AJM's Blog

Can't function if we can't cover up those crimes!

2009-10-05T18:56:28Z

Because the civil suits were settled, juries never answered the question of what responsibility the diocese had for the abuse suffered by children at the hands of priests it transferred.

But church officials maintain that the "internal affairs doctrine" applied then and applies now.

If Catholic values of forgiveness and redemption are among the considerations employed in deciding whether priests accused of sexual abuse work again -- even priests known for a certainty to have committed abuse -- juries "are not to be allowed, in retrospect, to conclude that the diocese's weighing of these factors resulted in a misguided or negligent decision," the diocese argued in its petition.

To do so would constitute government interference in "ecclesiastical policy decisions," the diocese petition maintained. To release church documents concerning such decisions to the public, it added, would undermine the diocese's "right to function as a religious institution."

Memo to Senior Ensigns: Get Your Boy to a Deprogrammer Fast!

2009-07-11T19:51:49Z

Memo to Jenny and South Carolina: Dump him!

Memo to Politicians: Avoid C Street -- apt to be the political equivalent of belonging to KKK or Neo-Nazis.

Also understand how it works: These good hearted men shower you with love and admiration. You are one of the elect --- Like King David and Nixon -- if you do it, it is right. The leader tells you that he would understand even if you raped three young girls -- you, think golly I must be pure as driven snow -- all I'm doing is shagging my brother's wife and you blurt it out and get it off your conscience and feel better. A little later four of your friends from the group come and ask you to vote the same way with them. It occurs to you that the last time you saw those four together was at the group. Nothing is said about that. Do I have to spell it out for you? B * L* A* * * * *

Memo to Reporters: Publish the list of those associated with C Street

Memo to Congress: Start an investigation of cults.

Memo to Society at Large: Imagine you are a power-mad admirer of Pol Pot. Do you confine your tentacles to politicians only?

Link:Who's Afraid of Public Insurance

2009-06-30T13:47:54Z

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php

Those who have Medicare are much more satisfied than those with private insurance. Those who don't have Medicare are much more apt to buy into phony claims about the effect of public control. Those who have Medicare know they have access to the doctor of their choice while those too young to use it believe phony claims that Medicare does not provide this and by
extension that government will interfere with their choices of health care.

Link:Who's Afraid of Public Insurance

2009-06-30T13:47:54Z

YOO: No one told me torture was unconstitutional!

2009-06-13T22:48:12Z

Mr. Yoo, as part of a senior administrative group called the War Council, helped to shape Bush administration policy in the war on terrorism, and as deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003, wrote many memorandums authorizing harsh treatment. Mr. Yoo had argued that he should be immune from the suit because it was not clearly established that the treatment would be unconstitutional.

Judge White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, rejected all but one of Mr. Yoo's immunity claims and found that Mr. Padilla "has alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the requirement that Yoo set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights."

New York Times June 13, 2009

Scalia illogically wants it both ways.

2009-05-26T19:17:34Z

"'The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present,'' Scalia said." as quoted in NYT

The original rule in Michigan v. Jackson did not allow the police to question an individual who had or who had asked for a lawyer. There were several effects of this rule: it protected the accused against coercion because any 'evidence' obtained without access to counsel did not count so the police were not tempted to 'genuinely coerce', it protected the right to counsel by negating the impulse of an individual unaware of his rights to cooperate with the authorities.

Getting a confession from an ill educated defendant is analogous to tricking candy from a baby and both are genuinely coercive.

The only reason that denying a defendant access to counsel is the hope that the defendant will provide more information in the absence of counsel -- and Justice Scalia implicitly acknowledges that this is so:the rule providing for the presence of counsel has a "considerable adverse effect of this rule on society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice."

If the accused's participation in self-incrimination is voluntary and not produced by a lack of knowledge of his rights ( and taking actions against an accused before he has advice from counsel deprives him of the most meaningful access to counsel), waiting for counsel will not matter -- the accused will make his statement despite the advice from counsel.

What Scalia and the majority have established is that it is once again held just and proper for the police to operate by tricking the weak and/or ignorant.

You cannot argue at one and the same time that Scalia's rule allows society to catch more criminals (on the basis of self-incrimination) and does not hurt the rights of criminals.

P.O.W.s in the "W.O.T."

2009-05-25T00:46:41Z

In a regular war, a P.O. W. is usually a soldier dressed in the uniform of his state who has been shooting at you and has been captured. The Geneva Code convention allows you to stick him in a camp, ask him his serial number and hold him until there is an exchange or the end of the war.

In the so-called war on terror, the 'terrorists' do not come with identifying brands. Even if you sweep people up from a battlefield you do not know whether you have captured enemies intending to attack you, civilians got up in the crossfire, individuals who were duped or forced into fighting you (from where I am coming from any child soldier is a victim not a terrorist) or patriots who believe they are defending their country on their soil from your attack.

So when you have such a grab bag of individuals and stick them in Gitmo and torture some of them, there are only a few whom you can convict on the basis of court-admissible evidence. So what do you do with the rest?

There is no government with whom you could (or would want to) organize an exchange. There is no foreseeable endpoint until the last angry man dies without perpetuating his cause. (See 400 years of Irish history.)

If you are following a criminal offense model you let the rest go. If you are looking at whether some of these individuals intend to harm the United States you let none of them go because you cannot tell.

If you believe, on the basis of 'evidence' obtained through torture, that one such individual intends to harm the United States you do not want to put him on trial because such evidence is not admissible and the court may set him free and the public exposure of the torture would further harm the U.S. image in the short term and endanger current soldiers because of the justified rage such torture evokes. It is simply fact that the exposure of the wrongs done at Abu Grahb made recruiting easier for Al Qaeda in the same way that the pictures of the burned bodies of four Americans made us angry. In the long term stopping torture and exposing the torturers and dealing with them through the American system of justice -- including impeachment -- would provide the best example to the world of how to deal with such a problem and in the long run decrease the rage against the United States. If you incarcerate him because you either lack evidence or for fear revealing immoral methods by which you obtained evidence, you compound the wrong done that individual -- because you have conducted yourself improperly you deny him the opportunity to show you that you are mistaken and he was neither a terrorist nor a threat now.

Bush's solution was the presumption of guilt on the basis of one man's say so -- I, the President, say that this person is an enemy combatant and therefore we can incacerate him for as long as we like.

Obama has not yet solved this problem but he has made some important promises : this determination will not be made by one person alone nor by one branch of government alone. The provisions by which this situation will be handled will be devised with input from all three branches -- not some executive branch fiat. The provisions devised with be in accordance with the rule of law -- by which I presume he means that the rules will make some sense, that the individuals will have some rights, that actions will not be arbitrary and that the applications of the rules will be fair.

Preventive detention of soldiers has long been the rule of war fare while preventive detention of individuals has long be abhorred in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The preventive detention of individuals suspected of participation in terrorism is somewhere in the middle on this continuum. Deteriming a fair and secure way to handle such individuals will be very difficult to do justly. I wish Obama luck -- as oldtimers here know I am not a fan of Obama's but here I think that he faced with a very difficult moral and strategic issue and has announced an approach to finding a solution through our system of government that makes sense.

Juan Cole nails that FOOL Cheney for buying into phony confessions produced by torture and embarrassing the U.S. by having Scooter Libby add these false claims to Colin Powers' UN Address and possibly seeing them as a justification for the Iraq war.

2009-05-13T23:56:59Z

http://www.juancole.com/ (The May 12 essay):

uesday, May 12, 2009
Al-Libi Case Eloquent Testimony against Torture

The best refutation of Dick Cheney's insistence that torture was necessary and useful in dealing with threats from al-Qaeda just died in a Libyan prison. See also Andy Worthington.

Al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was captured trying to escape from Afghanistan in late 2001. He was sent to Egypt to be tortured, and under duress alleged that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda agents in chemical weapons techniques. It was a total crock, and alleged solely to escape further pain. Al-Libi disavowed the allegation when he was returned to CIA custody. But Cheney and Condi Rice ran with the single-source, torture-induced assertion and it was inserted by Scooter Libby in Colin Powell's infamous speech to the United Nations.

If torture can mislead you into launching a war that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths, then it should be avoided, quite apart from the fact that it is illegal and that the United States is signatory to binding treaties specifying its illegality. (It is coming out that Bush-Cheney's own CIA Inspector-General expressed the view that the Bush-era torture was medically unsound, did not produce the desired results, and contravened the UN Convention against torture.

Here is what Condi Rice told the Lehrer News Hour in 2002, based on the torture-induced statements of the late al-Libi:

' "We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the [Al Qaeda] detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development." '

In my book, Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East, I note that Gen. Bonaparte forbade the use of torture by French military interrogators in Cairo, on the grounds that it produced too much misinformation. Napoleon was not exactly squeamish. And even he would have been ashamed of the crew we had in Washington before last January.

End/ (Not Continued)

Bonus Snafu: Nationalization vs Shareholding

2009-03-20T13:43:18Z

One of the wonders of the modern world is the separation of ownership from the operation and control of a company: management controls the company but the shareholders (and in a sense, creditors) own it. When our government decided to buy rights in AIG rather than nationalize it, the control of the company was left to the management. Under most nationalization schemes the government takes over management of the company as well. The shareholders can ultimately change the management of a company and thus its policies but the process is indirect, convoluted and lengthy. If the government had nationalized AIG the bonuses could have been dealt with directly.

Having essentially bought AIG the government was bound by AIG's prior contracts. It is not surprising that when Chris Dodd attempted to limit the bonuses the staff from Geithner et al informed Dodd's staff that it was not legally tenable to limit the bonuses because of hte pre-existing contracts and the provision was dropped.This is probably correct: the best the government could have done using this method would be to make accepting the ban on bonuses a condition of receiving the bailout and leave AIG management to see if they could find a way to break the contracts.Further, providing a substantial portion of expected remuneration through bonuses was business as usual in that part of the financial world and unremarkable.

Part of the political problem is that the public thinks of bonuses as rewards for producing good results and the AIG masters of the universe had done anything but. But actually these particular payments were ostensibly negotiated so that these employees would commit to remain with a sinking ship.

There was also a lot of gaming of the system going on: how do I set my take so the government can't change it? How do I get a piece of the government pie? The separation of managment from control had grown so extreme and the incentives in place -- bonuses for 'production' -- regardless of the risk to the welfare of the coporation (not to mention the world economy) that essentially managment had upped its share of the take to rip off levels which inchoate power of the shareholders had been totally ineffective in reining in.

The use of the tax system to retrieve the bonus money is totally appropriate: the windfall bonus tax is akin to the windfall profits taxes of war time. A segment of the population which is held to have been unjustly enriched is denied that outcome.

That said, what AIG really needed to do, based on past results, was to find some way to pay really high dollar to the Financial Products division to go work for the competition.

Belated Letter to Uncle McCain's Advice Column

2009-02-20T15:38:11Z

Dear John:

My economic house is in bad repair: the guy before me did nothing. I have made emergency repairs. They cost a ton.

I need to know whether this is generational theft.

Sincerely,
Barack
The White House

OPEN OUR ECONOMIC PARACHUTE NOW!

2009-02-09T15:10:40Z

Need I say more?

At least stop arguing about what color it should be! Complaining about 2% of the items and demanding that everything should be done their way or its not bipartisan ought to get the Republicans laughed off the airwaves but some of the commentators seem to be still able to keep a straight face while spouting Republican talking points.

Tolerance

2009-01-17T17:31:32Z

Bluntly, homophobes lynch homosexuals and not vice versa. It follows that it is the homophobes who need to be taught tolerance, not shown it.

This willingness to kill is granted license by hate-mongering. Some hate is justified -- as towards those who commit incest or rape children. Comparing the adult relationship between homosexuals to such actions is simply illogical hate-mongering: whatever you think about homosexual marriage it is clearly a relationship between consenting adults.

That Obama has chosen to celebrate such hate-mongering by chosen Warren to give his invocation is deplorable.

A Blank Slate

2008-03-26T19:39:44Z

"Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you," he says. "Oftentimes, that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is. "

Obama talking to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004