1 Boring Old Man

Sanford: Let’s change the subject
Governor trying to put talk of resignation, affair behind him
The State
By JOHN O’CONNOR
July 22, 2009

Gov. Mark Sanford said it was time for the state to move on from the weeks-long debate about whether he should stay or resign following his admission of an extramarital affair.

Sanford spoke at the Greer office of the Department of Motor Vehicles to discuss concerns about a federal ID program, his first public appearance in weeks. The governor said he had apologized for his mistake and was working to win back the trust of S.C. residents. A handful of people applauded and shouted their agreement.

“I’m moving forward and I think the people of South Carolina are ready to do the same,” Sanford said, adding to the media: “I’m going to move on with my life. The question is, will you?”

But some were not ready to let the infidelity issue go.

“Where is your wedding ring?” one man shouted. “Why aren’t you wearing it?”

“Get over it,” a woman responded.

Sanford ignored the question…

South Carolina isn’t in very good shape – D Ratings on School Achievement, Unemployment at 12%, 15% living below the poverty level, 44th in Gross Domestic Product, 41st in per capita income – nothing much good going on right now.

While I doubt that anyone reading this thinks that our invasion of Iraq was grounded in any genuine threats to our safety, we’re now in a position to look into whether that fact is going to be swept under the rug or examined formally. Recently, I was looking over John Yoo’s OLC Memos coming from the DoJ in the leadup to the invasion. For review:

The campaign for war started September 8th, 2002 with t.v. appearances by Cheney, Romsfeld, Rice, and Powell. President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly 4 days later. In the background, Yoo’s Memo was laying a legal foundation for our coming invasion [October 23rd], while we were publicly going to the UN. The UN Security Council responded to the allegations with UNSCR 1441 which imposed a strict inspection scedule on Iraq. Notice that there was an OLC Opinion the same day [November 8th, 2002] as the UN Resolution invalidating its hold on our decision making.

But I missed one of Yoo’s Memos last time around, December 7, 2002. The UN Security Council Resolution [1441] called for the immediate resumption of inspections in Iraq. They were begun on November 27th and Iraq submitted its Report on December 7th. Here’s Yoo’s memo from that same day. Notice who had requested the opinion – David Addington, Vice President Gheney’s Counsel.

In retrospect, it’s fairly obvious what was happening. Once the Bush Administration came out swinging [September 8th], the invasion was in the cards. John Yoo was churning out legal justifications for the invasion in anticipation of anything that might interfere with their plans. When the UN passed a stiff resolution for inspections, Yoo published a same day response that the UN Resolution did not bind President Bush’s decisions about invading. On the same day that Hussein reported to the UN, Yoo declared that any false statements were a cause for war, and further, that our President could declare what constituted an infraction.

Just the other day, one Republican Senator said, and I’m quoting him now, "if we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. It is about a health care system that is breaking American families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.

“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality.”

To me, it feels like an extension of an attitude that pervaded the Bush Administration’s policies – some attempt to fundamentally change the way our country operates in the area of Civil Rights, the Environment, in any kind of Social Services. In the eight years they were in office, they nearly bankrupted the country morally as well as financially – and put us in a foreign policy hole that seems imponderable at this point. Now, they’re preaching that Obama has to be stopped before he destroys the country.

“Protecting” President Cheney, Too
By: emptywheel
July 21, 2009

In today’s second installment on ways American taxpayers are wasting money to protect Dick Cheney from embarrassment, Josh Gerstein has a report on today’s hearing on CREW’s FOIA of Cheney’s interview in the CIA Leak Case. And DOJ is unabashedly making the argument that it should not release Dick Cheney’s interview because it might embarrrass him.

^{Smith said the Justice Department’s view was that a delay of five to ten years was appropriate, marked from the time the official or his or her administration left office. “It’s a judgment call,” Smith acknowledged. Smith suggested that such a delay would make it more likely that the information was used for historical purposes and not for political embarrassment. “The distinction is between releasing it for historical view and releasing it into the political fray,” Smith said.}

Funny, DOJ claimed it was arguing for the longer-than-statutes-of-limitation delay because of concerns that future Vice Presidents wouldn’t cooperate willingly with investigations. As time goes on an their arguments look shittier and shittier, I guess, they become more and more truthful. Thus their invention of a new FOIA embarrassment exemption. It sounds like Emmet Sullivan is not buying that argument–though he is also unwilling to just order the release of the interview without giving Obama’s DOJ an opportunity to waste more money protecting Cheney from embarrassment.

^{As the hearing concluded, Sullivan said he thought Congress had drawn a “bright line” with language in the Freedom of Information Act that generally exempts information about pending investigations from disclosure, but not closed probes, like the CIA leak case. He also said he would stay any ruling so the government could appeal before he released any documents.}

President Obama? Attorney General Holder? This nonsense has gone on long enough. As I noted, Cheney’s participation in this probe is proof enough that the investigative concerns are bunk. It really is high time to stop wasting money preventing taxpayers from learning what Cheney did in our name.

^{And you know what? They said something here that we are trying to put a cloud on the Vice President. We’ll talk straight. There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. He wrote those columns. He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to Judith Miller at the St. Regis hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn’t put that cloud there. That cloud remains because a defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. Did he come in straight and say what really happened? He came in and said, told the grand jury, I don’t remember anything. I remember learning about the wife. I learned it from Russert as if it were new. I was sitting around thinking I don’t even know if Wilson’s married. How do we know he has a wife? He’s put the doubt into whatever happened that week, whatever is going on between the Vice President and the defendant, that cloud was there. That’s not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can’t pretend isn’t there.}

A friend had a severe chest pain that developed over several days. It sounded like Shingles, but there was no rash. I was stumped. She went to the emergency room with a complaint of "chest pain." Before being examined, she had a Chest X-Ray, an EKG, and Lab Work. By the time she was examined, the rash had finally appeared. Yep. It was Shingles. I guess "chest pain" = "possible heart attack" = "X-Ray, EKG, Lab."

Even someone as "business avoidant" as I am can’t hide, even in a log cabin in the woods. I’m on the Board of an after school program for druggie adolescents that have gotten in trouble with the law. Drugs are ubiquitous in rural America. In our area, the heart of the "moonshiners" of yore, it’s meth labs and pills from Mexico. It’s a really good program. The kids choose it over incarceration. They are drug tested frequently; they have to be in school and pass; and they come to our program three afternoons a week. They call it "drug court" [I’m in drug court], and bitch and moan about having to do it. But they’re dealt with by some very dedicated recovering adults who really make a difference, playing strict but beloved "aunt" and "uncle" roles to kids from homes that are beyond "broken." The results are impressive.

But funding such a thing is very difficult. State money comes and goes. Medicaide Providers come and go, change the rules, are slower than turtles paying. The guy that runs the program started it up by mortgaging his house, and we eke along week by week with payroll. They drive 70 miles to the food bank in Chattanooga to get drinks and snacks for the kids. We borrow empty buildings to have a space for the program. The Counsellors carry the records in their cars, because there’s no permanent storage. So the program is a clinical success but a fiscal nightmare.

Which brings me to yesterday. There’s another bigger, better funded, facility owning, non-profit that has remained financially viable over time. But in the process, they shut down needed services, delivered less than what they promised, and alienated the judges who make these referrals. They had actually bailed out on a previous incarnation of the very "drug court" program I’m involved with. So, yesterday, I’m in a meeting. The other non-profit needs "clients." We need funding. We were trying to broker a deal that was win-win, something like their assuming our debt and taking over the finances, and we continue the clinical part. I don’t know what the outcome is going to be, but it got me thinking about what’s going on in Washington. All we talked about was money, coverage, billing, and I left with a headache.

ShrinkRap
07/16/2009

Common Cause lists these as issues that need to be investigated and calls for a special prosecutor to be appointed:

• Warrantless spying on Americans.
• Misuse of the state secrets doctrine.
• Preventive detention and secret prisons.
• Use of torture and other interrogation abuses.
• Deliberate flaunting of Congress’ oversight role.
• Politicization of the Justice Department.
• Abuse of executive privilege.
• Misuse of signing statements to override laws duly passed by Congress.

That seems to me more than sufficient to mandate an investigation. But I would add one glaring omission:

• Presenting false evidence and lying to Congress and to the American people, as well as the United Nations, as justification for invading Iraq, a sovereign nation which was no imminent threat to the United States.

Bush went to the U.N. a few days later [September 12th]. Meanwhile the Department of Justice got in the act:

The U.N. acted, and passed UNSCR 1441, which laid out stiff requirements for resumption of inspections in Iraq and Hussein agreed. The U.N. Resolution was passed on November 8th, 2002. But Yoo was ready. This OLC Memo was released on the same day, just to cover the fact that the UN resolution didn’t bind the President or affect his ability to make war on Iraq, no matter how things came out:

But we now know that this UN business was all for show. The outcome was already assured. Note the date JULY 23rd.

The inspectors didn’t find anything in Iraq, but there was inadequate documentation. The UN was continuing to pressure Iraq. But when it became obvious that the Security Council wasn’t yet ready to declare war, we acted unilaterally.

• No immediate threat
• No WMDs
• No harboring of Terrorists
• No involvement in 9/11

Internal Rifts on Road to Torment
Interviews Offer More Nuanced Look At Roles of CIA Contractors, Concerns Of Officials During Interrogations
By Joby Warrick and Peter Finn
Washington Post
July 19, 2009

… At the secret prison, dissent over Mitchell’s methods peaked. First Shumate left, followed by Soufan. At the site, Shumate had expressed concerns about sleep deprivation, and back in Langley he complained again about Mitchell’s tactics, according to the former U.S. official and another source familiar with events in Thailand. Then one of the CIA debriefers left. In early June, Gaudin flew to Washington for a meeting on what was happening in Thailand, and the FBI did not allow him to return.

Jessen, newly retired from the military, arrived in Thailand that month. Mitchell and his partner continued to ratchet up the pressure on Abu Zubaida, although Bush administration lawyers had not yet authorized the CIA’s harshest interrogation measures. That came verbally in late July and then in writing on Aug. 1, paving the way to new torments. Interrogators wrapped a towel around Abu Zubaida’s neck and slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was slapped in the face. He was placed in a coffin-like wooden box in which he was forced to crouch, with no light and a restricted air supply, he later told delegates from the Red Cross.

Finally, he was waterboarded.

Abu Zubaida told the Red Cross that a black cloth was placed over his face and that interrogators used a plastic bottle to pour water on the fabric, creating the sensation that he was drowning. The former U.S. official said that waterboarding forced Abu Zubaida to reveal information that led to the Sept. 11, 2002, capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, the key liaison between the Hamburg cell led by Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and al-Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan.

But others contend that Binalshibh’s arrest was the result of several pieces of intelligence, including the successful interrogation by the FBI of a suspect held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan who had been in contact via satellite phone with Binalshibh, as well as information gleaned from an interview Binalshibh gave to the television network al-Jazeera. Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced.

"Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team’s back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, ‘You’ve lost your spine.’" Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others.

"It was hard on them, too," the former U.S. official said. "They are psychologists. They didn’t enjoy this at all." The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said. After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

I thought of Eichman as I read this article. James E. Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen were two clinical psychologists who are looking pretty bad right now. They were the driving force advising the C.I.A. in their interrogation of Abu Zubaida in Thailand using theories borrowed from clinical psychology [learned helplessness] and techniques lifted from the worst of the Communists in the Korean War and the Middle Ages. I expect that from their point of view, they were just doing their jobs.

In other accounts, they were chomping at the bit to have a crack at some high value detainee. Here was a chance to be the force that prevented another 9/11. And they were up against a hardened F.B.I. interrogator who used other techniques – getting close to the captive by changing  his bandages, praying with him. There was a lot of pressure to get a lot of information in a big hurry. So they began an escalating program trying to force information to flow from Abu Zubaida. All of this discussion with phrases like "borderline torture" is completely silly. What they did was just plain torture – nakedness, bombardment with loud music, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation, boarding, water-boarding – all of it.

Like with Adolph Eichman, the people "upstairs" were clamoring for results. Adolph Eichman, James E. Mitchell, and John "Bruce" Jessen were just trying to please their voracious superiors in offices somewhere else. "Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent,. Headquarters said it would be on the team’s back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, ‘You’ve lost your spine.’" But finally, "Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others. The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure."

Losing my religion for equality
The Age
Jimmy Carter
July 15, 2009

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I have been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service…