Sorry, but it didn't make sense when Newt Gingrich said it over the weekend, and still doesn't now that the so-called "Family Values" wing of the Republican Party has latched on it as their position on the question of Mark Foley.  Excuse me but who exactly is going to look at the House leadership clamping down on Rep. Foley in this matter and accuse them of "gay-bashing"?  Seriously?  The biggest outrage in this is not over whether Foley is or isn't a homosexual (although, now that "it was always well-known" has the man himself admitted it, yet?) but that he had a thing for underaged male Congressional pages which crosses into an entirely different level of discomfort for just about everybody, especially people that have kids.  Besides, when has the Republican Party felt overly concerned about being accused of gay-bashing?  Christ, they've used it so much as a political strategy over the last ten years I think its become one of only three things they run on anymore(tax cuts and terrorism being the other two). 

Furthermore, the issue is how long did the Republican leadership of the House overlook Mr. Foley's behavior, or perhaps even tolerate it, given their concern about the upcoming midterm elections?  After all, that's one way of looking at why the head of the NRCC would send his chief of staff to advise Mr. Foley and negotiate with ABC news to prevent release of the offending e-mail and text messages or the fact that the head of the Page Board didn't say anything to either of its members (Republican and Democrat) or that both the Speaker and the House Majority leader didn't want to deal with it.  I don't usually quote Chris Matthews, but last night he said something to the effect that if you're a Republicans and your big political card is supposedly your strong "family values" stance then its hard to explain why you wouldn't do anything to reign in somebody like Rep. Foley, and whether its ten months ago or even five years ago, it doesn't matter.  The fact that something more wasn't done is obviously politically damaging and it doesn't matter how many times you say "Gerry Studds" or hold creepy press conferences surrounded by children you've got problems.  Oddly enough, if this mess doesn't turn off voters and seriously damage Republican electoral prospects in November then we'll know a thing or two about how important that "family values" stance is to your average Republican.

The Washington Times calls on Hastert to resign.

Should Hastert resign, the suddeness of the blow and its terrible timing will send shockwaves through out the country.  Once a crew like the one in power shows weakness, the collapse is swift.

Update (10/3/06) United front in the House leadership appears to be collapsing as Majority Leader Boehner turns on Hastert (RM) :

 ``I believe I had talked to the speaker and he told me it had been taken care of,'' Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Cincinnati 700 WLW Radio this morning. ``My position is it's in his corner, it's his responsibility.''

Wow, Frist, attempting to appease his version of his new alien masters, calls for the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government.

This guy is running for President?  The word total fucking bonehead comes to mind.

Update: He claims it is not so.  Hard to see it any other way when you say this:  He said the only way to win in places like Qalat is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

Moron.

Must  . . . Try . . . To . . . Work.

Must  . . . avoid  . . .  reading about . . . GOP engulfed in  . . . CHILD MOLESTATION COVER-UP SCANDAL!   

If you're trying to figure out why our current strategy in Iraq doesn't seem to be working, this is about all you need to know? 

Let's see...

Iraqization / Vietnamization? (yep)
Expanding military blunder to destabilize neighboring countries? (working on it)
Lying to Congress? (yep)
Expanded executive power?  (yep)
Justify lying and abuse of power in terms of overarching need for secrecy and national security priorities? (yep)
Domestic spying and illegal wiretaps?  (yep)
Pursue destabilizing policies in Iran and Iraq using the Kurds? (precursor to our current adventures)
Detente (Nope)
Direct negotiations with global antagonists?  (nope)
Support for dictatorships and human rights violators?  (yep)
Actively try to undermine democratically elected governments unfriendly to U.S. foreign policy objectives?  (yep)
Maintaining a strategic foreign policy blunder long past any viable or positive endgame?  (yep)

Uncanny!

More coming down the pike on the N-word and George Allen.  Descriptions vary, but I'm hearing that Larry Sabato, the well-respected University of Virginia Political Scientist and handicapper might be involved.  I'm hearing it may involve personal confirmation of N-word usage.     Definite problems for Allen's formerly high-flying campaign.

Update, 7:20 PM, Monday:  Its obvious from the video that Sabato has heard Allen use the N-word plenty of times himself.  When asked point blank about whether or not he had personally heard Allen use the N-word, Sabato said something along the lines of 'you asked the question, its a good one, we are having a conversation and I am not going to answer one way or another.'  Apparently both Sabato and Allen are, you guessed it, 1974 graduates of the University of Virginia.  Sabato also personally vouched for Mr. Shelton, the accuser on the record in the Salon story.  Wow.  Allen's presidential aspirations are done, finito.  He's now in the political fight of his life.  Let's hope the Post goes with this one.

Did anyone notice this article about the UN special investigator who admitted yesterday that torture in Iraq has gotten so out of hand recently that we've reached a stage that the situation is probably worse than what was experienced under Saddam Hussein? 

Torture is wrong, but also counter-productive It doesn't produce good information.  I work with police every day and I can tell you that they do not think it is a good interrogation technique.  People will say whatever the torturer wants to hear.  If the torturer doesn't believe you he will torture you more.  Therefore the information gained has more to do with confirming beliefs than extracting more information.  Indeed, any student of Soviet history knows that the primary goal of much communist torture is to get the prisoner to confess to something that they didn't do, but that corresponds to the political needs of the torturer.  The show trials of the '30s were built on such a structure. 

Second, torture fits into a pattern quite familiar to students of the Administration.  Simply put, their worldview has involved a belief that others are unwilling to take the "hard" steps necessary for defending the country that they are willing to take.  From Iraq to wiretapping to torture, the Bush dogma has been that others are unable to act due to some sort of weakness inherent in them.  Its more than the political wedge that has been driven between the Democratic ranks, it is a core belief.  Anyone who has got the slightest glimpse of the internal struggles of the Administration knows that its more than political show, it is chapter and verse the bible that the Bush Administration has been working from since day one.   Being able to make these "hard" choices includes sacrificing everyday morals for their perceived model of the greater good.  It is Nietzsche gone awry on an unimaginable scale.  

I know its been a while since I've been posting regularly but Mrs. RM and I have been pretty busy this last month.  Our daughter, Margaret Allison, was born August 21, 2006 in Knoxville, TN.  Baby, parents and big brother are doing well and offer our best wishes to you and yours.

Marty Lederman over at Balkinization has posted the language of the "compromise" reached by the "Senators Three" and the White House.  I may not be a lawyer, but it doesn't look like the "principled opposition" got anything-- the President evidently can interpret the Geneva Conventions anyway he wants, the "program" (ie. torture) goes forward with the blessings of Congress and "deal-breaker" items like the provision allowing suspects access to classified evidence against them and oversight of the use of coerced testimony will probably be stricken in conference committee deliberations on the bill or purposely ignored by Presidential signing statement.  Brilliant how this sort of thing happens over and over but the storyline is the same when you open the morning newspaper.  Check out Marty's analysis here and prepare yourself for his conclusion that we will become the first nation to legislate active violation of the Geneva Conventions.

AGREEMENT UPON COMMON ARTICLE 3

SEC. 7. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL. No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or
any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to
which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee,
member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a
partyas a source of rights, in any court of the United States or its
States or territories.

(b) GENEVA CONVENTIONS DEFINED. In this section, the term "Geneva
Conventions" means

(1) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12,
1949 (6 UST 3217);

(2) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done
at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(3) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(4) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

(a)(1) IN GENERAL. The acts enumerated in subsection 2441(d) of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this
section, and in subsection (c) of this section, constitute violations of
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibited by United States
law.

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES. The provisions in section 2441
of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully
satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention
for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave
breaches which are encompassed in Common Article 3 in the context of an
armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or
international sources of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision
in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions
enumerated in subsection 2441(d).

(3)INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT. (A) As provided by the
Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the
United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva
Conventions and to promulgatehigher standards and administrative
regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue such interpretations by Executive
Order published in the Federal Register, and such orders shall be
authoritative (as to non-grave breach provisions) as a matter of United
States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(C) Nothing in this section shall affect the constitutional
functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of
the United States.

(b)REVISION TO WAR CRIMES OFFENSE UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. (1)
Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended

(A) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following new paragraph (3):

(3) which constitutes a grave breach of Common Article 3 as
defined in subsection (d) when committed in the context of and in
association with an armed conflict not of an international
character; or;

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(d) COMMON ARTICLE 3 VIOLATIONS.

(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.—In subsection (c)(3), the term
˜grave breach of Common Article 3" means any conduct (such conduct
constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the
international conventions does at Geneva August 12, 1949), as
follows:

(A) TORTURE. The act of a person who commits, or
conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or
physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or
a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any
reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT. The act of a person
who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act
intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental
pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental
to lawful sanctions), including seriousphysical abuse, upon
another within his custody or control.

(C) PERFORMING BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS. The act of a
person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject,
one or more persons within his custody or physical control
to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or
dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health
of such person or persons.

(D) MURDER. The act of a person who intentionally
kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether
intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing
any other offense under this section, one or more persons
taking no active part in the hostilities, including those
placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any
other cause.

(E) MUTILATION OR MAIMING. The act of a person who
intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure,
or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the
course of committing any other offense under this section,
one or more persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including those placed out of combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by
disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof
or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of
his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

(F) INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. The
act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or
attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more
persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the
law of war.

(G) RAPE. The act of a person who forcibly or with
coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires
or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating,
however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim
with any part of the body of the accused, or with any
foreign object.

(H) SEXUAL ASSAULT OR ABUSE. The act of a person who
forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or
conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one
or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to
cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

(I) TAKING HOSTAGES. The act of a person who, having
knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens
to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or
persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person
other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or
refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for
the safety or release of such person or persons.

(2) DEFINITIONS. In the case of an offense under subsection
(a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)

(A) the term ˜severe mental pain or suffering" shall
be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in
accordance with the meaning given that term in section
2340(2) of this title.

(B) the term ˜serious bodily injury" shall be applied
for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the
meaning given that term in section 113(b)(2) of this title.

(C) the term ˜sexual contact" shall be applied for
purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning
given that term in section 2246(3) of this title.

(D) the term ˜serious physical pain or suffering
means bodily injuryt that involves

(1) a substantial risk of death;

(2) extreme physical pain;

(3) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious
nature, not to include cuts, abrasions, or bruises; or

(4) significant loss or impairment of the function
of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

(E) the term ˜serious mental pain or suffering" shall have the same meaning as ˜severe mental pain or suffering" as such term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2), except that the term "serious" shall replace the term "severe" where it appears in such definition, and except that, as to conduct occurring following the date of enactment of the Military Commission Act of 2006, the term "serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)" shall replace the term "prolonged mental harm" in such definition.

(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE OR INCIDENT OF LAWFUL ATTACK. The intent
specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and
(F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those
subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of
subsection (c)(3) with respect to

(A) collateral damage; or

(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful
attack.

(4) INAPPLICABILITY OF TAKING HOSTAGES TO PRISONER
EXCHANGE. Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under
subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a
prisoner exchange during wartime.

(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY. The amendments made by this
section, except as specified in paragraph 2441(d)(2)(E) of title 10,
United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if
enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public
Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002 of Public Law 107-273).

(c)ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR
PUNISHMENT.

(1) IN GENERAL. No individual in the custody or under the physical
control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or
physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment.

(2) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED
. The term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" in
this subsection shall mean the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

(3) The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this
subsection, including through the establishment of administrative rules
and procedures.

Old Definition:

 Compromise 4. a. A coming to terms, or arrangement of a dispute, by concessions on both sides; partial surrender of one's position, for the sake of coming to terms; the concession or terms offered by either side. (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.)

New Definition:

 Compromise. 2006.  When "principled" opposition concedes to other side on all matters of dispute while receiving no concessions in return except obtaining guarantee of the right to declare they've prevailed.  See also cave or political grandstanding.

Its funny but I intended to write something earlier about how the "Senators Three" were going to cave but I guess I hadn't expected it so soon.  I particularly like the part about how the provision not allowing suspects to see classified information regarding their case survived unscathed because I coulda sworn only a few days ago that that was one of the key "deal breakers".  What was that quote?  Oh yeah,

"I don't feel good about telling someone - no matter who they are - `We're going to execute you next week, but I'm sorry, we can't tell you why.'"  Lindsey Graham (9/9/06)

Yes, hard to believe.  U.S. immigration agents grab a Syrian-born Canadian citizen labeled a "terrorist suspect" and send him to Syria, by way of Jordan, all because we have guarantees that the Syrian government will not torture him and yet imagine our surprise when, yep, they tortured him.  

You say this doesn't make a lot of sense because why else would we send a terrorist suspect to a country known for its use of torture and lack of respect for basic human rights? 

Good question, yet this is basically what the Attorney General (ie. highest law enforcement official in the land) said in a news conference the other day and he has used this line repeatedly since the beginning of the year when the Maher Arar case first surfaced.  A number of articles regarding the case noted that U.S. officials were concerned about sending Arar to Syria due to the issue of torture, but evidently it never occurred to them to turn him over to Canadian authorities... he is a naturalized Canadian citizen after all. 

No, they didn't turn him over to Canadian authorities probably because they thought Canadian respect for due process of law would meant Arar would eventually be released.  As it turns out he should have been released but what does the whole affair really say about us?  Seriously, what the hell are we doing and will we even recognize what we've become when its all over?  Anyone else see the strange disconnect of one week bashing Syria for its support of Hezbollah, the next dropping off our latest batch of suspected terrorists to be "interrogated"?

I'm reminded of something one of my D.C. friends said a few years ago.  Upon graduating from Georgetown law, she took a job with the FTC at the beginning of the President's first term and knowing her politics I asked if she had any concerns that the new administration's anti-regulation rhetoric would make her job particularly difficult.  She replied that as a rule, Republicans are real big on enforcing the laws on the books but are resistant to legislating or creating new laws and regulations to solve any given problem.  Funny how that passed for conventional wisdom only five years ago.....

If we attack Iran, the Iran-allied government of Iraq will be in dire straits.  First, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Iranian-backed party which in large part, runs Iraq, will be torn.  The U.S. provides its security, but Iran is its main financial backer and arms its militia. 

While it hesitates, al Sadr will move in.  He will take a strong anti-American position, and gain the adherence of most Iraqi Shia.  Then he will attack using his Mahdi Army.  We'll be attacked by both sides and no one will want us there.  Even worse, the Iranians could just simply allow their Revolutionary Guard to walk over the border in civilian clothes to wreak all sorts of havoc.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Amen, Mary Landrieu.  Amen!  I wish she'd spoken this forcefully about rebuilding New Orleans.

(via Atrios)