Francis Lieber was the most famous jurist of his time, and in a letter to General Henry W. Halleck, outlined the concepts of the legality of war, the status of combatants, and the responsibility of a capturing nation to provide for prisoners.  Lieber was a Unionist and saw that the Civil War was an illegal war, in the fact that that the Confederate States had no right to secede.  Yet, he did not allow that factor to determine the combatant status of the 'detainees.'  In fact, he pressured Halleck (and President Lincoln) to treat captured Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war, when under international law and practice of the time they could have been legally executed as rebels.  For those of you who dismiss such activities, I'd like to point out the punishments given out to Irish rebels in the uprisings of the same era, by the much more 'civilized' British government, not to mention the British reaction to the Indian Mutiny. 

General Orders 100 basically formed the basis of the law of land warfare, and later the Hague and Geneva Conventions.  It defined different categories of armed combatants--from legal combatants (uniformed soldiers), legal non-combatants, and a new category of irregular soldiers, the partisan.  For those of you who remember old newsreels (or watch the History Channel), you can see partisans operating under the Free French in during the liberation of Paris in 1944.  The wearing of an armband depicting the Cross of Loraine and the Tricolor, and the carrying of arms openly, meant that this person was a legal combatant, and eligible for treatment as a POW.  Strangely, even some German units recognized this (while others, such as the Waffen SS, would shoot anyone if given the chance, even uniformed Allied POWs, such as the hundreds of captured Americans executed at Malmedy in 1944) and treated them as POWs.  The result of Lieber's Code, the idea that a person captured on the battlefield has the right to be protected, brought to an end the ancient practice of enslaving or murdering your captives.  This, as much as the concept of Just War, brought  some semblance of sanity to the conduct of that most insane human activity, warfare.

Of course, the Bush Administration happily ignored nearly 200 years of jurisprudence on the subject and invented an new category, the "illegal combatant," to allow them to hold "detainees" at GTMO indefinitely.  As an aside, I was on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during that time, and gave a copy of my book to one of the Office of Secretary of Defense lawyers working the issue.  I don't think it did any good, but we all do what we can at times.

What does any of this do the concept of Just War? 

The idea of Just War was based on Christian theology, aimed at ending conflict between Christian states in Europe.  Fighting the unbeliever, the infidel, or the sectarian was quite all right under that concept.  The rise of liberalism, secularism and popular democracy brought into question the very idea of legal conflict.  Men, not gods or their priests, suddenly had the ability and the responsibility to make rational judgments on the idea of what is right or wrong in regards to warfare.  While nationalism and imperialism did (and still does) much to encourage conflict between states, rational human beings took a great step forward to maturity by saying "we will not execute those who surrender."

As Guantanamo Bay closes down, let us not forget that these 'detainees' are one of two things--they are either prisoners of war, combatants taken in arms against the United States and its allies, or they are criminals under international law, guilty of crimes against not only the Coalition Forces, but against the nation where they were captured or even against the international community as a whole.  If they are the former (POWs) then they must be protected under the Geneva Convention.  This means they cannot be tried for 'war crimes' conducted while under arms.  They cannot be paraded for public view and humiliation. They cannot be denied their religious practices. They cannot be interrogated after processing and internment. Lastly, they must have a process for repatriation back to their nation of origin.

If they are determined to be criminals--what has been the basic argument of both the Bush and Obama administrations--they must have their day in court.  If the crime was against US forces, they must be given the entire body of US laws to protect their individual rights. A right of trial by jury. The right to face their accusers. The responsibility of the government to present clear evidence.  The right to appeal and to have adequate counsel.  If the crime was committed against or in another country, then that country has the right to try them, just like we would do with any normal crime (e.g., extradition).  If the crime was against the international community, then use the Hague Court for the trial.

Regardless, the concept of Lieber's Code still holds true--the capturing nation must guarantee the safety and protection of the captured combatant at all costs.  It is the very basis of international law and treaty, and the release of a suspected 'terrorist' is nothing in comparison to the long term loss of one of the few successful safeguards against the horrors of war.

The Argument for Manned Nuclear Bombers

by Robert Mackey

When I was a kid, I remember watching Dr. Strangelove for the first time.  Being a male and having grown up in a household filled with World War I, World War II, Korea and (later) Vietnam veterans, I thought the coolest thing in the world were the scenes showing a thundering B-52 flying over the USSR and "Johnny Comes Marching Home" playing in the background [and for those of you who see this as some militaristic weirdness, rest assured, I was about 7...and I think nearly all seven year old boys think large objects that blow stuff up are pretty cool...].

When I read John Berry's Newsweek article "Bye-Bye Bomber", I was fairly shocked to see that members of the Air Force lobbying group (the Air Force Association) and Secretary of Defense Gates were both in favor of eliminating the nuclear role currently held by manned B-52 and B-2 bombers.  Why? Well, in two words:  Expense and "love of the Drone."

Bombers are expensive. The $2 billion or so spent on each B-2 is a LOT of money.  However, given that parts of the airplane are built in just about every congressional district, it isn't exactly like we are spending that same amount on cars built in Germany or Saudi oil.  No, the money goes to defense contractors, who in turn hire people to rivet the wings or whatever, who in turn buy tacos at the local taco stand, and so on.  But I digress.  I get the "bombers are expensive" argument--you have to build, maintain and buy the aircraft; you have to train, pay, care for, and ultimately retire the crews.  A lot of sunk in costs there, not to mention the costs associated with things like Air Force bases (which again are dearly beloved by the local congressmen, just ask Ike Skelton of Missouri). 

What is "the Love of the Drone."  Sounds somewhat like a bee porno movie.  No, this is what I call the love affair that the US is starting to have with unmanned drones.  They can kill terrorists! They will transform the battlefield! They can julienne fries from potatoes! They can teach your children Mozart! What can they not do?!!

Actually, there is a lot that drones cannot do. They cannot fly uninhibited into hostile territory like a manned bomber. Simply put, the nature of modern air warfare (jamming, counter jamming and so on) requires airframes that can carry a substantial load of electronic equipment.  Drones, as currently built, just aren't big enough.  Most are not even protected from small arms fire, from jamming, or from interference from their live-video feeds.  They may be cheap, but so are smoothbore cannon. I don't see anyone saying we should replace modern field artillery with a 12 pound Napoleon from the Civil War--cheap doesn't matter when the system simply cannot get the job done. Just remember what Momma taught you..."You can get cheap or you can get good."

My biggest argument for manned nuclear bombers isn't even their multi-role capability (e.g., they can drop conventional bombs, use cruise missiles, or even drop leaflets).  No, it is political.

Military planners often forget that nuclear weapons are not really "weapons" in the conventional sense. They are political tools, created and employed for political means. They are Clausewitz in concentrated form.  Consequently, you have to examine the political uses of nuclear weapons before any other consideration, to include cost and ease of employment.

A manned bomber can be prepped, armed, manned and sent off an airbase in a matter of hours.  In those hours, diplomats can let a potential adversary know that the US is serious, can attempt to find a solution and can do what they are meant to do.  An ICBM in a silo in the Midwest can be launched in minutes.  It can strike its target in less than 30 minutes.  A submarine-based missile can be sent on its merry way in an even shorter time, and strike targets in half the time of a land-based ICBM.

And neither land-based nor sea-based missiles can be recalled. Once launched, they are gone.  The nature of submarine warfare and the security of missile sites in the US mean that there will be no "warning" of attack to an adversary to make them negotiate.  No, the first time they know the US is serious is when a mushroom cloud appears. 

In short, it is the ICBM that is obsolete--it is a relic of the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction.  I'm all for a handful of failsafe missiles on Trident submarines; they would serve as a final deterrent. But put men and women in the airplanes, capable of making decisions, listening to orders, and able to be recalled to base when an unexpected peace breaks out.

Either that or just get rid of them all.  Short of full nuclear disarmament, however, I'd prefer Slim Pickens flying in a recallable bomber than two guys in a silo in Nebraska with funny keys around their necks.