« Corruption Reaches Higher and Higher | Main | Constance Baker Motley »
DEMOCRACY COLLABORATIVE
Last night, Cindy Sheehan appeared at the University of Maryland, along with several distinguished professors and Kevin Zeese of DemocracyRising, to share her story, and her mission.
As we have all come to understand, Cindy has been tireless in her telling and retelling of her personal journey over the past year.
Last night, she brought a sense of the toll and the weight of that journey to us.
The evening opened with an introduction by Gar Alperovitz, follwed by a brief but hefty overview of the Iraq War issues and concerns by Professor Shibley Tehami, the Anwar Sadat Chair for the Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, and a rousing speech by Kevin Zeese, of DemocracyRising and many other organizations.
Tehami was comprehensive, describing the complex and diverse issues that characterize this war. Zeese was straightforward and direct.
Cindy was clearly tired. But she brought herself to the task at hand -- speaking directly to the students. She told the story of Casey -- who he was, and how she would never get a phone call from him again.
I have heard her tell his story before, but last night she was full of the need to impress upon the crowd that the solution to the pain of this war is in their hands.
She told them of their future: paying for, cleaning up from, and trying to heal from the occupation. She warned them that their own children would still be paying for the mistakes the Bush administration had made years from now.
She told them, "This is real life."
She let that sink in for a minute. The silence in the room was palpable.
After she spoke, she sent word that she felt ill and could not come out to answer questions. Stephanie and I left, encountering Longju-qu, an exchange student from China, who asked us many questions, including whether or not we believed Cindy was really ill, or if the powers-that-be might be suppressing her.
Stephanie explained civil disobedience and freedom of speech, using her own example of being arrested on purpose. He told her, "You are brave."
She smiled. As we talked quietly, a group of students went by. We overheard one say, "I think she was using pathos to convince us."
We looked at each other, shook our heads, and headed home. Today, we all begin the work again.
When it rains… The Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an official investigation into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s sale in June of HCA Inc. shares.
www.thinkprogress.org
Posted by: Christy at September 28, 2005 06:28 PM
When it rains...
We had better all hope that the Bush Administration, Homeland Security and FEMA are not...repeat NOT in charge.
Got your wadin' boots on?
That's interesting that they would say, "I think she was using pathos to convince us."
Is it an example of cynacism that college students like to show or did they in fact feel a sense of fear in their heart and cover it up with the cynical comment.
Cindy will keep teaching and leading the way, but of those who turn their head and hide their head in the sand, they will regret their apathy later.
I hope lots more people start speaking up like Stephanie did.
And Stephanie, good work speaking out!
BREAKING NEWS--if ya can stand any more!
To: National Desk
Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Office Public Affairs, 202-514-2008 or 202-514-1888, Web: http://www.USDOJ.gov
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- President George W. Bush granted pardons to the following 14 individuals:
-- Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind.
Offense: Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and mail fraud; 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, and 1341.
Sentence: May 29, 1963; Western District of Michigan; five years probation
-- Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas
Offense: Misprision of a felony; 18 U.S.C. 4.
Sentence: Aug. 21, 1992; Northern District of Texas; 18 months imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
-- Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark.
Offense: Receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce; 18 U.S.C. 2313.
Sentence: Aug. 22, 1989; Western District of Arkansas; three years probation and a $5,000 fine.
-- Morris F. Cranmer, Jr., Little Rock, Ark.
Offense: Making materially false statements to a federally-insured institution; 18 U.S.C. 1014.
Sentence: March 30, 1988; Eastern District of Arkansas; Nine months incarceration in a community correctional facility, with the condition that he work for the Arkansas Department of Health.
-- Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn.
Offense: Making counterfeit Federal Reserve notes; 18 U.S.C. 471.
Sentence: April 26, 1991; Western District of Missouri; 12 months and one day imprisonment; two years supervised release, and a $500 fine.
-- Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah
Offense: Conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD; 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(v), and 846.
Sentence: Nov. 23, 1992; District of Wyoming; 30 months imprisonment, later reduced to 11 months and 21 days of imprisonment, and five years supervised release conditioned upon performance of 250 hours community service.
-- Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga.
Offenses: 1.) Possession of tax-unpaid whiskey; 26 U.S.C. 5205 and 2604. 2.) Possession and selling tax-unpaid whiskey; 26 U.S.C. 5601, 5604, and 5205.
Sentence: 1.) June 17, 1963; Middle District of Georgia; two years imprisonment. 2.) May 28, 1970, amended July 24, 1973; Northern District of Georgia; five years incarceration subsequently reduced to two years probation.
-- Jesse Ray Harvey, Scarbro, W.Va.
Offense: Property damage by use of explosives and destruction of an energy facility; 18 U.S.C. 844(i) and 1366(a).
Sentence: April 17, 1990; Southern District of West Virginia; 25 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
-- Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn.
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute cocaine; 21 U.S.C. 846.
Sentence: Sept. 29, 1989, District of North Dakota; 36 months probation conditioned upon three months service in community confinement and payment of $2,500 in restitution.
-- Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla.
Offense: Conspiracy to import marijuana; 21 U.S.C. 952 and 953.
Sentence: July 19, 1985; Middle District of Florida; three years probation.
-- Bobbie Archie Maxwell, Lansing, Mich.
Offense: Mailing a threatening letter; 18 U.S.C. 876.
Sentence: Sept. 6, 1962; Middle District of Georgia; 12 months probation.
-- Denise Bitters Mendelkow, Salt Lake City, Utah
Offense: Embezzlement by a bank employee; 18 U.S.C. 656.
Sentence: May 21, 1981; District of Utah; two years probation conditioned upon payment of restitution.
-- Michael John Pozorski, Schofield, Wis.
Offense: Unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm; 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871.
Sentence: Sept. 14, 1988; Western District of Wisconsin; four years probation conditioned upon 90 days residence in a community treatment center and payment of a $750 fine.
-- Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark.
Offense: Selling Quaalude tablets (one specification), selling, using, and possessing marijuana (three specifications), U.C.M.J., Articles 92 and 134.
Sentence: Aug. 20, 1981; United States Air Force general court-martial convened at Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas; 30 months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $334 pay per month for 30 months, reduction to the rank of airman basic, and a dishonorable discharge.
Indy...
For you my boots are always on.
For your viewing pleasure tonight on PBS (while it's still somewhat unbiased...), check out the show "GET UP, STAND UP" on at 9pm EDT, 8pm CDT...
Since the early 20th century, musicians have come together in the name of human rights to fight war, hunger, corruption, oppression, AIDS, apartheid, and Third World debt. From single songs passed by word of mouth to star-studded, multimillion-dollar benefits, activists from Joe Hill to Bob Geldof have spoken up by singing out, drawing together disparate groups of people with unforgettable verse and universal harmony. GET UP, STAND UP serves as a timely reminder of the potent role music has played in a century's worth of political protest.
The program traces the birth of protest songs back to the American union movement and explores the impact of pop culture in politicizing the baby boomer generation during the Vietnam era. It delves into the history of politics and protest in black music, from the civil rights movement and pacifism to black separatism and gangsta rap. The music in GET UP, STAND UP is omnipresent, moving seamlessly from "The Times They Are A-Changin'" to "Power to the People." By weaving together historical footage and commentary from today's musicians and music critics, the program puts the power of pop into perspective. From the 1970s on, American musicians began taking on larger and larger issues in countries as diverse and far-flung as Bangladesh and Tibet. Benefit concerts and individual hit songs, including Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas" and USA for Africa's "We Are the World," raised millions while capturing the attention of billions worldwide.
Ultimately, GET UP, STAND UP is an investigation and a celebration, a reminder that pop can be so much more than simply "popular" music. Using songs as punctuation, the film chronicles the way music has been used throughout this century to convey social dissatisfaction, from highlighting labor unrest to denouncing terrorist attacks.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/getupstandup/about.html
Report on Roy Blunt... Sounds like he's cut from the same mold as DeLay...
Group labels Blunt corrupt
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri's 7th District is being called one of the most corrupt members of Congress in a report released Monday.
The report criticized Blunt for what the group called the "misuse of his position for the benefit of his family."
A spokesman for Blunt called the report "part of a well-organized political strategy" to attack Republican lawmakers.
Blunt is one of 13 lawmakers - 11 Republicans and two Democrats - named in the report issued by a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
The report cites separate Blunt legislation that it says benefited Philip Morris and United Parcel Service. Blunt's wife, Abigail Perlman, is a lobbyist for the Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris, and a son, Andrew Blunt, lobbies for UPS in the Missouri Statehouse.
http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=207129&c=87
Given all this breaking news of corruption in the majority party (of late!). I'm posting this link to the players involved in the treasonous "Plame" leak for any lurkers.
"The 21 Administration Officials Involved in the Valerie Plame Leak"
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal
These are two very powerful statements which need to be saved and run in every house district election next November and rung around the collective necks of every Mehlman/Rove Republican running for re election. Lets end this era of political corruption.
"I don't know of a member of the House who has more support from this conference than Tom DeLay has. Members are very solidly behind him and they view this as a temporary thing that is highly political and partisan." — House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
"Tom DeLay is a tremendous public servant."
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
Wouldn't that make a great billboard in your district?
You see once upon a time...
Oh nevermind
Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
From a dailykos poster:
Stop Defending Ronnie Earle!
[It's the wrong frame.]
I've read many great defenses of prosecutor Ronnie Earle here at dKos and elsewhere. As they point out, he's got a decidely nonpartisan record, having prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans. But as good and as accurate as these defenses are, many play into DeLay's frame.
The evidence is clear enough and presented well enough that we will convince any reasonable person that Earle's motivations are not partisan. But the mere mention of the argument in these terms forces people to answer the question "Is Earle (Are Democrats) targeting DeLay for partisan reasons?" The frame is of angry Democrats out on a witch hunt for Republican blood, and so it allows DeLay to change the subject. When responding, we need to reframe it so people are instead asking themselves, "Are DeLay and his supporters smearing an honest public servant so they can avoid accountability?" The frame now is of unethical Conservatives looking to get away with bad behavior by blaming others. The focus stays on conservative corruption, and we become the aggressors rather than the defenders.
It should not be difficult to do. After all, wouldn't you expect someone with a history of unethical behavior to defend himself using unethical methods? It plays right into our frame. So when we're facing accusations of Earle being on a partisan witch hunt, we should not respond with, "Earle is not playing politics because..." Instead we should respond with, "As he's always done, Tom DeLay is using dishonest and unethical methods to achieve his goals. Now that he's been indicted for some of those tactics, rather than face the consequences, he and his supporters are attempting to smear those who stand against his unethical behavior..."
And then, thanks to the great work of Think Progress and others, we have plenty of evidence to go on the attack to show that DeLay and his apologists are sliming a dedicated and honest public servant.
This is not a time to be on the defensive, it's a time to attack.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/28/201247/722
Here's the link to Think Progress that's embedded in the post above:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/28/truth-ronnie-earle/
As a follow on to dwazhon's post, watch Olbermann tonight here ===> http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/olbermanndcconfidentialsep2805.wmv
Key words (and feel free to repeat them often):
Culture of corruption
Followup comment...
it's even better when the jury foreman says it:
"However, the grand jury's foreman, William Gibson, told The Associated Press that Earle didn't pressure members to indict DeLay. "Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him," Gibson said in an interview at his home."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050928/ap_on_go_co/delay_investigation_37
Delay on his way to being charged in Austin. HE wants the trial in 90 days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092802128.html
Ira,
Must the trial be in 90 days? What is Texas law? What about time for discovery and testimony?
Sigh. The pugs never deal with anything because they never have any defense. Whenever they look bad their only response is to kill the messenger.
It's important for us to remind people of the many instances of pugs responding to perceived threat by using character assassination. ShrubCo provided a never-ending stream of examples last year. Every scandal was part of a conspiracy theory, perpetrated by a disgruntled ex-employee or a partisan. >-[
Posted by: aimzzz at September 28, 2005 09:04 PM
Aimzz...
Remember not all Republicans are "pugs". But the neoCONS tend to be separate from the Republican party.
It's our job to let people see the difference and to welcome them to "our team" with open arms.
Please remember when you post that we have democrats, republicans, independants, greens, blues, and pinks all here.
Brownie caught in yet another lie... that culture of corruption gets thicker and thicker. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
FEMA's Brown Was Warned Early of Shortages
- By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
(09-28) 17:55 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Former FEMA director Michael Brown was warned weeks before Hurricane Katrina hit that his agency's backlogged computer systems could delay supplies and put personnel at risk during an emergency, according to an audit released Wednesday.
An internal review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's information-sharing system shows it was overwhelmed during the 2004 hurricane season. The audit was released a day after Brown vehemently defended FEMA for the government's dismal response to Katrina, instead blaming state and local officials for poor planning and chaos during the Aug. 29 storm and subsequent flooding.
The review by Homeland Security Department acting Inspector General Richard L. Skinner examined FEMA's response to four major hurricanes and a tropical storm that hit Florida and the Gulf Coast in August and September 2004. It noted FEMA's mission during disasters as rapid response and coordinating efforts among federal, state and local authorities.
"However, FEMA's systems do not support effective or efficient coordination of deployment operations because there is no sharing of information," the audit found. "Consequently, this created operational inefficiencies and hindered the delivery of essential disaster response and recovery services," it said.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said parts of the report were misleading because FEMA's system was never designed to track supplies — although it is now testing a Global Positioning System program, used during Katrina, to do just that.
"We are taking a look at a broad range of issues that have come up as a result of the hurricane," Knocke said. "Obviously, logistics support systems present some concerns and that is an area that we will address moving forward."
In an Aug. 3 response, Brown and one of his deputies rejected the audit, calling it unacceptable, erroneous and negative.
"The overall tone of the report is negative," wrote FEMA chief information officer Barry C. West in an Aug. 3 letter that Brown initialed.
"We believe this characterization is inaccurate and does not acknowledge the highly performing, well managed and staffed (informational technology) systems supporting FEMA incident response and recovery."
Among the problems the audit identified:
- FEMA's system could not track and coordinate delivery of ice and water to Florida, resulting in millions of dollars worth of ice left unused at response centers, and $1.6 million in leftover water returned to storage.
- An estimated 200,000 victims had to wait for temporary housing aid from disaster assistance employees because of backlogged computers.
- Emergency personnel were potentially put at risk because the system did not provide real-time disaster warnings and other information.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/09/28/national/w145107D24.DTL&type=printable
This just in:
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has called for eliminating all funding for the NEA, the NEH, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The RSC is a policy body that advises conservative Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Though cutting this funding would not even make a dent in the need for hurricane relief, it would deprive the affected areas of much-needed help in rebuilding their vital cultural sectors.
Send a message to Congress
right now!
sparrow
I usually put a disclaimer when referring to pugs. Delay & his ilk aren't neocons, so I don't limit my definition of pugs to that degree, but there are Republicans I respect, whether I agree with them or not. I was feeling particularly disgusted when I posted just now, but will be careful to always include more clarification in the future.
BTW, did you ever see my post of the response from TinyURL?
The best line yet from kos posters to use in response to Delay's protestations...
"So are you saying this is the result of a VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY?"
in Texas???
LOL :D
Posted by: aimzzz at September 28, 2005 09:24 PM
Yes, I did. Thanks for checking into it.
And thanks for not being too offended by my comment. Delay and ilk are more like the mafia.
Send a message to Congress
right now!
Posted by: karen at September 28, 2005 09:23 PM
I have and will continue...
I have a plan I have sent to Congress and the White House to save the American people and provide funding to the Gulf Coast for reconstruction and end the war in Iraq...it is quite simple and eloquent plan actually...it goes something like this...
YOU ARE ALL FIRED!!!
'Nuff said.
sparrow,
I believe it's very important & I have made the same type of comments to others. I even thought about it when I made the 09:04 PM post, but I was feeling worn down but the repeated use of that tactic & the press' inevitable rush off to bark up the wrong tree until the original issue fades into oblivion. Also wearing is the public's recurrent acceptance of or delusion by the game.
Then I thought "What the hell? I put a disclaimer in the last thread..."
Thanks for reminding me that peeps are in & out all the time & it's always important to distinguish pugs (or pukes) from Republicans.
karen at September 28, 2005 09:23 PM
They are planning to use the crisis to eliminate all the programs they have wanted to destroy for decades. We must be vigalant.
aimzz and Indy,
I am sure they are! And yes, we must be as vigilant and direct in our messaging as we can be.
Do you think phone calls, faxes, sitting in their offices for weeks at a time, or other will work? (no violence; I am allergic. I can, however, yell loudly).
OH wow! Looks like Gallop just did a fantasy poll on media trust.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001181569
Dream away, Gallop...because nobody believes this junk!
Published in the Washington Post today... it's long but this is the nail in the coffin for rummy/gonzales torture condoning policies
A Matter of Honor
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A21
The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:
Dear Senator McCain:
I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.
Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.
That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.
Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."
Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.
With the Utmost Respect,
Capt. Ian Fishback
1st Battalion,
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
82nd Airborne Division,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701527_pf.html
Posted by: karen at September 28, 2005 09:51 PM
Hide in the basement...
Well call you when its over.
=]
From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish today:
TARGETING FISHBACK: The torture end-game is approaching - and Rumsfeld and Cheney know it. What is now being done to the hero, Captain Ian Fishback, who braved 17 months of obstruction, threats and intimidation by military brass to keep quiet, is a national disgrace. Fishback has now been sequestered at Fort Bragg under orders restricting his contacts (the pretext is that he is a key witness in a criminal investigation and that he should not be in contact with outsiders while it continues). My sources tell me that he has been subjected to a series of long, arduous interrogations by CID investigators. Predictably, the CID guys are out to find just one thing: they want to know the identities of his two or three NCO corroborators. The CID folks are apparently indifferent to the accounts of wrongdoing - telling him repeatedly not to waste their time with his stories. Fishback knows if he gives their identities up, these folks will also be destroyed - so he's keeping his silence, so far.
The investigators imply that he failed to report abuses, so he may be charged, or that he is peddling falsehoods and will be charged for that. They tell him his career in the Army is over. Meanwhile the peer pressure on him is enormous. I'm reliably told that he has been subjected to an unending stream of threats and acts of intimidation from fellow officers. He is accused of betraying the Army, and betraying his unit by bringing it into disrepute. His motives are challenged. He is accused of siding with the enemy and working for their cause. And it goes on and on. This is not surprising. My email in-tray tells me each day that I am a supporter of Islamo-fascism, a traitor, someone who should be deported and so on, for insisting that legalized torture in the U.S. is one of the most important issues we now face. But I'm a free man and they cannot silence this blog. Fishback, whose courage deserves a medal, is not. They are slowly smearing and breaking him. But I have a feeling we have finally found a man with the integrity, faith and patriotism to stand up to the culture of fear and brutality he is now enduring.
RUMSFELD WANTS HIM BROKEN: Another source informs that the word is around that Rumsfeld has taken a strong interest in this. He is quoted as saying "Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly." And no doubt about it, that is just what they are doing. Expect some trumped up charges against Fishback soon, similar to what they did to Muslim Chaplain Captain James Yee, whom they accused of treason with no solid evidence and then, when those charges evaporated, went on to accuse him of adultery. The bottom line, as the NYT reports today, is that the military and the Bush administration are determined to stop any real investigation about how torture and abuse came to be so widespread in the U.S. military. The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies that go all the way to the White House. It's a disgusting cover-up and it rests on breaking the will and resolve of decent servicemen and women brave enough to expose wrong-doing.
Two emails sent to Andrew in response to his posts about Captain Fishback...
EMAIL OF THE DAY I: "There was an infamous experiment over 50 years ago where an authority figure in a lab coat instructed volunteers to apply voltage to a test subject seated in another room when that subject answered their questions erroneously. Unbeknownst to the volunteers, the test subject was part of the experiment, and would scream out in mock pain whenever the voltage was applied. Many of the volunteers were in anguish when applying the voltage, but the calm and authoritative demeanor of the test director influenced them to do things they otherwise would find unconscionable.
Many of us teach this test case to our aspiring officers to illustrate how susceptible we all are to the influence of others, especially when those others are respected and influential members in our national security and military command structures. This is why senior leadership must give clear and unambiguous direction and intent; a break in procedure will permeate the command structure if allowed to go unchecked, especially when it appears to be condoned by leadership. This is why we also study individuals such as Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson of My Lai, a man who possessed the moral courage to stand up to his fellow soldiers in order to protect the innocent, and who later experienced the approbation that Fishback is receiving today.
We in the military do teach the ethics, moral responsibility and personal accountability that by all reporting appear to be demonstrated by Captain Fishback today. Obviously teaching these things is far easier than demonstrating them, which makes this instance all the more noteworthy since the intervening support and command structures appear to be aligned against him. We should recognize the great physical and moral courage it takes for Fishback to speak out, as well as the apparent failures of those higher up to act with similar moral courage."
Fishback is a man of enormous courage and integrity. So are his two fellow soldiers who backed him up, although they were too scared to give their names. I've been reliably informed that the military brass have now uncovered their identity and are applying the same pressure to them as they are to Fishback.
EMAIL OF THE DAY II: "Please keep using your voice to defend Ian Fishback. I didn't know him personally at West Point, but I can tell you this: he had a reputation as being a very up-right, by-the-book kind of guy. If someone like him is saying torture happened, then it did. A West Pointer like Fishback would rather die than dishonor himself by lying. Besides, what possible motive could he have for doing what he is doing other than the desire to right a wrong? If he is attacked by the DoD political hacks and the generals don't stick up for him, then I'm afraid whatever scrap of integrity is left in the system is gone. I sent him an encouraging email below - I don't know if that email address is public or not (making it public might not be smart). Keep drawing attention to his case!"
Washington Post also displayed this editorial opposite the letter from Captain Fishback:
washingtonpost.com
Mr. Flanigan's Answers
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A20
ON THE FACING page today we publish a letter that a U.S. Army captain sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), expressing his frustration at the absence of clear standards governing how the military should treat detainees. In the letter (which did not come to us from the captain or the senator), Capt. Ian Fishback expresses his view, based on service in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this "confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment."
How can it be that an officer of the United States armed services, concerned about detainee mistreatment that he has personally witnessed, could struggle in vain for 17 months to learn the standards of humane treatment the military is applying? The answer to this question appears starkly in the written responses to questions from senators by Timothy E. Flanigan, President Bush's nominee to serve as deputy attorney general: The Bush administration has no standards for humane treatment of detainees. Capt. Fishback is looking for something that doesn't exist.
Mr. Flanigan was Alberto R. Gonzales's deputy when the attorney general served as White House counsel during Mr. Bush's first term, and he was therefore deeply involved in forming policy on matters related to detainees. Like Mr. Gonzales, he has piously repeated the administration's insistence that it does not engage in torture. Yet, also following the administration's disgraceful line, he has refused to say that conduct just short of torture -- which is banned by treaty and is a stain on American honor -- is either illegal or improper when inflicted on foreigners overseas.
Mr. Bush has promised that all detainees will be treated humanely. Yet, when asked how he would define humane treatment, Mr. Flanigan declared that he does "not believe that the term 'inhumane' treatment is susceptible to a succinct definition." Did the White House provide any guidance as to its meaning? "I am not aware of any guidance provided by the White House specifically related to the meaning of humane treatment."
Mr. Flanigan could not even bring himself to declare particularly barbaric interrogation tactics either legally or morally off-limits. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) asked him about "waterboarding," mock executions, physical beatings and painful stress positions. Mr. Flanigan responded: "Whether a particular interrogation technique is lawful depends on the facts and circumstances," and without knowing these, "it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the legality of the techniques you describe." And he reiterated that "inhumane" can't be coherently defined.
All of which is to say that anything short of outright torture goes -- or, at least, that nothing is absolutely forbidden. The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to report Mr. Flanigan's nomination to the floor as early as tomorrow. Having only recently confirmed Mr. Gonzales despite his similar refusal to be pinned down, the committee isn't likely to draw the line at Mr. Flanigan. Still, it is an odious thing that the top two law enforcement officers of the United States will both be people who resort to evasive legalisms in response to simple questions about uncivilized conduct. Capt. Fishback should not have to be pleading with senators, as he is now doing, to give "clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals [soldiers] risk their lives for."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701593_pf.html
Can you say Culture of Corruption??
10:23 pm post - related news item:
Also yesterday, an Army officer who has told members of Congress and a human rights group that vague policies from military leaders fomented abuse spoke publicly for the first time. Capt. Ian Fishback, 26, said in an interview that he believes the Army is examining his claims of command failures and unclear treatment guidelines mainly to punish low-ranking soldiers and not to explore whether top commanders bear responsibility.
Fishback, assigned to Fort Bragg, N.C., expressed frustration that Army investigators who have talked to him in the past week have focused almost entirely on identifying soldiers who spoke anonymously to Human Rights Watch. Fishback and two unidentified soldiers spoke of detainee abuse at bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, including instances in which detainees were severely beaten, pushed to exhaustion or humiliated.
"The way we have been treating detainees is immoral," Fishback said. "We had a serious command climate problem, across the board. One of the things that infuriates me is that the leaders are not accepting responsibility."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a news briefing yesterday that the Army is taking the allegations seriously. "And to the extent somebody's done something that they shouldn't have done, they'll be punished for it," Rumsfeld said. "And in any event, we'll know the truth."
Fishback said the courts-martial for England and other low-ranking soldiers obscure the fact that unclear interrogation and treatment guidelines were accepted and promoted by the Army's chain of command. Fishback said he has spent 17 months seeking clear explanation of those guidelines.
Reservist Sentenced to 3 Years for Abu Ghraib Abuse
http://tinyurl.com/blkbf
"I think everybody agrees that he's one of the most effective legislators in Washington, D.C.," Roskam said. "Knowing what I know now about what Tom DeLay's been accused of, my attitude would be to support him."
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-roskam22.html
These words were sputtered by the Republican candidate for the Sixth Congressional District in Illinois (Henry Hyde's seat). Christine Cegelis is running for the same seat. I think he will have a hard time with that quote, however this is a decidedly conservative district. Until the DeLay way of doing business is univerally accepted as unjust to the American people, the conservatives will continue to argue in support of their hero. Roskam has the support of all the big money contributors that Republicans typically receive. Cegelis on the other hand has an average contribution of $72.00 per donation. That is more consistent with a grass roots effort.
In some ways the race in this district will be a microcosm for the rest of the country. I expect both parties to put a big effort into their individual candidate's campaign. I also expect that this race will get some national media attention.
Sparrow,
I am not a lawyer. But I am both blssed and challenged with the many, many relatives who are and therfore have been forced to endure hours of endless legal conversation at the dinner table.
My mother, God rest her soul, tried bravely to put an end to legal arguments/bllodbaths at the dinner table, citing the normal limits of civilised coversation rules and the like. Never worked. So here's my two francs, and I hope Ira will weight in here.
While Texas does have a speedy trial law, his two named codefendants have a case pending on the consitutionality of the statute under which they have been indicted, or in the case of his codefendants, reindicted today. That case will have to be settled prior to any criminal proceeding involving the three codefendants, as it has the propensity to render any criminal proceeding moot.
DeLay's press ops are putting out there that he would like a trial by December, but there is no way in hell that is ever going to happen and they all know that. It's just a tactic to make DeLay appear to be eager to "clear" his good name, have in day in court, insert tired metaphor here_________.
Further, the key evidence which I think will ultimately be the turning point for the case, the checks, the financial transactions themselves, were upheld in a civil court proceeding a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure about the exact date, but I would be willing to bet the dog that Think Progress has it up right now. The Austin Statesman seems to have the chronology of this case, but again, locals are the best informed here and we have a number of them who blog with us regularly.
For what it's worth, here's how I view the case.
Tom DeLay is of the opinion that whatever you can do, as long as it has a reasonable level of deniability, in order to win, is fine.
Ronnie Earle's equally deeply held belief is that, uh, No, it's not.
You don't get to bend and shape the law the way you do a new hat so it fits just your head just right.
The law is not a fashion that changes each year.
The law is an agreement between civilised people that this is the minimum we will accept as a set of rules. No more, but sure as hell no less.
And the very heart of conspiracy does not lie in the sucess or failure of the criminal enterprise agreed to, but in the fact that the criminals themselves ever dare to agree to break the law. That they ever agree that somehow they are above the law, or around the law, or can skirt the law, or outsmart the law. It is even more egergious when it is done by someone in whom the public has placed their faith, their trust. That they have the audacity to ever contemplate such a thing on a realistic level is the real crime, because it's a crime against your neighbors, your friends, and what we all believe is the right way to behave.
Frankly, I don't have a hard time imagining that Ronnie Earle will have a difficult time convincing a jury that Tom DeLay had the audacity to place himself above the law, since Tom DeLay has for some time, clearly viewed himself AS the law. It will be hard for the defense to transform "The Hammer" into innocent bystander.
But mostly, I think it will be difficult for Texans long familiar with his brand of politics, with his smiling and casual excusals of "everybody cheats so it's no big thing" moral relativism, and of his daily dose of situational ethics, to think otherwise.
The law is the will of the people, and as a society, we say, "Nobody gets to outsmart the law, because that is just another form of stealing from your neighbor."
At least that's what it sounds like when I pray these days.
Did anyone else catch this little gem in Scott McClellan's Press briefing today?
-------------
Q I have one other quick question, which is, has any member of the administration appeared before the Valerie Plame grand jury in the last month or so?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's a matter you need to direct to the special prosecutor overseeing that investigation.
Go ahead, Ron.
---------------
It came at the very end, so I missed it on the first reading, but I think it's interesting that in the afteglow of the Delay indictment, someone asked about the Plame investigation and McClellan seriously ducked it and moved things along.
No one noticed.
Suprised no one has posted this yet or is the name Kerry not allowed here anymore?
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Meeting Status: Had Meeting
Answers to Cindy's Questions
1. What noble cause? “This is an artsy question that is hard to answer. However I can tell you that a war based on lies is not noble, but a war based on bringing freedom to people is noble.”
2. How many more lives? “If we can not achieve the goal of bring freedom, I do not want to see any more lives lost in this war.”
3. How many lives are you personally willing to risk? “I will say the same thing. If this war will not bring freedom to the Iraqi people I am not willing to personally risk any lives.”
4. What are you doing to bring our troops home? “I believe that we are in a critical two month stage right now. The Iraqi people are supposed to have an election in December.”
Other comments made to Cindy during the meeting:
-He told Cindy “What you are doing is saving lives.”
-“I can not tell you how much I hate what he (Bush) has done.”
-“Rumsfeld is a disgrace.”
-“There are countries that will not become involved with Bush.”
-“What we are doing now has hurt the strength of our military.”
http://meetwiththemothers.org/userdata_display.php?modin=50&uid=454
Cindy must have been impressed with his answers that he is on her Hall Of Fame list
http://meetwiththemothers.org/hall.php
Kerry is part of the problem.
They all need t be fired.
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
Frederick Douglass, 1857
In Paris I had Andree running me in to look at the news before I even had my coffee yet because the Delay story has really hit the press here this morning: They really connect the dots about his career; all the way from redistricting to his asenine behavior around the Schiavo controversy:
I agree; Indy - they all need to be fired but that wont happen - so it is a matter of degree
The American people are the core of the problem - not John Kerry.
When 40% of the nation still believed in October 2004 that Saddam was behind 9/11, and a significant percentage on the left remained convinced that Bush planned 9/11, the evidence is overwhelming that the electorate is nuts.
In a Democracy, a nation gets exactly the leadership and government that it deserves.
I had a feeling when I saw shrub boasting about the killing al Qaeda's #2 that it was fishy, yet another reason not to believe a word out of this governments mouth....
The 'Second' Man
The slain Abu Azzam may not have been Zarqawi’s top deputy after all. Will his death have any effect on the Iraq insurgency?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Sept. 28, 2005 - U.S. intelligence officials and counterterrorism analysts are questioning whether a slain terrorist—described by President Bush today as the “second-most-wanted Al Qaeda leader in Iraq”—was as significant a figure as the Bush administration is claiming.
In a brief Rose Garden appearance Wednesday morning, Bush seized on the killing of Abu Azzam by joint U.S-Iraqi forces in a shootout last Sunday as fresh evidence that the United States is turning the tide against the Iraqi insurgency.
“This guy was a brutal killer,” Bush told reporters in remarks that were also carried live on cable TV. “He was one of [Abu Mussab al-]Zarqawi’s top lieutenants. He was reported to be the top operational commander of Al Qaeda in Baghdad.”
Bush’s comments came one day after Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. military considered Abu Azzam the “No. 2 Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, next to Zarqawi.”
But veteran counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann said today there are ample reasons to question whether Abu Azzam was really the No. 2 figure in the Iraqi insurgency. He noted that U.S. officials have made similar claims about a string of purportedly high-ranking terrorist operatives who had been captured or killed in the past, even though these alleged successes made no discernible dent in the intensity of the insurgency.
“If I had a nickel for every No. 2 and No. 3 they’ve arrested or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d be a millionaire,” says Kohlmann, a New York-based analyst who tracks the Iraq insurgency and who first expressed skepticism about the Azzam claims in a posting on The Counterterrorism Blog (counterterror.typepad.com). While agreeing that Azzam—also known as Abdullah Najim Abdullah Mohamed al-Jawari—may have been an important figure, “this guy was not the deputy commander of Al Qaeda,” says Kohlmann.
Three U.S. counterterrorism officials, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, also told NEWSWEEK today that U.S. agencies did not really consider Abu Azzam to be Zarqawi’s “deputy” even if he did play a relatively high-ranking role in the insurgency.
The characterization of Abu Azzam as No. 2 to Zarqawi is “not quite accurate,” said one of the officials. According to this official, it would be more correct to describe Abu Azzam as a “top lieutenant” to Zarqawi who was involved in “running” terrorist operations in Baghdad—not all of Iraq. Other top lieutenants operate in other parts of the country, the official indicated.
Two other officials agreed that Abu Azzam was a senior figure, perhaps the emir (leader), of Al Qaeda operations in Baghdad, and that he was of critical importance in moving funds to insurgent operatives in the Iraqi capital area. “He’s a money guy,” one official said. “He is significant but not No. 2 [to Zarqawi],” said another official.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9518556/site/newsweek/
I actually watched Anne Coulter on tv and thought she was going to have a heart attack
Rumsfeld is on the hot seat
Supposed to give Americans a summary of progress in Iraq
and you neednt read French to know DeLay is making an international ass of himself
Le chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre US ...
L'Express - Il y a 3 heures
Un proche du président américain George W. Bush, le parlementaire Tom DeLay a renoncer à diriger la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants ...
Un proche de Bush inculpé
Le Figaro - Il y a 4 heures
L'un des maillons essentiels de l'Administration Bush au Congrès, un proche du président, Tom DeLay, a été inculpé hier de «conspiration» dans un ...
Le chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre US ...
L'Express - Il y a 4 heures
Les statuts de son parti l'obligent à quitter son poste de numéro deux des républicains au Congrès. Mais il n'est théoriquement ...
Etats-Unis: R. Blunt élu par les Républicains comme chef de la ...
XINHUA - Il y a 5 heures
WASHINGTON, 28 septembre (XINHUANET) -- Les Républicains de la Chambre des représentants des Etats-Unis ont élu mercredi Roy Blunt du Missouri comme chef de ...
Le chef de la majorité parlementaire américaine poursuivi dans ...
XINHUA - Il y a 8 heures
WASHINGTON, 28 septembre (XINHUANET) -- Tom DeLay, chef de la majorité parlementaire à la Chambre des représentants américaine, a été inculpé mercredi ...
Etats-Unis: démission du leader de la majorité républicaine au ...
Matinternet - Il y a 9 heures
Le leader de la majorité républicaine au Congrès Tom DeLay a provisoirement quitté sa position au sein du parti majoritaire aux Etats-Unis après avoir ...
États-Unis
Canoë - Il y a 11 heures
Le chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants vient d'être accusé de complicité pour financement illégal. ...
Le républicain Tom Delay sous enquête
Radio-Canada - Il y a 15 heures
Rattrapé par une affaire de financement politique, le chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants, Tom DeLay, a annoncé qu'il ...
Tom DeLay
Libération - Il y a 17 heures
cela couvait depuis des semaines. Le chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants, Tom DeLay, proche du président ...
Démission du n°2 des républicains à la chambre des ...
L'Express - Il y a 17 heures
Les statuts de son parti obligent DeLay, inculpé par une chambre de mise en accusation du Texas, à quitter son poste de numéro deux des républicains au ...
Inculpation d'un haut responsable parlementaire, proche de Bush
Tageblatt (Abonnement) - Il y a 13 heures
Un proche du président américain George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, chef de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants, a été inculpé mercredi au ...
Un proche de Bush inculpé pour une affaire de financement ...
Le Devoir (Abonnement) - Il y a 2 heures
Washington -- Un proche du président américain George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, chef de file de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants, a ...
Démission du n°2 des républicains à la chambre des ...
AngolaPress - Il y a 3 heures
Houston (Texas), 28/09 - Tom DeLay, chef de file de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants, a été inculpé de complot dans le cadre d ...
Scandale chez les républicains US
Nouvel Observateur - Il y a 5 heures
Le leader de la majorité républicaine au Congrès a démissionné après avoir été inculpé dans une affaire de financement frauduleux de son parti. ...
"Being called vindictive and partisan by Tom DeLay is like being called ugly by a frog."
September 29, 2005
Prosecutor Takes Attacks in Stride, Mostly
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
HOUSTON, Sept. 28 - Being vilified as a "rogue district attorney," a "fanatic" and "an unabashed partisan zealot," among other epithets, was not the worst part of his day, said Ronnie Earle, hours after announcing the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay and two associates.
"Mostly, I haven't had any lunch," said Mr. Earle, the Travis County prosecutor, speaking from his office in Austin. "I ate an energy bar. It helped a little. That stopped me from gnawing on people's heads."
Mr. Earle, 63, an institution and endangered species - a Texas Democrat - now in his eighth elected four-year term, said he was ignoring the attacks by Mr. DeLay and his supporters after Mr. DeLay, the powerful Texas Republican and House majority leader, was charged with conspiring to violate Texas election law by contributing corporate money to candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002.
But Mr. Earle would not let it pass, it turned out. "I find they often accuse others of doing what they themselves do," he said. "And what else are they going to say?"
"This is about protecting the integrity of our electoral system and I couldn't just ignore it," he said.
Mr. Earle, a former state representative who won his first election for district attorney in 1976 and has run away with every race since, is famously unbridled, responding last year to an earlier attack by the majority leader by saying, "Being called vindictive and partisan by Tom DeLay is like being called ugly by a frog."
When Congressional Republicans sought last year to protect Mr. DeLay by changing the rules requiring an indicted leader to step down, Mr. Earle condemned the action as "open contempt for moral values" in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times. The move was later rescinded.
Yet on Wednesday at a news conference in a law library near the Travis County Courthouse, Mr. Earle, in announcing the indictment, was uncharacteristically close-mouthed and stern as he turned away questions about the evidence and other aspects of the investigation. But he denied that politics had played any role, as Mr. DeLay and his lawyers claimed.
"I would expect that that would be their response," Mr. Earle said. "This is what they believe of themselves."
"We have, over the years, prosecuted a number of elected officials," he said. "At last count that stood at 15, 12 of whom were Democrats and 3 of whom were Republicans."
That the defense will seek to make Mr. Earle and his record an issue quickly became clear in comments by Mr. DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston. "Tom DeLay changed the state of Texas," the lawyer said in a separate news conference in Austin. "Nobody can deny that, and Ronnie Earle wants to destroy him because of that."
Mr. DeGuerin had represented the most prominent target of Mr. Earle until now in a case that represented perhaps the lowest point of the district attorney's career: the prosecution of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1994.
Mr. Earle, who himself had toyed with seeking the Senate seat in 1993 that had been vacated by Lloyd Bentsen, won an indictment against Ms. Hutchison on charges of having used her office as Texas treasurer for political ends. But as her trial was about to start, the judge declined to assure that documents obtained from her office by subpoena, without a search warrant, would be admissible. Facing the loss of crucial evidence and, Mr. Earle said, unwilling to risk a precedent that could erase the wall between politics and state business, he withdrew the case.
The judge, angry at the tactic, refused to allow the case merely to be dropped and ordered a verdict of acquittal. Mr. Earle was branded a coward or bungler. It also gave rise to a joke that the bad news for Mr. DeLay was that he might get indicted; the good news was that he would be prosecuted by Mr. Earle.
Mr. Earle gave his critics new fodder on May 12 when he was the featured speaker in Dallas for the Texas Values in Action Coalition, a Democratic political action committee. The prosecutor talked about his investigation into Republican corporate contributions and mentioned Mr. DeLay. "This case is not just about Tom DeLay," he told the audience. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."
Mr. Earle seemed surprised at the uproar that ensued. "I'll make that same speech to any group that was interested in open and honest government," he said.
But the chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party, Tina Benkiser, called for his resignation. "This proves once and for all that Ronnie Earle is a hypocrite on a political witch hunt," she said.
Mr. Earle has long shrugged off his critics, saying his record of putting crooked officials and violent criminals in jail speaks for itself. But he once told Texas Monthly that he did not want to be buried in the State Cemetery in Austin, but instead wished to be cremated. He had made so many people angry, he said, that they would be lining up to desecrate his grave.
Lynndie deserves an apology
by Richard Cohen, Syndicated Columnist
Before being sentenced to three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge, Lynndie England apologized to just about everyone in sight. She apologized to "coalition forces and all the families" and to the "detainees" she and others had abused at Abu Ghraib prison - England was the smirking soldier holding the leash, you might remember - and to "the families, America and all the soldiers." What she did not do is demand an apology in return. She's entitled to one.
A stronger person, maybe one with some political fiber, would have demanded an apology from her superiors - starting with the commander in chief, George W. Bush: How dare you send me into war for reasons that now seem downright specious? She might have demanded an explanation as well - not that she would have gotten one. After all, none of us really have. It was, it seems, some sort of mistake.
She might have demanded from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an apology for a military plan that no one, with the possible exception of Mrs. Rumsfeld, thinks called for enough troops and which was implemented before all of the troops were on the ground. How dare you, sir, send me to war so exposed?
She might have demanded an apology from the Army for sending her to work in a bad and chaotic place without proper training. Who says they're sorry about that? Not the President. Not Rumsfeld. Just salute and shut up.
She might have demanded an apology for not being told if the Geneva Convention applied to her detainees. From the President on down, the unspoken message had gone forth that the war on terror was something new under the sun. And the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not real soldiers because the actual war was over and the enemy defeated - or so said the President. The detainees were something else, terrorists maybe, linked if only by rhetoric to Osama Bin Laden and the darkest of evil. A little fun at their expense - a pyramid of nude men and some sexual abuse - is what they had coming. If she got that message, who can blame her? Better yet, who will apologize for it?
The Washington Post on Wednesday published a letter written to Sen. John McCain by an Army captain, a West Pointer at that. In it, Capt. Ian Fishback says that for 17 months he's been searching for the Army's standards regarding the humane treatment of detainees. He cannot find them. Surely, torture is applying a hot poker to some poor guy's rear end. But is it putting a leash on a nude man? Is it mocking his genitals? Is it, in fact, any of the things Lynndie England did and which, thanks to digital photography, so offended the Muslim world?
It's impossible not to be revolted by what England did and to insist that no American should need special training in the humane treatment of fellow human beings. But she is, as she says, weak and passive and the sort of woman who is an easy mark for a man with the gift of fibbery. This was Charles Graner, her superior, boyfriend and the father of her child. As is very often the case in life and literature, the perpetrator is often also a victim. No reading of England's life story can stand any other interpretation. She is one of life's losers.
Nonetheless, she deserves her punishment. So do the others. But at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and elsewhere, the buck stops suspiciously low in the chain of command. Somehow, no one higher up is responsible for the situation England found herself in or for what she did. She's apparently accustomed to this sort of thing - just another example of getting stuck with the baby. Maybe someday she'll realize that a whole lot of very important people did her wrong. Who will apologize for that?
Originally published on September 29, 2005
I'll start right now by apologizing to Lynndie England for not personally doing more to stop the hijacking of this country and it's most sacred core ideals, beginning with Selection 2000.
This citizens of this country have failed her and each other miserably, and like it or not, have failed the troops, and yes, the global community as well.
We must double, triple, quadruple all of our efforts to put an end to this absolute stupidity once and for all.
Make it so.
p.s. Lynndie England... I pray for you that out of this nightmare you will come to a deeper understanding of who you are as a person, and have a for the value that exists in you and others... no matter what the dark-hearted people who have crossed your path say.
Beauty from ashes.
monkey,
Thank you for articulating what many of us feel.
I weep for her. And for the detainees.