By Any Other Name

It's hard to describe just how badly the New York Times has failed our nation during the past eight years. Not to put too fine a point on it, but today, even after the release of Justice Department memos recounting, in excruciating detail, interrogation techniques okayed by the most senior members of the Bush Administration, the Times still refuses to use the word "torture" to describe those techniques. In the headline, torture is reduced to "harsh tactics." The article does slightly better, describing those techniques as "brutal."

The U.S. government has, in the past, prosecuted and convicted soldiers who engaged in waterboarding for torture. That technique has been understood to be torture for centuries. Why does the Times so carefully refuse to use that word in its reporting on the subject? The high level approval of torture will go down as one of the most ugly episodes in our nation's history and yet the nation's paper of record continues to euphimize it.

Supreme Law of the Land

As Spain moves forward with an investigation of torture by Bush officials, Glenn Greenwald reminds: prosecuting former Bush officials for torture is not just something the Obama administration should do, it's something the administration must do as a matter of law.

The Convention on Torture is a treaty that requires state parties to investigate and prosecute those who commit torture within their jurisdiction. The U.S. ratified this treaty. The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause specifies that the Constitution, laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land. So the Convention on Torture is not solely an international agreement, it is also American domestic law.

While Villagers in DC view this as a matter of politics, it is also a legal obligation.

Another Gitmo

The Times gets it right on Obama and habeas corpus at Bagram:

The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan....

In February, the new administration disappointingly followed the example of the Bush White House in opposing judicial review for prisoners who have been indefinitely detained at Bagram without any charges or access to lawyers. The administration has now added to that disappointment by appealing a new federal court ruling extending the right of habeas corpus to some Bagram detainees.

The ruling was issued by Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Narrowly crafted, the ruling essentially grants all non-Afghan Bagram detainees captured outside Afghanistan and held over six years without due process the same right to federal court review that the Supreme Court gave last year to similarly situated prisoners at Guantánamo....

The theater of war excuse for denying judicial review, the judge found, is unpersuasive when the government imports detainees from elsewhere. “It is one thing to detain those captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram,” Judge Bates wrote. “It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries — far from any Afghan battlefield — and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach.”

What Digby Said

Until the US cleans its own dirty laundry, it's hardly in a position to go around telling other people how to behave. That's why it is so vital that President Obama fix this mess and quickly. Until he does it, his foreign policy will be hamstrung and eventually will be seen to be hypocritical and dishonest. His recent trip showed that the world wants to give him a chance and see him as a positive change from George W. Bush. But I'm not sure that's going to last long if his government has to soft-peddle human rights and international law...

This has been another edition of What Digby Said.

The Geography of Baseball

Quote of the Day

"The words 'not guilty' are verbal heroin."
– Sam Roberts, defense attorney

More Like This Please

I can't help but imagine how much fairer the criminal justice system would be if judges regularly responded to Brady violations like this judge:

A furious federal judge on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of ordering that the prosecutors who bungled the case of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska be investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing...

Judge Sullivan spoke disdainfully of the prosecutors’ repeated assertions that any mistakes during the trial were inadvertent and made in good faith. He said he had witnessed “shocking and serious” violations of the principle that prosecutors are obligated to turn over all relevant material to the defense.

The judge appointed the attorney Henry Schuelke as special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal contempt charges against the prosecution team.

Prosecutors commit Brady violations all the time. Even "serious" Brady violations are downright common. (Indeed, all violations of a defendant's constitutional rights ought be seen as "serious.") And yet there are almost never any repercussions. A little deterrence would go a long way.

You've Already Lost

A happy day in Vermont as the legislature overrode Gov. Jim Douglas' (R) veto and enacted a same sex marriage law. Just last week, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously held that a state law preventing same-sex couples from marrying violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution. This brings to four the numbers of states that allow same-sex couples to marry: MA, CT, IA and VT.

I hope these two events represent a turning point. For awhile conservatives have used the "judicial activism" bogeyman to attack gay marriage rulings (as though it isn't one of the core purposes of courts to protect the rights of disfavored minorities); the legislative victory in VT demonstrates that popular majorities (even super-majorities) favor marriage equality, at least in some parts of the country. Similarly, conservatives have dismissed gay marriage as a product of East (and West) Coast cultural degeneracy; the IA victory neutralizes that.

In the long run, the bigots are gonna lose on this issue. They're on the wrong side of history. The younger generation just doesn't see loving relationships as a problem merely because the participants happen to be gay. As, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal points out, demographically speaking, the bigots have already lost.

Big Tankers

As we on the left try to understand the possibilities and limitations of the Obama presidency, this may provide some useful insight into his theory of governance:

“Moving the ship of state is a slow process,” Mr. Obama said. “States are like big tankers. They’re not like speedboats.”

A Nation of Laws, Not Men

Perhaps the United States could learn a thing or two from Peru about how to respond when its leaders commit human rights violations:

Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori was convicted of human rights crimes on Tuesday, the first time a democratically elected Latin American president was found guilty in his own country of rights abuses.

A three-judge panel convicted him for ordering a military death squad to carry out two massacres that killed 25 people during his 1990-2000 rule, when he was battling guerrillas. Nearly 70,000 people died in two decades of conflict in the Andean country.

Once lauded as a hero, Fujimori, 70, could spend the rest of his life in prison if he receives a lengthy sentence.

Update: Fujimori sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Market Failure

According to the Times, scores of CEOs made more than $10 million in 2008. A handful made more than $50 million. The list is here.

Vikram Pandit of Citigroup made $38.2 million. Part of me wants to point out that Citigroup's stock was down 77% during that time period. But that would suggest that under some circumstances a CEO's labor would actually be worth $38.2 million.

I believe it takes a certain skill to be a CEO. It may even be a rare skill. It may even be a rare skill that also has the ability to produce significant financial gain to shareholders (although obviously not in this case). But really? $38.2 million? Are these skills really that rare? Might a better explanation be that corporate boards aren't bargaining hard enough for CEO labor?

Actual Owners

Though it went public a decade ago, this article makes it seem like Goldman executives still act like it's a partnership — designed to protect the interests of the company's leaders rather than those of the shareholders who are, you know, the actual owners of the corporation. 

In some ways one can see the current banking crisis as an expression of an alarming gap between the narrow, short term interest of banker-employees and the broader, longer term interests of shareholder-owners. Theoretically, the bankers work for the shareholders, but when push comes to shove, the bankers take care of themselves and each other at the shareholder's expense. 

Deep Thought

Funny how many people interpret the Facebook header "What's on your mind?" to mean "what utterly banal thing has your kid done in the last five minutes?"

"and in some ways undermined"

Seems like those words are doing a lot of work in this article.

This was a war started by Mexico, but supported — and in some ways undermined — by the United States. The template was made in the United States, a counternarcotics strategy originally designed for Colombia....

At the same time, American drug users are fueling demand for the drugs, and American guns are supplying the firepower wielded with such ferocity by Mexico’s cartels — a reality acknowledged by Secretary of State on her trip to Mexico last week.

Transnational Justice

It's important to remember, the decision whether to investigate and perhaps bring criminal charges against members of the Bush Administration is not the province of Americans alone.

A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.

Bushvilles

After three decades in which many Americans and both political parties largely talked about poverty as though it were a moral failing, I wonder if broadened economic dislocation will foster greater compassion.

Good Neighbor

As Mexican cities become increasingly violent, it's long past time that the U.S. take responsibility for the harmful effects that our drug policies have on our neighbors. When Lou Dobbs talks about violence in Mexican border cities spilling over into the U.S., what he leaves out is that that violence largely is the product of American demand for drugs and the fact that those drugs are illegal.

No Questions

I missed the press conference tonight, but I read this post over at Talking Points Memo which notes that the press didn't ask Obama a single question about the bank rescue plan. 

This is mind-boggling. The rescue plan is an issue of surpassing import. It is a -- or some would say "the" -- necessary pre-condition to a return to economic stability. It involves an extraordinary amount of money. It's a terrifically complicated issue. Views on how to deal with it do not break down along familiar partisan lines. (Receivership makes the most sense to me which I'm pretty sure puts my position closer to that of Paul Krugman and Richard Shelby (!) than President Obama.) Seems like an especially important moment to ask the president to explain and defend his plan and answer his critics. And the press asks no questions. None. 

Or perhaps that's a feature not a bug. The press deals well with issues that are easy to understand, of little import, and that break down along familiar partisan lines. With this bank stuff they're in way, way over their heads.

Hey Paul Krugman

It may not catch on like that will.i.am video. But feels like it expresses the uncertainty of the moment.

Two Advils

Where the War on Drugs has taken us:

Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on – black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt – the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade. An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspended her for having brought prescription strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating.... Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court.

Apparently the reason the school came to suspect that Redding was carrying the dangerous drug ibuprofen was because a female friend falsely blamed Redding for giving her the drug. (As Redding put it, the friend "started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy" so the friend decided to get Redding in trouble.) So what's a school to do? Strip search. Though as the Court of Appeals pointed out, there was no reason for the school to think that Redding had the ibuprofen "insider her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal."

The current Supreme Court has pretty much read the Fourth Amendment out of the Constitution. (It much prefers the Sixth and Second.) The Court also seems to lose its mind – and any pretense of constitutional principle – whenever it considers cases that involve school kids and drugs. (See e.g. Morse v. Frederick where the Court upheld a school decision to punish students who made a banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" while they were at a public event off school grounds. No free speech for you, you DFHs.)

Judge Kim Wardlaw of the Circuit Court wrote about the Redding case, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights." Given the current Supreme Court, I'm afraid Judge Wardlaw may be wrong. I suspect the Supremes will rule for the school district.

I'm all for giving school officials some deference. But strip searching a 13-year-old to protect her from ibuprofen is Advil Madness.