Holy crap, this video is fantastic. Watch it immediately. Although, it does contain disturbing imagery from the war, so if that sort of thing bothers you, you should skip it.
You must have audio turned on, though.
Via, even though I’m a little grumpy with Shakes these days.
Lots of pictures of the beach stunt at Flickr. You can read about the song featured here, Sinnerman, on Wikipedia.
Becky brings up an important point in a comment to the last post:
As a regular reader of this blog, I wanted to respectfully ask you to please make a distinction between the U.S. government and the PEOPLE of the U.S. [...] Saying that the “U.S.” has no respect for the rule of law is insulting to all of the people who do not agree with these policies, who DO have respect for the rule of law, and who feel suspect about the current administration (who 48% DID NOT even vote for) and their treatment of oh…EVERYTHING.
Up front, I want to say that Becky is right and that often, I make statements about the “US” that could be understood as statements about the people of the US, when really I just meant the current government. I will try to be more precise about that in future.
I’m in something of a negative mood about US policy at the moment, though, so I would also like to make a larger and more depressing point: there is a sense in which a statement like “the US does not respect the rule of law” is not only accurate, but accurate in the only way that matters.
There is only one way in which the US can be said to act or speak with a single voice, and that’s when its government acts. This is the very function of our government: our people speak with 300 million separate voices, but on the domestic and international stage, a singular entity must act with coherent and specific will to get things done. In a very real sense, the acts of the US government are the only acts that can accurately be described as being “by the United States”. No private citizen speaks for the entire country, but our government acts in all of our names and on behalf of all of us.
Because of this, there is a demoralizingly real sense in which it is correct to say that the United States stands today for lawlessness, kidnapping, and torture. That statement, sadly, is true, because of what the United States does. Its citizens may disapprove, and the history of the country may stand in contrast to the present, but those are intangibles: the US is as the US does, and right now what the US does is not pretty.
I am not in favor of these things, and nether is Becky. Possibly, a majority of Americans, even, are opposed to them. But we do not wield the power and authority of the US executive; George W. Bush does, and he acts for all of us. The United States invaded Iraq. The United States shipped Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured and then dodged reparations in court. The United States kidnapped a Muslim preacher off the streets of Milan and sent him to Egypt to be tortured. The United States threw Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla in a hole, cut them off from the world, and denied them due process. The United States tortured Padilla in custody until he was as docile and inert as a “piece of furniture”. The United States has repeatedly dodged the rule of law by invoking the “state secrets” privilege, moving prisoners into or out of military custody, keeping them overseas, or hiding their very existence from the outside world.
Becky, I assume, would prefer I say “the United States government” in each of these statements, and of course that would also be true, and more precise to boot. But, no entity on Earth other than our government speaks and acts in the name of The United States of America. The United States, then, as an entity in the word, stands today for lawlessness, eavesdropping, kidnapping, torture and warfare.
Becky is right, though: it’s important to remember that the US could be different, and that many people don’t like what it has come to be. We are used to thinking of the US as standing for democracy, freedom of affiliation, speech and religion, and a respect for the rule of law. The US does not stand for those things today, but it could again in the future.
We should also remember that our government is only empowered to speak as The United States of America because of the trust we put in our democratic institutions to ensure that the government’s actions reflect the will of the people. I would submit that recent events, from the election of 2000 in which the candidate receiving less votes was awarded the Presidency, to the escalation in Iraq despite massive public opposition, give reason to doubt the soundness of our country’s democratic foundations. But that is an issue for another time.
I’m on vacation out of the country. But seriously, people, these two paragraphs from this Associated Press article on the recent US Court of Appeals ruling upholding the Torture and Dungeons Act tells you everything you need to know about the US’s respect for the rule of law:
“The decision reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the MCA permitting Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention” through military hearings coordinated by the Defense Department,”[sic] said spokesman Erik Ablin.
That’s right — under US law, if you are held overseas by the military, which operates under orders from the Defense Department, you can appeal the basis for your confinement to… the Defense Department. What could possibly go wrong with that system?
Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as “enemy combatants” and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics.
“Aggressive”, people. But we certainly don’t torture. That would be wrong. How can you tell we’re not lying to you right this very moment? Well, you can’t. Have a nice day.
Oh, and the Special Forces team will be by tonight to whisk you off to Guantanamo as your reward for asking questions. Let’s hear you whine about human rights after a few days shackled to the ceiling in a fourty-degree isolation cell.
Freaking pinkos.
Ugh.
A number of people are up in arms about this Snickers commercial that ran during the Super Bowl:
If you haven’t read about the controversy, stop and think about it for a moment. Is this ad:
My money is actually on b). This ad depicts homophobia, but the protagonists are basically neanderthals: they’re unkempt, pudgy, working in a crappy garage on a crappy car, and evidently idiotic enough to rip out chunks of their own chest hair to demonstrate their heterosexuality. The ad is meant to be funny, and it’s meant to be funny because we’re supposed to laugh at these pathetic people. Laugh at them, not with them. Notice there’s a difference between depicting homophobia and conveying a homophobic message, which is why I’m trying to use the alternate terms of heteronormative, homo-hostile, or homo-positive.
When I saw the ad, I was surprised and happy that during the Super Bowl, homophobes were depicted as knuckle-dragging losers that we should all laugh at. I thought it was quite positive for the gay-rights movement.
Now, in fairness, this ad alone isn’t the whole story. This is the ad that ran during the Super Bowl, but Snickers had a bunch more material on their website with alternate endings featuring violence, and NFL players’ reactions to the ads (think: disgust at the idea of two men kissing).
I don’t approve in the slightest of any of the additional material; the violent endings promote the idea that violence is a rational outlet for homophobia, and showing NFL players grimacing uses national heroes to convey the idea that gay people are contemptible. But other bloggers have said it better than me; head over to AMERICAblog or Towelroad or This Modern World for discussion of the alternate endings and players’ reactions.
But, the Super Bowl ad itself, it seems to me, is thoroughly unobjectionable.
(mostly via)
Update: Jonathan Trenn makes a good point in a comment: to the extent that you identify with the two blue-collar males here, you may well be offended at the depiction of blue-collar men as brutish simpletons.
Did you catch this Superbowl ad for Chevy?
On its surface, this looks like a gender-role-inverting spot. The “car wash” setup, of course, is usually used as an excuse to show barely-clothed models, as in this recent spot with Paris Hilton (barely SFW):
…so, the Chevy commercial is a playful inversion, right?
I couldn’t help noticing, though, that most of the men featured in the ad are unattractive, pasty white guys (plus one skeletal senior citizen). I’ve got nothing against pasty white guys per se (I’m not the self-loathing type), but this makes the ad quite unlike the female-models-in-bikinis genre: in the Chevy commercial, the women are decidedly not attracted to the car washers (even though a few attractive men show up). In fact, they’re mortified. The Paris Hilton spot, though, is a gratuitous excuse to show Hilton in a skimpy leather outfit, and ogling her is the whole point. We are meant to take her sexual attractiveness seriously. In the Chevy commercial, the sexual cues are comedic, not serious at all. It’s so impossible to view the car-washer guys as actual sex objects that not even the female characters in the commercial take them seriously, never mind the intended audience.
I think, curiously enough, that this ad, which at first glance seems to be inverting gender roles, is actually reinforcing them. It would be genuinely subversive to actually present men analogously to the hot-babes-carwash setup. Mens’ prescribed gender role is decidedly not that of objectified, depersonalized objects. Men are the locus of sexual aggression and power in a patriarchal society; women are the objectified sexual ornaments.
This ad doesn’t dismantle those roles at all; since the men aren’t to be taken seriously as sexual ornaments, they’re just imitating women, which makes the ad more like someone performing in blackface, or a man being “funny” by putting on a tutu and mincing around. The only acceptable way for men to appear in this situation is for them to be part of an obviously over-the-top spoof; hence, for example, the dramatically decrepit old guy. I actually think that the audience is meant to imagine women in bikinis, since they are the obvious opposite of pasty white guys taking off their shirts. For bonus points, the fact that the men are behaving as women in such a preposterous way conveys, like blackface, that women’s role as ornaments is essentially risible.
There’s another aspect to this, too: homophobia. Imagine what the spot would have looked like if it had actually been analogous to, say, beer commercials: the car-wash men would have been imposing, oiled, muscular guys in Speedos. Wouldn’t that be, well, kind of… gay? Here’s a comment left on YouTube, from someone complaining that not all the guys shown in the ad are completely out of shape:
I would have to agree with Sean. It would have been funnier with all the guys out of shape… What kind of football loving guy wants to watch other guys strip?
I do have to say the old guy was the funniest.
The ad is meant to be funny, not to be an actual presentation of men as sexual ornaments. It’s not funny for there to be any attractive guys in there at all! Besides, no “football loving” (read, heterosexual) male wants to see partially-clothed attractive men; that’s gay!
This ad is like cultural aikido: it lulls you by appearing to be taking apart our entrenched gender roles, but is actually just reinforcing them further.
I’ve been staring at this for a little while now, and I’m not sure what to think. On one hand, I think it might be a brilliant piece of “political street theater”. On the other hand, I think it may be futile.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (which, confusingly, is opposed to Washington State’s Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which restricts marriage to one man and one woman), is floating a ballot initiative that would restrict marriage in Washington State to only those couples who can, and do, produce children.
Why do such a crazy thing? Well, last July, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled, in Andersen v. King County, that Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. The court found that (among other things):
You can read more in my previous post on the matter. You can read the entire ruling online. Gay rights activists have been up in arms about the ruling, and I was very disappointed by it, as well.
Enter the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. In order to highlight the absurdity of the Andersen ruling, they are carrying it to its logical conclusion and proposing a ballot initiative that restricts marriage only to opposite-sex couples who actually procreate.
As far as I can tell, the absurdity this highlights in the Andersen case goes something like this:
This all suggests, though, that the institution of marriage could be “tightened up” without ill effect. If the purpose of the marital institution is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children, childless couples need not be allowed access to it, just like gay couples need not be allowed access. In fact, allowing childless couples access to the institution is arbitrary and unfair. In the interests of fairness, childless couples should be excluded!
More from WA-DOMA:
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
Here is a flavor of the proposition, which is actually fairly lengthy. You can read the whole thing online. Bold are mine:
[...]
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A marriage that has become unrecognized pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall remain unrecognized until the couple has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, or until the marriage is annulled in accordance with section 8 of this act, or until the marriage is dissolved for any other reason.
(4) The couple shall be subject to the penalties of section 7 (2) through (4) of this act for any marital benefits received during the time their marriage was unrecognized.
(5) Within fourteen days after the date described in subsection (1) of this section, the state registrar of vital statistics shall verify that at least one certificate of marital procreation has been filed for the married couple. In the absence of any such certificate, the registrar shall proceed in accordance with section 8 of this act.
[...]
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:
(1) When the state registrar of vital statistics determines that a marriage solemnized in this state has failed to produce offspring as described in section 5 of this act, he or she shall file a petition in the superior court of the county wherein the marriage license was filed requesting that the marriage be annulled on the grounds of failure to fulfill the purpose of marriage. This petition shall include the names and last known address of the husband and wife, the date of their marriage, the date of the deadline described in section 5(1) of this act, and a statement declaring that no certificates of marital procreation have been filed as required by law.
Did you get all that? Married couples get three years to make good on what is, after all, the “purpose of marriage”. Since marriage is (evidently) all about raising children, the rule is simple: no children, no marriage. It’s hard to argue with the logic. Like I said up top, though, I’m not sure if this is brilliant or counterproductive. On the one hand, thoughtful voters may understand that this proposition highlights (at least) two important flaws in the Andersen ruling:
On the other hand, though, I don’t agree with this proposition! I’m not sure who would. I want the institution of marriage expanded, not restricted. Is it responsible to support, or vote for, a proposition purely as a satirical gesture? I’m not sure it is. So, I’m in something of a quandary.
One final note: on the astronomically remote chance that this proposition actually passed, I do think it would be struck down as unconstitutional, but not, perhaps, for the reason that its authors imagine. In the Andersen ruling, the court first decided that the “rational basis” test was appropriate, instead of the more demanding “strict scrutiny” test, because no “fundamental right” was involved. Among other things, “fundamental rights” must be
[O]bjectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed
Part of the problem of the Andersen ruling, though, is that this standard is hopelessly vague and subject to the “framing problem”. The court found that no “fundamental right” is involved because Washingtonians cannot claim to have ever enjoyed the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus flunking the “deeply rooted” part of the test. Of course, if you believe that the right at issue is the right to marry the person of your choosing, then it’s easy to argue that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”. The framing you choose to use entirely determines the result.
So, I’m depressed to say, it seems fairly clear that if this proposition were ever reviewed by a court, it could easily find that in this case, a “fundamental right” is indeed at stake, since it’s unarguably a “deeply rooted” right to be able to choose the opposite-sex person you wish to marry. This would be entirely consistent with the Andersen ruling.
The court would thus complete the bigoted, circular, self-reinforcing reasoning it used in Andersen:
Ain’t America grand?
(Via Slog and Seattleist)
Methinks a certain public servant could take a page from Teddy:
The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
Go, Teddy.
Here is a video of a meeting that certain soldiers were required to attend if they declared their intent to not re-enlist:
I couldn’t find a transcript of the presenters’ pitch anywhere, so I transcribed most of their spiel:
[Presenter #1] How many of you have an iron-clad, all-bills-paid, already-accepted-to-a-college-of-choice, place-to-live, everything-paid-off plan for when you get out? Think about that.
[Presenter #2] OK, we know the military is not a refuge for individuals who can’t make it in society. We know that. We know that you all have the capabilities to survive out there and do very well. But we know that some of you out there are immature and haven’t grown up yet, and need more responsibility. Some of you soldiers are real young. I didn’t really start to think about what I wanted to do with my life until at least 26, 27. Some of you are what — 23 years old. Not really know [sic] what you want to do with your life.
[...]
[Presenter #1] You can’t go home and live with momma. She’s not going to put up with you anymore. You are not the same person. Your friends back on the block are still doing the dumb, stupid stuff they were doing three years ago when you left.
[...]
It’s true — if you go out there in the real world and spend all your money on beer and someone’s going to be evicting you and you’re going to be sitting on the street homeless with a cardboard box sitting around calling up Seargent [inaudible] saying “Can I come back in the Army?”
[...]
A few things stick out for me:
Not to mention that leaving the Army is a sure way to end up in a cardboard box.
Good to know.
Perhaps you think this is obvious. But, on the off chance that some of you are not yet attuned to it, be aware: why do you suppose the phrase “giving aid and comfort to our enemies”, or just “giving comfort to our enemies”, comes up so often? After all, talking of “providing comfort” to someone is an old-fashioned sort of phrase. A couple of random examples:
Bush in an address last January to veterans:
We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech — and that’s the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries.
Republican Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, attacking anti-war comments made by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle:
[Daschle's] divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.
So, why the recurring use of the phrase “giving comfort to our enemies”? Well, as it turns out, that language is used in the US constitution to define the federal crime of treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Choosing to use the phrase “aid and comfort” when attacking your opponents is something like a dog whistle: it is a way of accusing them of treason without using the words “traitor” or “treasonous”. People who are suitably attuned will understand that you are choosing to use the language of treason.
Above, Bush is making the veiled suggestion that at least some of those who criticize him domestically are traitors to their country. Tom Davis is making the still veiled, but more specific, charge that Tom Daschle is a traitor. Bush and Davis (presumably) chose their language carefully to suggest a charge that they were not willing to make overtly.
This is a pretty weasely use of language, if you ask me. Be on the lookout for it.
Yesterday was Blog for Choice day. It was also maiken-was-sick day.
So, one day late, brief note on the topic: after reading a bunch of pro-choice posts around the blogosphere, I propose an official terminology change.
I think the term “pro-life”, when used by the “pro-choice” crowd, should be replaced by “forced-birther”. As in, “oh, he’s just a forced-birther”, or “that’s a bunch of forced-birther nonsense”. Because really, “pro-life” means “in favor of forced childbirth” for women who want to terminate their pregnancy.
And if you think about it that way, who the hell thinks they should have the right to force random women to go through with a traumatic and potentially dangerous experience because of their own arbitrary moral code?
Crazy forced-birthers.
I always thought that impeachment proceedings against the President had to originate in the House, but this article in OpEdNews suggests otherwise:
There is a decent chance that within the next month or two the New Mexico State Legislature will ask the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And there is the definite possibility that a Congress Member from New Mexico will take up the matter when it gets to Washington. The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state’s petition. Then impeachment begins.
I had never heard of the Jefferson Manual, so I looked it up. Indeed, it does appear to be incorporated into the House of Representatives’ rules:
The House of Representatives formally incorporated Jefferson’s Manual into its rules in 1837, stipulating that the manual “should govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and order of the House and the joint rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives.”
Wikipedia even has a paragraph on the push to use it to bootstrap impeachment:
Jefferson’s Manual is currently being used in the movement to impeach George W. Bush. Although the impeachment process is usually thought of as a bill introduced by a representative, the Manual actually outlines several different methods:
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.
Several states have therefore introduced bills which, if passed, could begin the impeachment process.
The embedded quote is from the Jefferson Manual itself, which you can read online, in a section specifically devoted to impeachment.
This is very interesting, if true. Having a state legislature kick off the impeachment process could provide political cover for federal Representatives.
Update: My favorite comment from the discussion at Hulabaloo, regarding what to do about the fact that Cheney would become President if Bush were impeached and convicted, is:
Why not just issue invitations to Bush and Cheney to go hunting together? Whoever survives, we impeach.
All from a CBS interview with Bush (bolds mine):
PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?
BUSH: That we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?
PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.
BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.
PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .
BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That’s what they want.
The nerve of those ungrateful Iraqis!
PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, “We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000.”
BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. That would mean that they’re not willing to support a plan that I believe will work and solve the situation.
That would, um, be the point — they’re not willing to support a plan just because you believe in it.
PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?
BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.
Fantastic.
Strange, but true. In May of 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., sitting in the Southern District of New York, ruled that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and ordered him to pay restitution to 9/11 families that had brought suit against him, Osama bin Laden, and others in US court. The full ruling is available online.
From CBS News:
A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.
[...]
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saddam and the former Iraqi government. The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.
[...]
Beasley called Baer’s finding “a significant victory” because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims “have shown, albeit barely … that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida” and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida’s Sept. 11 attacks.
Baer said lawyers relied heavily on “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.
I was very curious about this, so I skimmed through the ruling. As far as I can tell,
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that: “No judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the United States or of a State against a foreign state, a political subdivision thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.”
The court considered a bunch of affidavits, news reports, and live testimony to support the Saddam / Al Qaeda link. Two experts testified:
Robert James Woolsey, Jr., the Director of Central Intelligence from February 1993 to January 1995; and Dr. Laurie Mylroie, an expert on Iraq and its involvement in terrorism generally and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 in particular.
Mylroie noted that:
For some reason, based (apparently) on these facts, she concludes that “Iraq, I believe, did provide support and resources for the September 11 attacks” and “I think that in many respects, al Qaeda acts as a front for Iraqi intelligence. Al Qaeda provides the ideology, the foot soldiers and the cover . . . [a]nd Iraq provides the direction, the training and the expertise.”
Woolsey seemed a little more credible. he pointed to:
Based on this, he concluded:
I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common effort in the sense of aiding and abetting or conspiracy was involved here between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Based largely on these experts’ live testimony, the court concluded:
Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts. [...] Juries are invited to draw inferences from facts presented and this constitutes circumstantial evidence and this is what the Court has done here.
So, what have we learned?
The court issued its finding that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks because two credible experts testified that, in their opinion, this was true, and the court applied the standard that a jury could conceivably have believed them. I think two things are worth pointing out:
Firstly, the test used here of “someone could conceivably have believed this” is not, shall we say, the most impressive standard of proof. So, it would be misleading to describe this ruling as anything like judicial agreement, endorsement, or confirmation that Saddam and al Qaeda had any kind of operational relationship.
Secondly, as far as I can tell, all the specific allegations made by the two experts have been disproved. According to Wikipedia’s article on the matter,
All in all, though, it’s more than a little troubling that the “fact” that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, now almost universally believed to be false, managed to get enshrined into a court decision in this way. There was an honest-to-God order issued against Saddam Hussein putting him on the hook for part of a $104 million settlement. Obviously, nobody including me is going to feel inclined to feel sorry for Saddam being liable for anything, but we now know that finding Saddam liable for 9/11 damages was an objectively incorrect decision. It’s never a good thing when courts reach conclusions we can later demonstrate to be in error.
I admit, I have no data for that claim. But seriously, how utterly depressing is this graph?
This is from a survey published in Science magazine. Behold and despair, to pick just one depressing datum, that 57% of fundamentalist political moderates with graduate school educations still do not “believe” in evolution!
Is there any hope at all for sane, democratically derived public policy with a voting electorate that harbors these kinds of retrograde beliefs?
(via Pandagon)
John Steward shellacs a social conservative on the gay marriage issue:
The Republicans have been objecting to the Democrats’ insistence on using the word “escalation” to describe Bush’s plan for sending more troops to Iraq. Because obviously, military policy is best described by a noun that sounds like it describes either a caffeinated soft drink or what happens when lighting strikes a power line.
We’ll use Condoleezza Rice as the punching bag here; in testimony before the Senate yesterday, she said:
RICE: [...] Now, as to the question of escalation, I think that I don’t see it, and the president doesn’t see it, as an escalation. What he sees…
HAGEL: Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation?
RICE: Well, I think, Senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in. Escalation is also a question of, are you changing the strategic goal of what you’re trying to do? Are you escalating…
HAGEL: Would you call it a decrease, and billions of dollars more that you need for it?
(CROSSTALK)
RICE: I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad.
Here’s what Webster has to say:
es·ca·late:
intransitive verb : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope
transitive verb: to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of : ENLARGE
es·ca·la·tion: noun
The plan is to increase the number of troops. That is exactly described by the word “escalation”.
As per CNN:
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told CNN that Bush’s condemnation of what she called “Iran’s meddlesomeness” was an important signal to the region.
“Surely the United States is not the one being threatening,” she said. “We are not the ones being meddlesome and troublesome in Iraq.”
((boggle))
This exchange between White House spokesperson Tony Snow and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, yesterday, suggests that the White House is not conceding that it needs Congressional approval for an attack on Iran (all bolding is mine):
MATTHEWS: [...] Last night the president said this about Iran. Let‘s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP[)]
MATTHEWS: Tony, will the president ask Congress‘ approval before any attack on Iran?
TONY SNOW, WHITE PRESS SECRETARY: You‘re getting way ahead of yourself, Chris. Nobody here is talking about attacks on Iran.
[...]
MATTHEWS: [...] My concern is we‘re going to see a ginning-up situation whereby we follow in hot pursuit any efforts by the Iranians to interfere with Iraq. We take a couple shots at them, they react. Then we bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any action by Congress. That‘s the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I‘m worried about.SNOW: Well, you‘ve been watching too, too many old movies featuring your old friend Slim Pickens is what you‘re doing now, come on.
MATTHEWS: No, I‘ve been watching the war in Iraq is what I‘ve been watching.
As long as you say to me before we leave tonight that the president has to get approval from Congress before making war on Iran.
SNOW: Let me put it this way. The president understands you‘ve got to have public support for whatever you do. The reason we‘re talking to the American public about the high stakes in Iraq and why it is absolutely vital to succeed is you‘ve got to have public support. And the president certainly, whenever he has taken major actions, he has gone before Congress.
Obviously, this is a non-answer (and an amusing one, at that, since Snow cites the primacy of public support for military confrontation at a time when public opinion is massively against escalating our commitment to Iraq). Also, “going before Congress” is not the same thing as “seeking approval by Congress”.
This sounds like the non-answer of an administration that reserves the right to confront Iran militarily without approval from Congress.
Glenn Greenwald has several examples of past positions taken by this administration that suggest, taken together, that it is their explicit belief that they can unilaterally attack other countries without approval by Congress.
I caught a good NPR story on the raid of an Iranian consulate in Iraq just now; listen at npr.org.
