Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« May 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Sunday, 7 May 2006
Hot of the Virtual Press
Topic: Announcements

Hot of the Virtual Press

Click here to go there...
The new issue of Just Above Sunset, the weekly magazine-format site that is parent to this daily web log, is now online. This is Volume 4, Number 19 for the week of May 7, 2006.

This week's issue covers the pervious week's extraordinary events, opening with a bit of photo reporting - an account of the May Day march for immigrants' rights on Wilshire Boulevard here in Los Angeles, with fourteen high resolution shots, and commentary. The "day after" column then lays down a series of markers for where we are as a nation - who can say what and who has to follow the rules. Wednesday was the Moussaoui verdict - he doesn't die - so what does that mean, and who really won and who really lost? And there's an account of all the chickens coming home to roost the following day, as the consequences of what "those who decide" did decide caused no end of real trouble. The week ended with a burst of odd news - another Kennedy in a career-limiting car wreck had the nation buzzing, when the head of the CIA suddenly was gone, and no one was saying why - a news junkie's dream. And that buried the final item, which really should be noted, because the administration was saved from real trouble by the folks in Albania. Albania? No, really.

For those not politically inclined there is the photography. For architecture buffs there's a three page spread on the Wiltern Theater and adjacent Pellissier Building, considered one of the finest examples of Art Deco architecture in the United States. If you need more Hollywood, there's that restored twenties movie palace up on Hollywood Boulevard, the famous Egyptian Theater, and the fake British pub attached to it, where the stars of yesteryear hung out. And there's the twenties apartment buildings where they lived. And for the children of the sixties, there's the George Harrison Tree at Griffith Park Observatory. That's very odd. And for those who only logon for the new high-resolution botanical shots, they're here too.

Of course our friend from Texas provides the weekly array of the weird. And the quotes this week? If you think things are going badly these days, and the polls show most of you do, read some very odd comments on pessimism.

Direct links to specific pages -

Extended Observations on Current Events ______________________

On the Scene: May Day in Los Angeles
The Day After: Tuesday Tidbits
No Fried Moussaoui: The News, Reaction and Embedded Comment
Consequences: Chickens, Coming Home, Roosting
Whipsaw Friday: What A Way To End The Week
Christmas in May: Albania to the Rescue

Southern California Photography ______________________

Architecture: One Of The Finest Examples Of Art Deco Architecture In The United States
Landmarks: Walk Like an Egyptian, or Something
Long Ago: Notes on Hollywood History
Small Details: The George Harrison Tree at Griffith Park Observatory
Botanicals: Bursts of Color

The Weird: WEIRD, BIZARRE and UNUSUAL
Quotes for the week of April 23, 2006 - Why be pessimistic?

Posted by Alan at 17:24 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Saturday, 6 May 2006
Christmas in May: Albania to the Rescue
Topic: The Law

Christmas in May: Albania to the Rescue

This is just a follow-up to an item in the these pages on Christmas Day, 2005, here, a discussion of an Associated Press item two days before Christmas about the Chinese Muslims "in limbo" at Guantánamo.

Limbo? That would be this -
Washington, Friday, December 23, 2005 - Two Chinese Muslims can be held indefinitely in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, even though their confinement is unlawful, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Abu Bakker Qassim and A'Del Abdu Al-Hakim, who were captured in Pakistan in 2001, had asked to be released after the government determined nine months ago that they were not "enemy combatants."

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, who has criticized the government for holding the two ethnic Uighurs, said their "indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."

At the same time, he said, the federal courts have "no relief to offer" the two men.
They were just out of luck, even if it was Christmas.

At the time there were others commenting, as in this item from "Hilzoy" noting that over four years ago these two were captured by bounty hunters and turned over to us for cash and finally, in early 2005, a military tribunal found that they were not enemy combatants after all. Someone just wanted some money and these two guys were sold to us as really, really bad guys. We paid, but we were had. It happens to us all. We buy something as advertised and when we get it home find out it doesn't work or isn't what they said it was.

The December 2005 count finding is here (PDF format), saying holding these two was clearly illegal - "The detention of these petitioners has by now become indefinite. This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."

And then the finding is that, in this case, the courts just cannot do anything about this, even if it is illegal -
In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court confirmed the jurisdiction of the federal courts "to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." 542 U.S. at 485. It did not decide what relief might be available to Guantanamo detainees by way of habeas corpus, nor, obviously, did it decide what relief might be available to detainees who have been declared "no longer enemy combatants." Now facing that question, I find that a federal court has no relief to offer.
It seems no one thought that far ahead, or more precisely, who would "hate America" so much to think we needed a mechanism to manage any mistakes we made? We don't make mistakes. To propose that we might, and suggest procedures to fix them if the occur, is to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Hilzoy at the time suggested the judge should have ordered that we send them to Peoria or something -
He cannot just order the government to open the gates of the camp at Guantanamo and let Qassim and al-Hakim walk free: they'd be walking out onto a military base, and judges do not have the power to order that someone be admitted to a military installation. No other country is willing to take them. The obvious solution is to release them into the United States.
But that won't work. They're Chinese nationals who received military training in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and China wants them back. They were, after all, in Afghanistan to learn all sorts of ways to fight to overthrow the Chinese government, and we're working on better relations with them - President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao met in Washington on Thursday, April 20, 2006. Don't tick off the Chinese. That would be the end of Wal-Mart, and they buy all those five and ten year Federal Notes that keep our economy afloat - you just don't tick off the folks holding the IOU's. And anyway, requiring their release into the United States, as the judge notes, "would have national security and diplomatic implications beyond the competence or the authority of this Court."

The same week, Mark Kleiman, the public policy professor out here at UCLA, said the president ought to do something -
Of course, the lack of power in the court to order a remedy for the Uigurs' wrongs shouldn't matter. When court of competent jurisdiction finds that an act of the executive branch is illegal, the President, having taken an oath to "faithfully execute" an office whose chief duty is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," is oath-bound to order that the illegal activity cease. His failure to do so is grounds for impeachment.

But we have a President whose word isn't worth the spit behind it, and a Congressional majority blinded by partisanship. So the illegal (and inhumane) action of holding innocent non-combatants prisoner will continue, forever or until we elect a better President, whichever comes first.
But the story faded away. Too much else happened to distract those unhappy with the president, and you have to wonder whether there's an administration strategy here - do so many outrageous things, like claiming the president has the authority to ignore any law he decides he should if you think about what the constitution really says, and no one will be able to focus on any one single "outrage" for more than a day or two. You just overwhelm your opponents be giving them too many good targets. They get all confused. It works.

But this one issue was just resolved. The answer was Albania. Isn't it always?

Note this from Reuters -
WASHINGTON, May 5 - The United States said on Friday it had flown five Chinese Muslim men who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay prison to resettle in Albania, declining to send them back to China because they might face persecution.

The State Department said Albania accepted the five ethnic Uighurs - including two whose quest for freedom went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court - for resettlement as refugees.

The Pentagon said 17 other Chinese Uighurs remained at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because, unlike the five sent to Albania, they were still deemed "enemy combatants."

... State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Albania's resettlement of the men was an important humanitarian gesture, and expressed U.S. appreciation.
Something is up when our government is publicly saying nice things about Albania, which used to be one of the two remaining hard-line old-style "Stalinist utopias" left in this world, Cuba being the other - although things in Albania have changed quite a bit as they really would like to join the European Union.

And Reuters does mention the "back story."

This was not exactly humanitarian - on April 17th the Supreme Court had "declined to consider" whether a federal judge actually could just free these two, as their detention was flat-out illegal, but the issue was far from over -
Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights representing the two men, said their case was due to be heard again in court on Monday. Olshansky said the U.S. government's decision to send them to Albania was made "to avoid having to answer in court for keeping innocent men in jail."

"We had no idea they were going to Albania. We didn't have any time to get anything on the ground to assist them with resettlement or to find out about whether they are trying to send them into some kind of detention," Olshansky said.
Well, if Albania has any need to suck up to China, they could jail these guys and torture them - make the eat the local cuisine (think stewed goat and garlic) and listen to Albania folk music (excruciating). But we asked them not to do that, as the Pentagon spokesman said - "The United States has done the utmost to ensure that the Uighurs will be treated humanely upon release. Our key objective has been to resettle the Uighurs in an environment that will permit them to rebuild their lives. Albania will provide this opportunity."

Everyone should have a second chance in Albania.

The Chinese are pissed, and their foreign ministry on April 20 said the United States should "repatriate Chinese-nationality terror suspects" as quickly as it can be arranged - and a Pentagon spokesman shot back - "The United States has made it clear that it does not expel, return or extradite individuals to other countries where it believes that it is more likely than not that they will be tortured or subject to persecution."

There's no small irony in what the Pentagon spokesman said. The same day we sent the two Chinese "mistakes" off to the good life in Albania we were getting hammered in UN hearings about torture and rendition (discussed here - we blustered and denied, and were met with known facts and logic, and what could be called derision).

In any event, it would be wise to remember the core issue, and what's happening.

Hilzoy says this -
Arguments in the Uighurs' appeal were scheduled to be heard on Monday morning. (I was going to go to DC to hear them.) I wish I could think it was just a coincidence that after over a year of searching, the administration found a country willing to take the Uighurs today. But I can't. This administration has built up quite a track record of freeing people (or, in Jose Padilla's case, bringing unrelated charges) just in time to render their appeals moot, thereby preventing the courts from finding their conduct illegal or unconstitutional.
Yep, the administration dodged a bullet. Thank you, Albania, all is forgiven.

The first amendment attorney Glenn Greenwald says this -
The administration has repeatedly claimed that it has ample legal justification for all sorts of extremist measures - from indefinite detention of American citizens in military prisons without a trial, to its use of torture and rendition policies, to its eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants - but it then invokes every possible maneuver to prevent judicial adjudication of the constitutionality and legality of its conduct.

The two most transparent and truly outrageous instances of these evasive maneuvers, as Hilzoy points out, were in the cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla - two American citizens whom the administration abducted (in Padilla's case, on U.S. soil) and threw into a military prison without bringing any charges or even allowing them access to a lawyer or any contact with the outside world. The administration held them there for years, claiming - based solely on George Bush's secret decree - that they were such dangerous terrorists that they had lost the constitutional right not to be imprisoned by the U.S. Government without a trial.

But when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hamdi had a right to challenge Bush's decree and that the administration therefore had to prove the validity of its factual allegations against him, the administration simply released Hamdi from its custody altogether. And in Padilla's case, the administration - one week before its brief was due to the Supreme Court, which was to rule on the legality of Padilla's 3 1/2 year lawless incarceration - suddenly and finally brought criminal charges against him, and then told the Supreme Court that there was no longer any need to rule on Padilla's claims that the administration had violated his constitutional rights, thus (yet again) avoiding a judicial determination of the legality of its conduct.

And now, they have done the same thing in the case of the Uighur detainees.

... Of all the abuses and excesses engaged in by the administration, the one that I am endlessly amazed can prompt defenses - even from the most zomibified Bush followers - is the administration's claim to have the power to incarcerate - indefinitely - U.S. citizens without any charges. Even the administration knows that much of their conduct is indefensible, which is why they abandon their efforts when they are forced to defend the legality of their behavior.
How does that thing about trail lawyers go - if you can't argue the facts, argue the law? And if you can't do that, bamboozle the jury with emotional appeals and jingoistic patriotism - but then that Moussaoui fellow didn't get the death penalty, did he? And when, as in this case, you face a panel of judges and not twelve untrained, rube jurors, and you have exhausted your options - and the president himself is going to lose the one key gonzo power that makes him very, very happy - off course you send the plaintiffs to Albania. The problem goes away. Or it goes away until the next case, and you hope Albania will be again the land of opportunity - where folks can rebuild their lives.

The whole thing stinks, of course, but this may be the start of a new tourist campaign - "Come to Albania, the land of fresh starts." Heck, they could even build a fancy statue at the port of Vlorë with some words at the base about giving Albania those huddled masses yearning to be free. The French gave us one. Maybe they'd like to build another.

Posted by Alan at 18:29 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 6 May 2006 18:33 PDT home

Friday, 5 May 2006
Whipsaw Friday: What A Way To End The Week
Topic: Breaking News

Whipsaw Friday: What A Way To End The Week

So the managing editor, that person who decides what news story goes first, and which stories follow, and in which order, and how many column inches or airtime each gets, depending on the medium, on Friday, May 5th, faced a bit of dilemma.

You had to go with another Kennedy, under the influence, in a car wreck, even if no one died this time. You had to go with this - "A day after a minor traffic caused a major stir by raising questions about Representative Patrick J. Kennedy's condition while he was driving, the Congressman announced that he is entering treatment for addiction to prescription medication."

As this Kennedy, a six-term Democratic congressman from Rhode Island, is the son of Ted Kennedy - the Democratic senator from Massachusetts who could never run for president, as his two older brothers had, after he had driven off a bridge and the sweet young thing with him died - this was just too juicy not to run top right, page one, or use to open the newscast. You could play up "The Curse of Camelot" - America's "first royal family" and its tragic flaws, or, if you were playing to the right, its inherent sleaziness and immorality that mirrored the inherent sleaziness and immorality of all liberals (the current crop of Republicans may be crooks and going to jail in twos and threes weekly, but at least they are pious Christians who have some self-control).

The administration and the Republicans in the House and Senate had been taking a beating, and the day had opened with another new poll, with the president's approval hitting a new low, the lowest of any second term president except for Nixon the week before he resigned, thirty-three percent, and with the Republican congress dropping ten points down to twenty-five percent approval. The Democrats had been making hay (or hey) over all the problems - the size of the "strongly disapprove" numbers and the word "incompetence" coming up so often seemed to have a whole lot to do with war in Iraq and the problems there more than three years after we "won," and the lingering issue of FEMA and the slow-reacting president and the still obvious mess in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast long after Hurricane Katrina, and the record-high gasoline prices, and this and that. And the morning had opened up with the job numbers for the last month - the Labor Department reported American employers added 138,000 jobs in April, and economists had expected 200,000 new jobs as a median, a little below the 217,000 news jobs that would keep up with population growth. Bummer - but actually great news for some. The stock market hit a six year high - maybe there'd not be another inflation fighting interest rate hike from the Fed, making doing business one notch more expense, and this would hold down costs by tamping down salaries, killing "wage demand" (see Bloomberg here). Hey, no one would be demanding higher wages or bailing out for a better job now, and labor cost would go down again. Business would continue to boom. Yes, it is troubling that those who actually vote have seen their real wages decline significantly in the last six years, and their health care and commuting costs jump amazingly higher and higher quite regularly, and that corporations don't vote (they only buy the behavior of those who have been voted in). But you could spin this. The economy is really great. Business is booming. And as for the eighty percent for whom it isn't, the new data could be spun as being their own fault for not taking personal responsibility for their lives, or for not buying big blocks of stocks and bonds, like normal people.

In the context of the day's "numbers" the Kennedy story was a godsend. No matter how bad things seemed, you could at least say "look at the druggie, or really, the drunk - do you want those sort of people in charge?"

The Kennedy story played into the Republican "We're the Responsible Ones" narrative that had been being torn to shreds. And the younger Kennedy had a mid-day news conference where he said he'd be off to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for some rehabilitation treatment, as he said the problem was, really, that for years he'd been dealing with clinical depression - the deadly serious underlying problem.

This was too good, evoking the name Thomas Eagleton, the senator who withdrew from the Mondale ticket back in 1972 when it came out that he had the same problem, and had had shock treatments. Democrats are just certifiably insane. The Kennedy story was a gift - a ray of light after months and months of darkness.

Of course there was a bit of gloom the same day for the evangelical right and the "values" crowd and their fight against Darwin and science that supports him, and the math and physics and astronomy that support that evolution stuff, as the Vatican's astronomer visited Scotland and said some distressing things, as we see in The Scotsman here -
Believing that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.
Damn - even if the Catholic Church has a problem with war as a good thing, and doesn't see torture as morally right even if only Americans do it for the greater good, at least they adamantly condemn abortion, and the use of birth control of any kind, and seem so obviously Republican - and now we get this. Creationism and Intelligent Design are just paganism repackaged. Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality? Bummer.

But the news from Brother Consolmagno was lucky insignificant in light of the Kennedy story, as every managing editor over here knew. The Catholic Church ripping apart of creationism, and by implication its subset Intelligent Design, was put on the backburner. We had other Friday fish to fry. And very few care what if anything happens in Glasgow.

So the day was to be a turning point for the sinking Republicans and the beleaguered president.

Then it all fell apart. The CIA Director resigned, or was fired, or forced out, or something, and the news hit the wires an hour or two before the younger Kennedy made his remarks and left the room for Rochester Minnesota.

The official explanation of what this was all about, delivered as usual by way of leaks from those inside who demanded anonymity (how Americans get the White House version of things), came from the Washington Post Saturday morning with this array of tidbits -
Porter J. Goss was forced to step down yesterday as CIA director, ending a turbulent 18-month tenure marked by an exodus of some of the agency's top talent and growing White House dissatisfaction with his leadership during a time of war.

The likely successor to Goss is Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, senior administration officials said. He could be named as soon as Monday.

Seated next to President Bush in the Oval Office, Goss, a Republican congressman from Florida before he took over the CIA, said he was "stepping aside" but gave no reason for the departure.
Bush, who did not name a successor, said he had accepted the resignation and thanked Goss for his service.

... senior administration officials said Bush had lost confidence in Goss, 67, almost from the beginning and decided months ago to replace him. In what was described as a difficult meeting in April with Negroponte, Goss was told to prepare to leave by May, according to several officials with knowledge of the conversation.

"There has been an open conversation for a few weeks, through Negroponte, with the acknowledgment of the president" about replacing Goss, said a senior White House official who discussed the internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Another senior White House official said Goss had always been viewed as a "transitional figure" who would leave by year's end. His departure was accelerated when Bush shook up his White House staff in hopes of beginning a political turnaround.

... administration officials said Goss never forged a strong relationship with Bush. "It just didn't click," one official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Goss's reserved personality and inability to master details of intelligence activities dampened the atmosphere of the president's morning intelligence briefing, which had been a central feature of the close relationship between Bush and Tenet.
So that's what was leaked to the Post so they could provide the "real story" as the White house wants it told - Goss was just not a good ol' boy and it that wouldn't do. He was too "reserved," and that was his downfall. And he probably didn't like the ranch either. Snob. Not one of the regular guys.

The Post does mentions other factors the White House didn't need to leak - the open revolt in the agency with a good number of key high-level executives quitting in disgust as top positions went to Republican operatives who knew next to nothing about what the CIA did and how things worked.

Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show "Countdown" interviewed an ex-CIA fellow and asked him if Goss had been trying to turn the CIA into FEMA, with a whole array Michael Browns running the major operations. The ex-CIA guy got a kick out of that and smiled broadly.

There is that 'let's make it political" factor, the effort to make the agency Republican, and not neutral. The old CIA was mad as hell when that Plame woman, a key secret agent, was exposed in the process of a political "hit" to discredit her pesky husband, and demanded an investigation, the one that we have now. Goss, who was head of the House Intelligence Committee at the time said he saw no problem. That didn't endear him to those he was then supposed to manage. And firing the woman who leaked to the Post all that stuff about our secret prisons in the old Soviet prisons in Eastern Europe, and about the nasty "renditions" that filled them, didn't work out well when it turned out she hadn't and this was part of an effort to purge the agency of those who even once voted fro a Democrat or who were just neutral? That didn't make Goss too popular in the ranks - you don't dump professional directors of key operations with decades of hard-won experience and excellent contacts because they're not enthusiast Republicans. And you don't laugh off exposing a key agent because her husband embarrassed the president and suggested he was a liar or a fool. Or maybe you do. But it doesn't make you popular with those risking their lives just trying to find out what's really going on in the hotspots of the world.

The Los Angeles Times runs this -
Four former deputy directors of operations once tried to offer Goss advice about changing the clandestine service without setting off a rebellion, but Goss declined to speak to any of them, said former CIA officials who are aware of the communications. The perception that Goss was conducting a partisan witch hunt grew, too, as staffers asked about the party affiliation of officers who sent in cables or analyses on Iraq that contradicted the Defense Department's more optimistic scenarios.
But the White House just lost confidence - and too this Goss fellow didn't like working under Negroponte instead of the old way where the CIA director controlled more and had the president's ear.

But the leaked White House version of what happened just doesn't make sense. No public reason for what happened is offered, and, if this was in the works for weeks and weeks, no successor named. And they drop this bombshell, so to speak, right in the middle of the day when Kennedy story was relieving a whole lot of pressure on the stories of the "incompetent president no one like at all and his even more feckless House and Senate enablers." It could have waited. Something else is going on?

Many are guessing that.

Jane Hampsher does here -
Color me confused. Everyone on TV seems to be buying the line that the Goss resignation has been planned for weeks. No natural curiosity about the fact that it takes effect immediately, or that there is no replacement, or that he had a meeting scheduled this afternoon he didn't show up for. Not to mention the fact that ... the White House would've probably sacrificed its collective left nut to avoid stepping on a drunk Kennedy story.

But has the entire press corps turned into such a pile of humorless prudes that they can't connect the dots in the Brent Wilkes hooker scandal?
The hooker scandal?

There's a nice review of that from Josh Marshall here -
... The hookers in Hookergate are, of course, the sizzle. But there's a bigger story. It stems directly from the Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery scandal, which many had figured was over. But it's not. You may have noticed that while Duke Cunningham is already in jail and Mitchell Wade has already pled guilty to multiple charges, Brent Wilkes has never been touched. Wilkes is the ur-briber at the heart of the Cunningham scandal, you can see pretty clearly by reading the other indictments and plea agreements. Wade was Wilkes' protégé.

Now, on the surface one might surmise that the prosecutors are just taking their time, putting together their best case.

I hear different.

Wilkes has deep ties into the CIA. The focal point of those ties is to Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the man Porter Goss appointed to the number three position at CIA when he took over the Agency last year. Remember, Wilkes' scam was getting corrupt contracts deep in the 'black' world of intelligence and defense appropriations, where there's little or no oversight. Foggo was in the contracting and procurement field at the CIA. So you can see how he and Wilkes, who have been friends since high school, had plenty to talk about.

The CIA wasn't the only place Wilkes and his protégé Wade plied their corrupt trade. There were also in the mix contracting on the Bush Pentagon's extra-constitutional spying operations. And I am told that senior appointees at the DOD knew about their corruption but overlooked it.

Now, since the Cunningham scandal got under, and particularly of late, there's been a big tug of war between federal law enforcement and the CIA over whether to really go after Wilkes. Probably a little more specificity is in order there, folks at CIA in the orbit of Foggo and presumably Goss.

Now, how does Goss know Foggo?

That's how we get into the other part of this story - those 'hospitality suites', that moveable feast of food, poker and love, Brent Wilkes ran in Washington for maybe fifteen years. We hear that's how Goss got to be friends with Foggo, whom he later promoted to executive director of the CIA, the number three post at the Agency.

Now, last week, Goss denied he had attended any of Wilkes' parties. ... Foggo admitted attending the parties but claimed he'd never seen the hookers.

Now, corrupt contractors saucing up Agency officials and members of Congress to get contracts and free money. Hospitality suites where the saucing takes place. Hookers in the mix. It's going on for more than a decade, various members of the key committees in the mix. Goss, former member of one of those committees, appoints one of the key players in all this mess as the number three guy at CIA? The feds leaning hard on the limo company owner who probably knows all the details and already has a long rap sheet and can't afford another conviction?

There's a lot going on here, a lot we don't know, what's connected and what's coincidence. But this is the backstory. And why this story is likely to turn out to be a very big deal.
Is it? Even the editor of the Weekly Standard, William "Bill" Kristol, the public voice of the neoconservative movement, and one of the founding members of the Project for the New American Century that became the definers of what our foreign policy should be, was on Fox News saying to Shepard Smith that there must be something else going on (video here) -
KRISTOL: It wasn't done in a routine way. I don't think people - certainly people close to Goss did not expect this to happen. Senior congressmen and senators didn't expect this to happen. I'm not sure the White House expected this to happen. ... I do think this was sudden. It was unexpected. There will be more of a story that will come out. I don't know what it implies for the future of the agency and Goss' effort to shake up an institution, an institution that's very difficult to shake up. But I do not believe it was part of a long-planned -

SHEPHARD SMITH: How the heck could it have been? In a Bush White House world, things are lined up and they're put out in a sort of meticulous, controlled way. I can envision - if this had been planned in advance, there would have been almost an immediate announcement of a replacement, the hugs, the thank yous, probably a medal or something. Instead what we have now is a vacuum, and you have to wonder what could have gone boom like that to cause him, A) to tender the resignation and, B) for the President to accept it under these circumstances.

KRISTOL: Well you and I think alike, Shep. Either it's brilliant minds or suspicious minds thinking alike -

SMITH: It is just out of character.

KRISTOL: It looked that way to me. What was striking about the statement in the Oval Office with the President, he didn't say, "I will serve until my successor is confirmed," which is the usual practice. In the written statement, he says he intends to be there for a few weeks to help ensure a smooth transition, but implying he could well leave before his successor is confirmed by the United States Senate. So again, I think there were either serious disputes or some internal problem at the agency or some scandal conceivably involving an associate of Goss'. Who knows? Something that popped this week and that caused this sudden event this Friday.
It could be the FBI agents fanning out all over DC wanting to talk to hookers.

And there's this suggesting the key is this "Dusty" Foggo fellow, the low-level supervisor Goss lifted from obscurity to make him number three at the CIA -
As we've reported previously, the CIA's inspector general is looking into Foggo's oversight of contracts at the agency; NBC says the investigation includes allegations that Foggo steered a $2.4 million contract to Brent Wilkes, one of the contractors implicated in the Cunningham case. Wilkes and Foggo have been pals since college, and Foggo made the scene at - and even hosted some of - the contractors' poker parties.
Maybe it was just time to resign, before it all ended in an embarrassing prep walk. And it had to be done now, before everything came out. Yeah, it neutralized the wonderful another-drunk-Kennedy-driving-badly story, but perhaps there was no choice.

Maybe it's what the Wall Street Journal reports Saturday Morning, that the Friday bombshell resignation had something that came up, oddly, on Friday -
The agency also has been drawn into a federal investigation of bribery that has sent former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham to prison. Just this past week, the CIA confirmed that its third-ranking official, a hand-picked appointee of Mr. Goss, had attended poker games at a hospitality suite set up by a defense contractor implicated in the bribing of former Rep. Cunningham. Friday, people with knowledge of the continuing Cunningham inquiry said the CIA official, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, is under federal criminal investigation in connection with awarding agency contracts.
Odd. Meet a fellow at a decades long series of poker-plus stag parties run by shady contractors the guy has known since high school, promote him from obscurity to a top position where he manages all contracts, and stand back? And within the Post item at the top, this - "After Goss's announcement yesterday, Foggo told colleagues that he will resign next week."

This is a mess. And the managing editors all over lost their juicy another-drunk-Kennedy-driving-badly story. The man who ran the key agency keeping us safe from foreign threats by finding out what was going on in the shadowy corners of the world had to cut out, quickly.

But then, the younger Kennedy gets less attention, and his problems seem insignificant.

What a way to end the week.

Posted by Alan at 23:31 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 5 May 2006 23:34 PDT home

Thursday, 4 May 2006
Chickens, Coming Home, Roosting
Topic: Chasing the Zeitgeist

Chickens, Coming Home, Roosting

It seems the chickens are coming home to roost for the administration. At least they were on Thursday, May 4th, and that's as good an "old saying" as any. Here's a sampling of that day's returning chickens.

Chicken Number One: What You Said That You Really Didn't Say

It seems that our first lady, Laura Bush, in an interview on CNN with John King midweek, defended her husband, the current president, by telling King that everyone misunderstood - when the president gave that nationally televised speech under that "Mission Accomplished" banner on the Abraham Lincoln three years ago, he only meant that the mission of that particular aircraft carrier had been accomplished. She didn't see why people didn't get it, and thought he was saying we'd fixed the Iraq problem. Yes, we all misunderstood. There's a satiric and mildly clever rewrite of the actual speech with the hidden subtext we all missed here, but this is a minor thing. She holds no office and makes no decisions. Her husband is "the decider." He said so. He said that in the defense of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with all the recent calls for his ouster. No one else can decide he goes but "the decider" - and the designated decider decided he stays.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld does hold office, one to which he was appointed and confirmed by the Senate, and actually does make decisions - lots of them. And he says things on record. And what he has said about his decisions, and those of the vice president and his administration, was, on this particular Thursday, thrown back at him. Those particular chickens, his actual words, came home to roost.

The evening news shows, or two of them, led with the story, and it was all over cable news. Something extraordinary happened. A former CIA analyst, in a public forum, stood up, faced Rumsfeld, and said it sure looked he had been lying, and could he explain his words?

Laura Bush wasn't there to help out. He was alone on stage. The crowd hadn't been screened thoroughly enough. This wasn't supposed to happen. And forget chickens. Think deer - in the headlights. He was speechless for more than a moment.

For the record, the Associated Press account is here -
Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.
But they don't get into the substance, although they mention three other protesters were "escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages." And one woman, whose Army son had been killed in Iraq, asked some pointed questions about how she was supposed to raise her grandson now, but that was easy to handle - he said that was a tragic thing and referred her to the usual websites listing aid organizations.

The substantial stuff - you said it was certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and said you knew just where they were - was carried on the news shows, and in detail on "Countdown" on MSNBC.

There's a video clip of the exchange at Crooks and Liars here and a full transcript here, but it pretty much comes down to this -
Rumsfeld: ...it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and...

McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

Rumsfeld: My words - my words were that - no, no, wait a minute - wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second....
So the Secret Service didn't drag the CIA guy out of the room, and Rumsfeld said he never really said what he actually said. MSNBC covered it and put the actual quotes on the screen, as did other news shows.

And this exchange was interesting -
McGovern: Well we're talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Rumsfeld:: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

McGovern: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's also...

Rumsfeld: He was also in Baghdad.

McGovern: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.
He really needed Laura Bush right then. She's good at saying these people who remember what was actually said really are idiots, in a very nice and non-threatening way.

But something is up. Jane Hamsher comments here -
I don't want to draw conclusions that are too broad based on too little information, but there does seem to be a day of reckoning on the horizon. Between Harry Taylor's questions put to George Bush, Stephen Colbert's appearance before the White House Press Corps and now Ray McGovern's public accusations against Donald Rumsfeld, the simmering public feelings of frustration do seem to be bubbling up and directly confronting those responsible for the current sad state of affairs even within their tightly controlled, canned public appearances.
And she quotes Marc Lord saying this, something about a revolution in progress -
Step three in progression to outright revolution is granting or withholding support of a regime. The foremost expression of that development is that the grantors and withholders start duking it out publicly. The withholders start to shame their fellows who are complicit in supporting the regime and make it clear that they will be publicly humiliated, followed by progressively worse fates.

Noam Chomsky addressed West Point on April 21st. Steven Colbert openly mocked the preznit the next weekend. ... This is the humiliation phase.
Noam Chomsky spoke at West Point? What? But then, if "duking it out" is a sign of revolution, and in this case it's the CIA in a fistfight with the administration, then something really is up

And Hampsher points to this, discussion of the fellow, unnamed for security reasons, who was a former colleague of Valerie Plame at the CIA and, like her, assigned to counter-proliferation in the Middle East. He's now suing the head of the CIA, Porter Goss, and a few others there. He said thy fired him because he refused to falsify information on Iraq before the war.

Hampsher sums up the suit. The fellow is claiming that "he followed all the appropriate channels to get his information out, but that his information was suppressed and he was both harassed and terminated for his efforts."

This may be more complicated and there may be lots of other issues involved, but Hampsher notes this was referenced by the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter James Risen last August here -
In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

... His information on the Iraqi nuclear program, described as coming from a significant source, would have arrived at a time when the C.I.A. was starting to reconsider whether Iraq had revived its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The agency's conclusion that this was happening, eventually made public by the Bush administration in 2002 as part of its rationale for war, has since been found to be incorrect.
There are lots of news details at the links. But what's interesting about this particular "John Doe" is this -
The first time Doe was required to bury intelligence was in 2000, before Bush was inaugurated and probably before he was (s)elected. Which reminds me that the Niger embassy in Rome was burgled (and therefore the plot to forge the Niger documents was presumably in place) in early January 2001, before Bush was inaugurated. In other words, they've been setting up their Neocon moves since before Bush was put into office.
This may be tin-foil-hat territory but Hampsher notes the two of the officers in the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division, Plame and this man, both "most closely involved with ascertaining just who in the Middle East has what kind of WMD had their careers ruined, and in the process, their ability to provide accurate information that might prevent war."

Oh well, maybe the suit is bogus, and, even if it isn't, this is just a coincidence. But part of figuring out what's going on in the world, and then dealing with it in a sensible way, is seeing patterns. That's now called "connecting the dots" and is supposed to be good thing if you can do it. This is mighty odd.

And what was said about how we had to go to war immediately, all those words, are in the air. The chickens came home. They're roosting.

Chicken Number Two: The Law Is What I Say It Is

The week began with this, a Boston Globe analysis covering how President Bush has "quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office."

That is discussed in these pages as one of the Tuesday Tidbits, and on Tuesday it seemed that this was not something really new, but something the press had finally decided to notice as the president's poll numbers were astonishingly low and it was a target of opportunity, and thus it was time for these seven hundred and fifty particular chickens to come home and roost, and no one would do anything about it. Senator Feingold has introduced a "letter of censure" he thought the Senate ought to send down the street to the president, but that had been thoroughly buried by the senate Republicans, with the cooperation of all but three leading Democrats. They other Democrats got scared - focus groups or consultants warned them off.

But the press has some power, or they follow the ever-changing zeitgeist for profit and fame, and two days later the same Boston Globe reporter reported this -
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if ... the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.
What changed? He suddenly noticed the chickens had come home and were roosting - so why not? He can follow the ever-changing zeitgeist for profit and fame too.

And note this from the Globe -
Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said via e-mail that if Specter calls a hearing, ''by all means we will ensure he has the information he needs." She pointed out that other presidents dating to the 19th century have ''on occasion" issued statements that raise constitutional concerns about provisions in new laws.

But while previous presidents did occasionally challenge provisions in laws while signing them, legal scholars say, the frequency and breadth of Bush's use of that power are unprecedented.

Bush is also the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, an act that gives public notice that he is rejecting a law and can be overridden by Congress. Instead, Bush has used signing statements to declare that he can bypass numerous provisions in new laws.
Now that's odd. The Globe reporter dutifully transcribed for us the administrations official take on the real issue and gave it to us, then told us it, looking at the facts, that it was pretty much bullshit. The last time reporters did such a thing - matching statements against the actual facts - was well before September 11, 2001, the day that "changed everything," and most obviously changed what was supposed to be the roll of the press, from reporting to patriotic cheerleading. Things have changed again?

And it's not just the press. Maybe the Senate has changed, and even a Republican like Arlen Specter can move beyond fawning worship of those who parade their manliness (or craven cowardice when dealing with them) and get back to doing what's in the job description. On the other side of the aisle you would, of course, expect the ever-smiling and ambitious Senator Happy Joe "Flashing Teeth" Biden, of Delaware, to propose an amendment to the emergency spending bill of the month - the next hundred billion or more off-budget (a supplemental appropriation), to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for repairing hurricane damage - that would prevent the administration from using funds from the Iraq part of the bill for construction of permanent bases in Iraq. The "decider" is supposed to decide such things. But odd things are happening, the Republican-controlled Senate actually approved the amendment.

Everyone sees the chickens have returned.

Chicken Number Three: It's Not 1918 in Montana Anymore

Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that went away and came back in a new form as the First World War was something we joined in, to get the bad guys of the time?

It seems that in the middle of this particular odd week they "went away" again, in a way, unless the current administration revives them to closed down the New York Times and Washington Post for revealing stuff we do that's illegal by our laws and the under the international treaties we've signed.

In Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer signed a pardon for the seventy-eight people who had been convicted under that state's version of the laws -
Montana's sedition laws served as a model for the federal sedition laws also passed in 1918. Other states had such laws, but none was more vigorous in pressing them than Montana.

Remarks that were labeled seditious - in one case, the observation, "This is a rich man's war" in a saloon - carried fines approaching $20,000 and sentences of up to 20 years in jail.

Martin Wehinger told a group of Teamsters, "We had no business sticking our nose in there, and we should get licked for doing so." He served 18 months in Deer Lodge State Penitentiary.

A hundred fifty people were charged under the laws in 1918 and 1919. Forty men and one woman served time in state prison. One man was pardoned in the 1920s after it was discovered that witnesses had lied at his trial.
Schweitzer is going the opposite way of President Bush, and seems to be saying Bush just isn't anything like a real cowboy, even if he is from Texas - "Neighbor informing on neighbor - this isn't the American way, it isn't the Montana way, it isn't the cowboy way."

So much for the Patriot Act, and as for the House Republicans on immigration - build the giant wall to keep the beaners out and make anyone here without permission automatically guilty of an aggravated felony - and as for the president, angry that there's that version of the national anthem in Spanish going around - he's not lining up with any of that either -
Schweitzer said he felt a personal connection to those caught up in the hysteria of the time. His grandparents came to Montana in 1909.

"They worked hard and kept their heads down. My grandmother never did learn to speak English," Schweitzer said. "It was a time when Germans were forced out of their houses and onto the streets, made to kiss the American flag and sing the national anthem in English."
He doesn't think people should do that? He sees the chickens coming home to roost. Things have changed.

When the comedian Bill Maher said the wrong thing on air in late 2001 - that the guys crashing the airplanes into our building were certainly vile, evil people, but calling them cowards seemed self-serving - he lost his job at ABC and the president's press secretary at the time said people now should "watch what they say." Those days have past. It's chicken power.

On the other hand, there's this -
A Senate panel approved a measure on Thursday that would change the Constitution to let Congress ban burning of the American flag, setting up an election-year debate over a perennial hot-button issue.

The measure passed the Senate Judiciary constitution subcommittee by a vote of 6 to 3. It must pass the Senate by a two-thirds majority and win the support of at least 38 states within seven years before it takes effect.
Well, it always comes up, and with all the other issues people care about - the war, their jobs, health insurance, the price of gasoline, if whether, when the next hurricane or earthquake hits, their tax dollars, all that money sent in over all the long years, gets them any help at all - the Republicans had to do something about the chickens.

Chicken Number Four: But We're Helping You People, Even If You're Not Evangelical Christians Yet

You have to love this - the chairman of the Republican Party was actually booed at an American Jewish Committee event over comments on Iraq. What did he say? He said we've done really well in Iraq, because, after all, Iraq "posed less of a challenge now than under Saddam Hussein."

It was that "less of a challenge" thing. As the CIA guy said to Rumsfeld - "Come on, these people aren't idiots."

Damned chickens. Should have thought about what'd happen once we "won" the thing. Now what?

And then there's this (emphasis added) -
Mehlman was otherwise politely received when he spoke Tuesday at the AJ Committee's 100th anniversary celebrations in Washington, and he got warm applause when he said the Bush administration would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb and always would stand by Israel.

The room burst into applause, however, when AJ Committee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to "take a message" to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran.

"It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran," Everett said.
Yep, these people aren't idiots. Damned chickens coming home.

Chicken Number Five: The Real Bad Guys? What Bad Guys

Okay, it's over. That Moussaoui fellow, the minor whack-job wannabe who wouldn't incriminate himself to the FBI and was charged with being the one person who could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001, had he only done so, and if the feds had miraculously done what they had never been able to do, is going to jail for the rest of his life, and he he won't be executed for what he didn't say.

Fine. It doesn't matter. His punishment is a matter of degree, and there's some disagreement on what degree was appropriate. But it's case closed. Move on.

That's easy. What does it matter, really?

But some people, now that's that is over, got to thinking.

One is the Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, on Chris Matthews' show (video here), connecting some dots, or looking at what's really going on.

From Mark Kleiman, our UCLA public policy professor, a summary of the dots here -
1. When Moussaoui was captured, there was some thought that he was centrally involved in the 9-11 plot.

2. Later it was discovered that he wasn't.

3. It was decided to put him on trial anyway, because we needed someone to try.

4. The central plotters (other than bin Laden) are all in U.S. custody, but they haven't been tried and won't be tried.

5. Top people on the President's staff (Gonzales) and the Vice President's staff (Addington) decided to authorize waterboarding and related methods of "aggressive interrogation" as applied to the top plotters.

6. Having tortured them, the Administration can't now put them on trial without having their defense lawyers put the facts about their maltreatment on the official record.
Now there are some big chickens coming home to roost. It seems we weren't supposed to remember the other guys.

And Kleiman adds another chicken coming home - "... if the plotters were tried in civilian courts rather than by military tribunals, it would be almost impossible to convict them, since not only would evidence obtained under duress be excluded, but so would anything learned as a result. So the government would have to prove, with respect to each piece of evidence, that it hadn't been obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of torture."

So "the major plotters aren't being tried in order to cover up decisions made at the very top of the Bush Administration. Instead, the government tried to send a bit player to the death chamber, and the jury refused to go along."

Yeah, it's that old law of unintended consequences, the one about the chickens coming home to roost.

New Yorker Siva Vaidhyanathan puts it another way here -
What gets me - what I don't understand - is why millions of my fellow American citizens, led by the families of those who lost loved ones in the attacks, are not banging down the doors of the Justice Department to bring to justice those who really did mastermind the killings of 3,000 of my neighbors. Their memory still hangs heavy in the air of my city. And we wonder why our government seems all too willing to put on a show trial of a sad peripheral character instead of pursuing real justice and - I admit it - satisfying vengeance.

Somewhere in a secret prison sits Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of the attacks. Our government could bring him to trial either here in the United States or in the Hague. It could use the trial to demonstrate not only the terrible hatred that drives Al Qaeda to murder so many innocents around the world. It could use a trial to reveal the depth and breadth of the ideological threat that we face in coming years. It could show how we can avoid such vulnerability in the future. A Khalid Sheik Mohammad conviction would be deeply meaningful and satisfying.

Best of all, it could demonstrate to the world that despite so much recent evidence to the contrary, the United States is a nation of laws and its governmental agents are not above either our laws or international laws. They whole world thinks we have given up on the concept of justice. We could use a decent trial to show otherwise.

The reason we have not done this may be very disturbing: in our haste to be brutal and stupid, we almost certainly tortured Mohammad, rendering him unconvictable in any decent court in any decent country. We have also held him and hundreds more for more than three years without counsel, without facing charges, without a chance to respond to accusations, and without even allowing their families to know that they are in custody.

So basically, we are unable to try the real killer, even though we know who he is and we have him in custody.

Why stop there? Why are Americans not demanding that this administration pursue and capture Osama bin Laden? Or Ayman al-Zawahiri? Why are we letting these guys continue to murder innocent people and inspire hatred against the entire world?

In recent years the Justice Department has created a small series of meaningless show trials. Those young men from Lackawanna, New York? They were dupes who let their religious fervor and a manipulative adult take them to Pakistan to fight against India. They never did fight against India or anyone else. Yet now they are serving prison terms in the United States because they saw no way out but to plea. And John Walker Lindh? Please. He's the biggest threat to my life and liberty? These folks a bad people who broke (unconstitutional) laws. But their trials seem to be counted among this administration's greatest victories.
The law of unintended consequences, the chickens coming home to roost. Maybe the one big show trial was a bad idea. As with overthrowing Saddam in Baghdad, no one seems to have thought about what would happen next. You get people consumed with thinking about one trial and, odds are they'll think of another. Oops.

Random Chickens: Immigration and Globalization

In the same Siva Vaidhyanathan column there are a number of "letters to the editor" on these other topics that cover other unintended consequences, and they are worth note -
Name: Ruth Alice Anderson
Hometown: Portland, OR

First, I doubt Kariyn Kinsey knows the provenance of all of her ancestors for 200 years. Secondly, the virtues and hard work of her ancestors don't imbue her with virtue; they imbue her with privilege that she mistakes for virtue. On the other hand, I agree with her that Congress has poorly served the working class -- failing to increase the minimum wage, giving our hard-earned tax dollars away to corporations and to themselves. She is perfectly correct, but to focus that anger on immigrants is a classic example of kicking down. The agents of harm (Congress) are more powerful than her, so she kicks down at the least powerful people in the nation. It would be more effective is she would stand in solidarity with immigrant workers to demand they receive the same worker rights that the rest of us enjoy. If that were true, corporations could not so readily exploit them and the wage gap that makes them so appealing to capital would begin to narrow.
Worker solidarity, not factionalism, is the only way to build the power of working people. Unity, not factionalism, is strength. It's instructive to see how perfectly the right uses wedges like immigration to drive people like Karolyn who should never stand with the right on anything straight into their arms. They understand that sadly enough, hate and anger are more powerful than hope and understanding in moving voters.


Name: Jack
Hometown: Washington, D.C.

To Ms. Kinsey from Utah -

I don't even want to get into a debate about the immigration problem as it is today, since most people have made up their minds as is. However, I would like to point something out to you in something you said, and something I have heard repeated over and over. "My family immigrated here legally, and they can too." Prior to 1875, immigration was the problem of individual states.
Most of the new immigrants did not have passports, and all of the inspections were done here in the US. So, a person got on a ship hoping that they wouldn't be turned around at the port when they arrived. In 1875, the Supreme Court decided that immigration should be under the federal government. That is when Ellis Island came into being. However, the same still held true, that the potential immigrant got on board and was questioned once they got to New York. It was only between 1917 - 1924 that the US Government started issuing visas to enter the US at Embassies overseas. And the current laws for immigration didn't really go into effect until 1952. What I am trying to say is this: Your relatives did the exact same thing these illegals did. Your relatives came to this country with no paper saying they could come. They just showed up and hoped they could get in. Try to remember that when worrying about the illegals "trying to take over this country."

Name: Thomas Heiden
Hometown: Stratford, CT

I am beyond sick of the ... the "benefits" of globalization. To best understand this, we need to return to the basics. Global capitalism is a race to the bottom, because costs are what kill in business. We see all of this now as corporations move their labor, and any pollution-producing manufacturing, to those places with the lowest costs (read: least regulation). This is not because they are evil, but because they are in COMPETITION. There is no international mechanism - hell, we don't at this point even have a NATIONAL mechanism - to control corporate behavior, so these entities are free to go and to do whatever costs them the least and makes them the most. There is no way the average human being will benefit from unrestricted global corporate capitalism (... in other words, it will NOT be "done right", because corporations, with profit as motive, control the process, not governments that putatively have the public good as the goal). The entire world will look and be like the stockyards of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Further, one dire consequence of this vaunted "globalization" is that this nation hemorrhages wealth (to the current tune of about three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars every year) to nations which used to send us their money. This is why the middle class is vanishing before our eyes, and why two people must work to try to maintain that middle-class lifestyle that a single wage-earner could provide back when we had a positive trade balance. Liberal immigration policy will not only not help any of this, it is grossly unfair. If we use Mexico as an example, my view is that I want those coming here illegally for "better opportunity" to stay in their own country and FIX IT! Make it a nation that can and does take care of its citizens by providing opportunities for them to live decently. We don't want them coming here to piggy-back on all the sacrifices that have been made for us by our ancestors - they need to find their own Jefferson and Madison, their own Susan Anthony and, yes, Caesar Chavez. If they do not have the gumption to stand against their own government, we do not need them here for that reason either - we have our own government that is sorely in need of its citizens standing up to it!
Geez, raise some issues to get votes and then people think about the issues. That wasn't supposed to happen. It seems the chickens are coming home to roost for the administration, "big time."

__

Note:

For a view of the basic miscalculation that underlies all this, you might note Michael Shaw here discussing delayed moral development -
... To understand "delayed" moral development, you need only look at the way this country has been governed over the past five years. For example, you find a lot of black-and-white thinking, such as "good" versus "bad" and "us" versus "them"; a preoccupation with authority and obedience; and dramatic, self-centered acts mostly rationalized after the fact.

Delayed moral advancement tends to go hand-in-hand with the lower rungs of emotional maturity. In kids trapped in adult bodies, you tend to see silliness substituting for wit; awkwardness in the place of poise; passion masquerading as love; aggression covering for strength; and rituals standing in for originality.
That'll do. The adults are having none of it.

Posted by Alan at 23:42 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 5 May 2006 07:27 PDT home

Wednesday, 3 May 2006
No Fried Moussaoui: News, Reaction and Embedded Comment
Topic: Breaking News

No Fried Moussaoui: News, Reaction and Embedded Comment

There was only one big news story on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, and that was reported succinctly for the next morning's papers - Jury Rejects Death Sentence for Moussaoui -
Al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks after a federal jury rejected the government's four-year quest to secure his execution for the deadliest terrorist strike on U.S. soil.

After weeks of listening to harrowing testimony from 9/11 family members, hearing heartbreaking emergency calls and watching painful footage of victims jumping to their deaths, the anonymous jury of nine men and three women methodically deliberated for 41 hours over seven days before reaching its verdict yesterday.

Jurors carefully went over each question on a 42-page verdict form that gave only a few clues to their thoughts and reasoning. In the end, though, the form indicated that prosecutors could not surmount the main obstacle hanging over their case from the start: Moussaoui did not hijack anything Sept. 11, 2001, because he was sitting in jail.

The panel could not decide unanimously that Moussaoui caused the nearly 3,000 deaths, nor could it agree that he committed his crimes "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." Three jurors took it upon themselves to write that Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans."

"The jury seemed to be saying that he is a bit player, someone at the periphery," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp. "It boils down to someone whose hands were not drenched in blood."

As the verdict was announced in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Moussaoui rolled his eyes and looked glum. But he yelled, "America, you lost... I won!" as he was escorted back to jail. Family members of Sept. 11 victims, who had long awaited this day, showed little visible reaction in the courtroom's third row.
So he'll spend his days from now until he dies in that super-maximum security prison in Florence Colorado, near Denver, in solitary confinement.

And the four-year quest to have this guy executed, legally and all, not just taking him out back and beating him to death, and which seemed like a slam dunk, didn't work out. Of course when George Tenant was running the CIA he said the WMD proof was a slam dunk too. The administration is having one long run of bad breaks.

And of course the whole "quest" was set up to prove a number of things - that all the stuff about our secret prisons and holding people for years and years without charges, incommunicado, and holding some people we tell no one about, and all the business about "enhanced interrogations" that sure looks a lot like what everyone else in the world calls torture, and what happened at Abu Ghraib and at Guantánamo, and at Bagram and elsewhere, and those more than ninety "detainees" who might have known something and up and died on us while being questioned... well, this was to prove that we could play by the rules with the worst of the worst. All that other stuff really wasn't what we were about, really. So this guy wouldn't die mysteriously in custody as his organs failed. We'd get a jury of twelve to agree he should die, and prove we are neither sadistic nor lawless, at least in this case.

Additionally this was "red meat" politically. Every day since September 11, 2001, the administration had beat the drum - we should be very afraid, and should be very angry, except when we were told to just act normal and go shopping or visit Disneyworld with the kids. So deep-seated fear and blinding anger were "appropriate" - and, luckily, they had just what was needed to deal with those two overwhelming feelings - and told us anyone who loved this country had to feel fear and anger deeply, and anyone who was into thinking things through, and not that into "feelings" in and of themselves, hated America.

The answer to what we were told we were feeling? They'd help us with the fear by going after the "evil ones" to keep us safe, and we'd be glad to pay for the effort, and keep them in office, and they'd satisfy our anger and the ever-escalating craving for some sort of justice or vengeance that goes with anger - no one else could. They said that was obvious.

So getting permission to execute this guy, by the rules, would have been a two-for-one success. We'd prove to the world we are neither sadistic nor lawless, and win over the people who like thinking things through and playing by the rules - but too, this guy would die, proving the anger and fear from the other sort of folks, those who think careful thinking is stupid and rules now useless in this sorry world, could be relieved because the administration really knew what it was doing - getting the bad guys. They'd get their dead bad guy. The others would get a fancy pants trial, and what could they say to that?

Good plan. And this jury screwed it up -
Some legal experts agreed that the case, and especially the jury's reluctance to impose a death sentence, had brought out the best of American justice, despite the complications. "No one can accuse this of being a kangaroo court or say Moussaoui was railroaded," Hoffman said.

But others said the verdict showed that the government had wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing Moussaoui when prosecutors could have settled for a life sentence several years ago.
Now no one's happy.

And you get this -
Jurors yesterday concluded unanimously that prosecutors had proved most of the aggravating factors, including that Moussaoui showed no remorse and that the Sept. 11 attacks caused vast damage in New York and Washington. Their reaction to the mitigating factors varied widely. Nine jurors agreed with the defense that Moussaoui's dysfunctional early childhood and abusive father were mitigating, but none found that executing Moussaoui would make him a martyr. No jurors agreed with the defense that a sentence of life in prison would be a greater punishment.
In short, he really was a bad man, but a nut-case, and almost certainly a wannabe who wasn't even in on most of what he said he was doing.

The administration spent four years going after the wrong guy. This fellow was a clown, a thoroughly evil clown, but a clown nonetheless. Save the death penalty for someone who actually did something.

Yep. This guy was convicted for what he didn't say, that, if he had said it to the feds, might have prevented the attacks almost four years ago, if the feds had done what they might have done, maybe (discussed previously here). Granted, the guys who did things are dead, but those who directed them to do what they did, and say so, like that elusive Osama bin Laden, can't be found for some reason.

So you spend four years trying to get the guy who just wished he had been in on the action but really wasn't? The legal strategy was odd - seeking the death penalty for the hypothetical - and the political calculation, one plotter is as good as any other and this guy will do, even odder.

What did the expect?

Reaction

The reaction was immediate, like this from Roger Ailes (not the Roger Ailes who runs Fox News), predicting the "we want blood" side would be unhappy -
So Zacarias Moussaoui, a loathsome man who likely would have participated in the 9/11 attacks but didn't have much, if anything, to do with them, but claimed he did, will be in prison for the rest of his life. And he won't be executed either.

Watch the wingnutosphere for demands for jury reform, elucidations of the President's Constitutional power to summarily execute criminal defendants regardless of judicial advisory opinions, Palovian droolings of the word dhimmitude and the home addresses and phone numbers of the jurors.
Would some very angry patriot use Google and find the addresses and phone numbers of the jurors and post them, so we'd get news stories of the jurors getting picked off by snipers, one by one, by those who love America and what it stands for? Michelle Malkin, one of the most influential writers on the right, recently, after the students up in Santa Cruz gave military recruiters a hard time, posted the home phone numbers of the students, and they did get death threats (discussed previously here). And she refused to take the numbers down, because everything has consequences, and some people don't like her, and such things happen.

Jury duty has its dangers. And we're supposed to be afraid of the bad guys, and supposed to be very angry. It could happen. We'll see.

So how upset are people with all this? There's this at Cold Fury -
This nation has now officially lost its way. We can't find the strength to fight a war wholeheartedly, as if victory mattered to us less than being thought well of by a viper's nest of cheap hoods, fainthearted Eurotrash Milquetoasts, and two-bit grifters; to be unequivocally proud of our country's history and its unique achievements; to allow ourselves to believe that we're in the right in a war we didn't initiate; to call treason by its right name; to boldly recognize and name our enemies; or to execute a plain-guilty terrorist who had planned to assist in the murder of thousands of us, via an act of war that has no parallel in the modern age for its sheer nihilistic savagery.

We are defeated.

This perfidious decision will be a bleak reminder to every strong, patriotic American for a very long time to come of the mindless decay that festers within our country, as Moussaoui's victorious partners in crime stage attack after attack to force our spineless "leaders" to release him. Hostages will be taken, embassies assaulted, innocent civilians attacked, all in support of this newly-created jailhouse hero - and we will do nothing of consequence in retaliation.

As for its impact on broader matters, we will lose the War on Terror (we're barely fighting it anyway, as the biggest and most notable consequence of our enervated Iran policy remains simple inertia), and we in our pathetic cowardice deserve to; as such, we never should have even attempted to fight back against our attackers in the first place. Our soldiers should be brought immediately home from the far-flung hellholes to which we've mistakenly sent them, with our abjectest apologies for daring to presume that their countrymen possessed the guts and the will to see the mission through. We conservatarians should join with liberals and demand that our "leaders" beg our Islamist conquerors for clemency immediately, and pray that we'll be allowed to live out our remaining time with some small shred of self-deceptive dignity intact.

Liberals will no doubt be delighted with the weakness and lack of resolve shown here, and will find plenty of progressivist rationalizations for praising the "humanity" and "forgiveness" shown by this sickening miscarriage of justice. For the rest of us, it's a black day indeed.
Wow. All that is now going to happen - and we should just give up and kill the lights and strike the America set, because this guy gets life without parole in solitary, not death from chemicals? This four-year-long fear and anger tactic has worked wonders. Karl Rove knows what he's doing.

And too there's this at Nice Doggie -
All over the world, terrorists let out a sigh of relief, knowing that you can go to America, conspire to murder 3,000 innocent civilians, and still live out your days in greater comfort and luxury than their caves could ever afford them.

As Moussaoui was led away after the verdict, he shouted: "America, you lost!"

He's right, in a bigger sense than just the outcome of his trial where he was essentially pardoned for the murder of 3,000 innocents. We've lost our way. We've lost our will and ability to fight to WIN. We've lost our faith in ourselves and our belief in the righteousness of our cause. We've lost sight of the fact that this is a war that was forced upon us, a war fought by savages that deserve no consideration, no quarter and no mercy, a war that will not be won with kiddy gloves and a war that will not end until WE finish it, by whatever means necessary.

But at least we can tell ourselves over and over again that "we're so much better than them" when we're attacked the next time.
Damn those savages. What can you do? No one wants to wipe out the savages any more.

But comfort and luxury in Colorado? Maybe he knows something about the Florence facility no one else is revealing?

Dahlia Lithwick, the lawyer who is a senior editor for the Washington Post's SLATE.COM, in Complex Martyr, is just puzzled, and reviews the case out here in California where one Hamid Hayat was just convicted of offering material aid to al Qaeda.

The reports from that jury room had this drama -
The angry racist foreman who was lobbying to "hang" the defendant from the get-go; the overly "sensitive" minorities who took umbrage at the foreman's suggestion that all Arabs look alike; the blatant violations of the rules against jurors learning of the case in the media; and the unremitting whining about the toll this jury service was taking on everyone's physical health, with clinical symptoms ranging from one juror's stress-related "drinking and overeating" to migraines.
That jury was more than a tad dysfunctional, but not this Moussaoui jury -
The jury unanimously found two of three key aggravating factors to be true: that Moussaoui "knowingly created a grave risk of death" for innocent victims beyond just those who perished on Sept. 11, and that he committed his acts with "substantial planning." But in refusing to find what seemed the most obvious of the aggravating factors, that he "committed his crimes in an 'especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner'," or that Moussaoui - in jail on 9/11 - was responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths, the jurors seemed to be acknowledging that while Moussaoui wanted 9/11 to happen, wanted many more innocents to die, and that he plotted and planned for a future 9/11, he wasn't sufficiently central to this particular plot to be credited, or killed, for its hideousness.

And that's the message we can also glean from the jury's findings of mitigating factors - revealing that three separate jurors believed Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans" and three believed he played a minor role.

In the end, the only real link between the acknowledged fact that Moussaoui was a terrorist who was willing to die in a suicide attack and the actual attacks of 9/11 existed in the minds of the prosecution. And, at the last minute, these links sprang to life in the fantasy world of the terrorist himself, who cooked up a strange Forrest Gump plot - starring himself and Richard Reid - that the judge herself considered to be hooey and that even the prosecutors didn't believe.

This case was about a conspiracy, about some factual connection, however attenuated, between Zacarias Moussaoui's jihadi heart and the events of 9/11. And although the government has steadfastly stood by its legal claim that it was enough for Moussaoui to have wanted to be on those planes on 9/11, enough for him to have delighted as those planes went down, the jurors recognized this afternoon that a conspiracy to aid in a terror plot requires more than just a bad heart, and more than mere willingness to participate in the next one.
So the government didn't get their scapegoat, and it seems this jury was "more subtle, and more courageous, than the prosecution itself."

Maybe they just think too much, and not reacting "from the gut" as you're supposed to, and as the president boasts he himself does. It's that damned nuance again.

Lithwick ends with this - "These jurors understood that for this country to kill a terrorist for his ideas, hopes, and dreams is not much different than the terrorist's desire to come here and kill us for ours."

That's far too subtle, even if it is true.

But how did the president himself react?

With this -
President Bush said Wednesday the verdict rejecting the death penalty for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui "represents the end of this case but not an end to the fight against terror."

Without commenting directly on the jury's decision, Bush declared, "Evil will not have the final say. This great nation will prevail."
Oh.

A parsing of that from one of the writers at Hullabaloo -
I have absolutely no idea what Bush is talking about.

Who ever implied that the "fight against terror" would "end" with the sentencing of Moussaoui? And what does a man receiving life imprisonment have to do with "evil" having the final say, or not having the final say? And how did evil have the penultimate say here? And what's this about prevailing? Prevail against what? A man spending the rest of his life behind bars? The future of the United States is somehow called into question by the verdict? What on earth is Bush talking about?

Okay, I'm exaggerating. I do think I understand the remarks. Bush is saying to his fans - one of out three Americans, even now, can you fucking believe it? - that he thinks the jury was infested with liberals and they let him off the hook; Zac should be whacked.

But really, that interpretation doesn't begin to do justice to the extremely weird way in which he said it - a fusion of mealy-mouthed Biz Speak, government double-talk, and American fundamentalist claptrap. And it's just as important that Bush left things out, like, for example, a mention of the actual decision - life imprisonment. I'm sure you guys can find numerous other subtleties, but these will do for starters.
But it is the liberals, damn their eyes, as some early eighteenth century captain of the British Navy would put it. But no one talks like that anymore. You find comments like this over at Red State, where one Thomas Crown modernizes the wording -
I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.
Of course, the president couldn't get away with saying something like that. But he and his crew have managed to get folks to feel that way, which explains who's in power, at the moment.

Oddly enough, some feel rather rosy at what happened, like this defense attorney, on the road, who offers this -
I just got to my destination. When the driver turned on the radio in the car leaving the airport, I asked about Moussaoui. He told me the jury came back with life and I shouted "Yes!" and threw my arm up in the air. I proceeded to tell him for the next 20 minutes how proud I was of the defense team in this case and what they had to work against - not only the investment of the country in a death verdict to retaliate against someone for 9/11 - but their own client who hated them and not only wouldn't assist them, but tried to sabotage them at every turn. Their dedication and professionalism is astounding. I've read every public filing in the case and they did such an incredible job for this crazy, bumbling holy warrior.

I then launched into a lecture about what was facing Moussaoui when he got to Supermax in Florence, where he will spend the rest of his days. Then we listened to the news and I heard that Moussaoui's words after the verdict were something like "America Lost, I Won" and I said to the driver, "He'll eat those words when he gets to Florence." It's not called Alcatraz of the Rockies for nothing. Without lawyers visiting him and sending him pleadings to read, and with virtually no human contact, lights shining on 24/7 as his every move in his tiny, windowless cell is monitored (at least for the first few months), he'll realize he got the short end of the stick pretty quickly.

Had he only cooperated with his lawyers, and not insisted on pleading guilty, perhaps his trial could have been about whether he was a co-conspirator in 9/11 and therefore legally responsible for it. Al Qaeda abandoned him years ago, he doesn't even have them any more. And any hope of martyrdom went down the drain with the life verdict. He will become a footnote in the history of 9/11.

One more thought. This is not a victory for America. Moussaoui had no role in 9/11. Cheering on al Qaeda and hoping they succeed - and celebrating when they did - does not make one a co-conspirator.

The scorecard remains: Al Qaeda: 3,000 killed on 9/11. Number of responsible persons brought to justice: None.

Where is Osama? Bush still can't find him.
So the guy got what he deserved, and perhaps the day will come when we go after the real bad guys, not the whacked-out jerks who love them.

This was a PR disaster for the administration. It might actually get people thinking. It's dangerous with they do that.

Posted by Alan at 22:35 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 5 May 2006 14:02 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older