Another day another murder attempt on Honduras' Manuel Zelaya. The embassy in which he is sheltered was attacked with potentially deadly gas ... or was it? Catholic priest Andrés Tamayo who is with Zelaya and his supporters in the Brazilian embassy issued several impassioned statements. He was quoted thus in Honduran news outlet Teimpo:

"First came a helicopter and then a tank, which was a sign of a company, but was handled by soldiers," said Tamayo, who also suffered the effects of chemicals.

The priest, who observed when discharging chemicals, said a hundred citizens, who are in the building, most presented problems, such as dizziness, headaches, stomach and throat, vomiting and bleeding.

 

Truck allegedly delivering toxic gas to be used against Zelaya. Enough HCN to kill an army ... the army doesn't seem too nervous. (source: Teimpo.hn)

In the Mexican Nuestro Pais (h/t neoboho) Tamayo didn't mention the helicopter or the truck. But interestingly, the story picks up an emerging theme in recent Zelaya assertions: Israel is behind everything.

Military Armed Forces of Honduras, with the logistical support of Israel advisers, gases released from neighboring homes into the interior of the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, causing vomiting of blood to the refugees in the embassy.
[...]

He said that "people are vomiting blood, are closed to the airways, and cause other serious problems of intoxication" and therefore called on all nations "to stop this barbarism."

Zelaya also made a statement that was carried by several sources including Teimpo:

"They spread a toxic gas that the military used to evacuate people, here are sixty people all trying to breathe in the yard," said the president, who said he is using a gas mask and although it has a dry throat .

"There are people vomiting and urinating blood," said Zelaya.

Physicians were called to the scene including former Health Minister, Marco Rosa and Zelaya's personal physician Mark Rhodes. According to Teimpo:

Former Health Minister, Marco Rosa, confirmed a few minutes inside the Embassy of Brazil there are at least 25 to 30 people poisoned with some kind of gas.

Indicated, by means of television, outside the building, those affected with vomiting, headache, diarrhea and even nosebleeds
[...]
Initially, Rosa said he did not know if it was some kind of food or gas, but soon after confirmed that from inside it confirmed that they have found a hose through which the gas would be infiltrating.

So there's a group of people pissing/vomiting blood; Rosa finds a hose; a diagnosis is made; toxic gas! Let's pause for a moment and run down the symptoms that eyewitness sources within Zelaya's media team have reported:

-Vomiting
-Vomiting Blood
-Urinating Blood
-Dizziness
-Headaches
-Sore Throat
-Diarrhea
-Nosebleeds

Those conditions are no joke! Anything plus blood = not good. And don't forget, according to Tamayo, this attack began with gas delivered from a helicopter. Sure was lucky Zelaya had a gas mask ....

	Manuel Zelaya displays the "gas mask" that saved him. (source: Teimpo.hn)

Read more »

Josh:
I know the cafe isn't a huge money maker and your business model doesn't warrant a full time employee for the site. I also am lacking in some basic information about your system and capacities so I'm sort of going blind here. But clearly there is a consistent problem with mega-spam.

It seems you are balancing two competing needs which are: the need to allow people to participate and the need to maintain control over content in regards to spam. The spam problem appears to stem exclusively from the fact that accounts have auto-activation that immediately allows new users to post diary entries en mass. The key is to find a way to curtail this while still making it convenient for people to sign up to comment, as well as to find a solution that does not significantly increase overhead to the staff. It seems to me that the site doesn't add *that* many new legitimate diary posters in any given day/week.  You should consider limiting the ability for new users to post diary entries without approval.

This is the first wordpress plugin that popped up by searching for "wordpress blog approval" on Google. It may not be the best for the task, but it will work fine to describe what I'm talking about. The plugin (called "GT post approval") advertises that it allows administrators to approve/reject posts, and to set an access level for auto-approval of posts. An imaginary operational policy would go something like:

1 - All current posters set to auto approval level
2 - All new posters have their posts drop to the approve/reject que
3 - After the user makes their first diary entry that is obviously serious, set their access level to auto appoval level.
4 - clean out all the spam with a simple click of a reject button
5 - delete spam producing accounts (optionally, block the IP)

This would block the diary entry spam while not interfering with people who want to sign up and comment immediately. It would also allow you to manage the approval/spam removal process as a scheduled task that can be budgeted in a (reasonably) predictable fashion which would likely take some of the uncertainty out of managing the cafe. I can't imagine that it would take more than 15 minutes for an employee to go through and approve/clear out a decent list. Depending on available resources, if you were able to do it twice daily there wouldn't even be that big a delay for new members.

Anyhoo, that's what I'd tell you if you were a client. :-)

And yes, I'm post-timing this for around 10am tomorrow because we're in the midst of a new spam attack ... and putting it on muck and dc even though it's meta 'cause I'd like management to see it.

Individual Responsibility. It sounds so practical. Who wouldn't be in favor of that? And the Patriot Act is just so ... patriotic. As you likely know, this is the code word for individual mandates in the various versions of the healthcare/insurance reform/giveaway bills winding their way through that abyss we call our legislative process.

But first, a flashback. The date is Feb. 26, 2008. Cleveland Ohio, democratic debate between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Among heady issues such as a picture of Obama in native Somali garb and quips about pillows that dominated subsequent news coverage, the candidates spent 16 minutes discussing health care reform. Let's remember what then-candidate Obama said on this topic when he was still chasing our votes (excerpted) .

... the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.

On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

Hmmm, mandates sound horrible don't they - and that evil Hillary wants to force them on you.

What a difference an election makes. Helpfully, the insurance industry heard Obama's critique and stepped up to the plate with a hum-dinger of an answer on how to enforce the mandates they love so much. And how do they plan to collect? Why, through your income taxes of course. Because as you have likely heard: the only two sure things in life are death and taxes, and there is nothing corporate America  loves better than a sure thing when it comes to putting people's money in their own pockets.

The House (HR3200) and the Senate (HELP bill) use pretty much the same basic mechanism. There are some differences in implementation though. The major difference being that HR3200 uses a percentage of income, and HELP uses a set penalty. Both accomplish the reporting, collection and enforcement by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The relevant related information is often spread out in several different subparagraphs/sections, so quotes may represent portions of different sections/paragraphs/subparagraphs (I tried to avoid confusion, but a disclaimer seems appropriate).

Read more »

I've been pondering the whole situation with the violence unfolding at the health care "town halls". My initial reaction was, of course, "let them try that crap with me, and they'll see what's really up!". Even pondered going on road trips to WA and MT to "show support".  But after watching the videos from that Florida debacle, I got a vivid image of myself toe-to-toe with an 80 year old, and the most overwhelming feeling was ... embarrassment. It made me realize that maybe we're looking at this situation all wrong.

There is a premise that somehow we've got to "win" at the town halls.  But why? The whole town-hall thing really gained popularity as a sham conducted by George Bush to wrap himself in the illusion of popular support. The reason they worked is because they were stage managed, not because it's a good format to discuss things. Now, I know there's more to it than that but at this point, it's pretty much the truth.

It seems there is little, if anything, to lose by refusing this fight all together. If the goal is to present the health care proposals as serious plans by people who care and want to address the policy seriously - what is to be gained by engaging in a juvenile fight with a bunch of teabaggers? What does the policy fight lose by ceding this battlefield? Now that their forces and resources are committed to this tactic, it could be time to use guile and do an end-run around their dumb-asses. Leave them looking batshit-crazy for the teevees, and find a better way to maintain contact with the legislators.

Instead, I propose a campaign of quietly visiting the local field offices of representatives. Most of the time, these offices are not very busy at all and there is often a staffer who can actually spend some time talking. Articulate that you don't want to have to worry about being targeted by a crazed Glenn Beck fan to let the representative know your dedication to real reform. Ask the staffer for help. In the current environment, I think that would leave a bigger impression than trying to make "our" side seem bigger than "their" side for the cameras by joining the crazies in the mud.

Another thought about how to amplify a quiet personal visit is the use of a mini-petition. In other words, get the support of like minded neighbors who may not be able to go themselves - or articulate the issues as well. If progressives could quietly deliver signatures, five or ten at a time, in person, with respect, wouldn't that send a much more effective message than having fisticuffs with an angry geriatric who spends way too much time watching TV?

I don't know exactly what the petition should say .... maybe something simple like "We put our support behind the democratic plan and the progressive caucus, including a strong public option. Please don't play politics with our health." And just ten signature lines or something - with local addresses (and probably an "ok to contact with more info Yes/No check box").

So that's my idea for how to deal with the recess.  My rep is Walt Minnick ... and he's a total ass-clown who's already committed to obstructing. But that's the approach I'm going to take to try and get my opinion noted. I don't see why I need to fight with anger against a mob - when the new dynamic let's me ask for personal attention based on legitimate desire to avoid violent crazies.

I just don't think this round is going to be won by going toe-to-toe at town halls. Let them go crazy-town by themselves and be totally discredited, yet again.

Here is a quick recap of some major events in Honduras over the last couple of days, complied from Honduran news sources.

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras: (note: this protest has been characterized very differently by different sources, this narrative is a composite drawn from multiple sources, some pro-Zelaya, some pro-government). At about 10:30 am on Aug. 5, students gathered on Suyapa Boulevard in front of UNAH. They were joined by members of the UNAH union and blocked the highway and entrance to the university, setting some tires ablaze. The group seems to have numbered between 300 and 500. Between 11:30 and 12:00 police arrived and used tear gas to attempt to disperse the protesters who responded with a hail of stones.

Protesters on the streets in front of UNAH. Peacefully making their voices heard with stones. (http://www.laprensahn.com)

The police employed an armored vehicle equipped with a water cannon causing the students to retreat to the university grounds. The police followed them, using batons to hit many students. At this point some teachers also joined the group throwing stones at the police. Some reports indicate the police also responded by throwing rocks back at the protesters.

The rector of the university, Julieta Castellanos, became involved. The events are somewhat in dispute. But essentially, she attempted to speak with the police and ask them to withdraw from the university complaining that they were agitating the students and subjecting innocent people to tear gas and risk of injury.

	Image "proving" the police tried to protect the Ms. Castellanos. (http://www.latribuna.hn)
	Image "proving" that Ms. Castellanos was brutally beaten (http://tiempo.hn)

During the encounter she was shoved to the ground, reportedly by the police. Some students have claimed that she was savagely beaten. On the other end of the spectrum the state media claims that they were overrun by protesters and the police simply tried to protect her. The most credible reports and purported quotes from Ms. Castellanos indicate that she was shoved to the ground by police and sustained minor bruises.

Also at the university, a photographer (wearing a Time t-shirt) was assaulted by the police. The incident occurred as the police captured a student protester and were reportedly beating him. As he prepared to take pictures, the photographer apparently shouted some form of insult (or perhaps a threat that the photos would bring retribution?). Two members of the police responded with baton hits, causing the camera to fly through the air. Later the photographer was accosted by a larger group of police who demanded he surrender the camera's memory card (unclear if he complied). The photographer reported injuries to his arm and hand and some bruises to his body.

After the police withdrew from the university grounds, the protesters returned to the streets. Several businesses were damaged. The windows of a fast-food establishment were smashed and several businesses looted. Molotov cocktails were used to set a vehicle parked on the street ablaze (belonging to a student).

Protesters on the streets in front of UNAH. Preparing to throw the traditional peaceful protest Molotov cocktail. (http://www.laprensahn.com)

There were reports of many injuries and at least 4 arrests. Thankfully, no lives were lost.

The Supreme Court: On Aug. 5, 2009, thousands of protesters moved peacefully along Boulevard Suyapa and culminated at the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ), to demand the return of the exiled president, Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

Peaceful protesters demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court of Justice. (http://www.laprensahn.com)

The demonstrators carried in their hands the Constitution, demanded the authorities to stop violating the charter and placed their hopes in the San Jose Accord, considered the best solution to the political crisis that is currently living in the country.

There were no reports of violence and both the march and gathering at the Supreme Court were unimpeded by police.

5 Day March: Supporters of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya mobilized on Aug 3 to prepare new protests calling for his return to power. Zelaya supporters said they would begin a five-day march in two of Honduras' main cities, San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa, starting Wednesday. The marchers plan to camp along the way.

A spokesman for the transition government stated that as long as there was no attempt to impede traffic that the marches will not be interfered with.

Wake of slain protester turns violent:
In Tegucigalpa, Aug 3, 2009, hundreds of Zelaya supporters -- including the president's wife Xiomara Castro -- gathered Sunday for a wake for Roger Abraham Vallejo, a 38-year-old high school teacher who was shot during a mid-week demonstration. Another teacher, Martin Florencio Rivera, was stabbed to death after leaving the wake, which Zelaya supporters blamed on regime supporters.

"He was killed after being stabbed 27 times when he was leaving Vallejo's wake," Eulogio Chavez, a teachers organization leader stated. "That is the same way they killed the comrade in El Paraiso," he said, referring to a Zelaya supporter beaten and stabbed to death who was found near the border with Nicaragua on July 25th.

Primary Sources:
http://www.laprensahn.com/
http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/
http://tiempo.hn/portada
http://hondurasnews.com/

Not since the Iraq war have so many journalists written so many stories based on facts that simply don't add up. From Fox news to our own TPM, assertions are being presented about the Honduran situation as fact that can only be described as grossly inaccurate.  So, before going into the details, let start by listing a few of the popular myths and the correction:

#1
Myth: The Honduran court declared the referendum proposed by Zelaya illegal.

Fact: The issue was never tried on it's merits. The Honduran court issued a temporary injunction against the referendum. It found that without an injunction, remedy for the plaintiff would become moot and public money spent on the poll would be unrecoverable in an event where a hearing on merits found the referendum illegal and it had already taken place. This injunction was upheld on appeal.

#2
Myth: Zelaya was removed from office for trying to extend his term.

Fact: Zelaya was removed from office for what amounts to contempt of court because of ignoring the injunction and subsequent court orders.

#3
Myth: The legal challenge to the referendum was based on an allegation that Zelaya wanted to extend his term in office.

Fact: The argument against the referendum was based on two issues, one statutory and one constitutional. The statutory argument involved jurisdiction: if Zelaya had legal authority to authorize the expenditures and conduct the poll, or if the authority is granted to a different government organ as alleged by the plaintiff. The constitutional argument is based on the nature of the November ballot question proposed in the referendum.  Based on the Honduran constitution, certain articles can not be changed. Additionally the method for legal changes to the constitution is strictly defined in Article 373 which itself is one of the protected Articles. The court cites constitutional Articles 373, 374, and 375 as the basis for the legal challenge. Article 239, limiting presidential terms, is simply not mentioned or used as the basis for any legal argument.

Please note. This is not to assess the merits of the argument they are putting forward. Instead this is an attempt to provide a factual report of the actual allegations against Zelaya from the Honduran establishment's point of view.

So, what's the basis for saying this?

At some point after Zelaya's removal and before Honduras' own ejection from the OAS, the Honduran courts issued a legal explanation (.pdf) for the decision to remove Zelaya. The undated document outlines 12 points describing the progression and legal situation that led to the events on June 28, 2009 and provides the supporting court rulings. Though it can't necessarily be "believed", it certainly seems to accurately reflect the legal argument the transitional government is advancing.

Unfortunately for myself, and apparently the entire industry of journalism, it's in plumb-foreign Spanish. After frittering around for a month hoping someone in the newzes or the internetz or places with teachingz, who could actually speak the language, would bother to make it readable to we shlubby types ... well ....let's just say "nada".

In this environment, there are two real sources: right wingers and leftist activists - both of which are consistently full of spin and baloney.  Everyone else seems to be regurgitating whatever these two groups say, with source choice based mainly on ideological prejudice.  So ultimately it was to the online translators for me. By running text through several sites, it's possible to get pretty close to understanding what the documents say. Here's what I got out of it:

Read more »

I'm not sure what more can be said here. Via Fire Dog Lake is this report from the Colorado Springs Gazette. It is part one of a series and appropriately titled  "The hell of war comes home". The article highlights a group of Iraqi vets, and the violent crimes that were committed in America on their return. But it also highlights crimes that were seemingly routine on the front lines of Iraq and implies a photo scandal that could make the detainee abuse picture issue seem tame.

Another sergeant shot a man in the head without cause while questioning him, Needham said, then mutilated the body, lashed it to the hood of his Humvee and drove around the neighborhood blaring warnings to insurgents in Arabic that "they would be next."

Other Iraqis were shot for invented reasons, then mutilated, Needham said.

The sergeants particularly liked removing victims' brains, Needham said.

Needham offered a photograph of a soldier removing brains from an Iraqi on the hood of a Humvee and other photos as evidence. His father supplied copies to The Gazette.

The Army's criminal investigation division interviewed several soldiers from the unit and said it was "unable to substantiate any of his allegations."

This is a really amazing piece of journalism. The author does not go for a simple account of horrible behavior in Iraq. Instead, Dave Philipps provides a chilling deconstruction of what is happening to our soldiers. It follows the progression of young soldiers deployed with a unit called the "Lethal Warriors" through battle experiences and subsequent return to the US to an ultimate end in prison for violent crimes.  It is a stark statement of the deadly results putting soldiers through a meat grinder and bringing them home with no mental health support has for American communities and the soldiers themselves.

Soldiers from other units at Fort Carson have committed crimes after deployments -- military bookings at the El Paso County jail have tripled since the start of the Iraq war -- but no other unit has a record as deadly as the soldiers of the 4th Brigade. The vast majority of the brigade's soldiers have not committed crimes, but the number who have is far above the population at large. In a one-year period from the fall of 2007 to the fall of 2008, the murder rate for the 500 Lethal Warriors was 114 times the rate for Colorado Springs.

Equally amazing are the prison interviews with infantry specialist Kenneth Eastridge. In two parts, he describes activities in Iraq that led to reprimands and a fatal incident that occurred when he and fellow soldiers returned, resulting in the death of a fellow Iraq War veteran on his birthday.

One thing that I find inexcusable is that the military has treated these soldiers with PTSD like the private insurance companies treat patients with cancer: try to find some way to kick them out.

"As soon as I got out [of the mental counseling facility], I had a scheduled bitching session with the sergeant so he could yell at me about what a liar I was," he said. "After they found out a guy was getting evaluated for PTSD, they would try to find any little thing to kick him out."

Dozens of soldiers who screened positive for PTSD received an "other than honorable" discharge from the Army -- the equivalent of being kicked out -- for infractions such as missing duty and drug use, Pogany said. If soldiers are kicked out, they often aren't eligible for free health care, counseling or other benefits that soldiers who are medically discharged with PTSD receive. Often, Pogany said, that means veterans who need help the most don't get it.

There is no way any blog on the subject is going to do this article justice. It is quite long ... but well worth the time to read.

OK, this one has been filed under totally cool.  Mercedes has started releasing information on their new SLS Gullwing (although not undisguised pictures apparently!) due to hit American streets next year. The vehicle is impressively engineered - the gasoline V8 version boasts 751HP, 479 lb-ft of torque, accelerates to 60 in 3.8 seconds and a top speed of 168mph. With all aluminum construction and an all-alloy spaceframe, it clearly won't be cheap.

The electric version is reported to have a 48 kWh liquid cooled lithium ion battery pack running down the central tunnel. The combined output of the electric drive system is 392 kW (526 hp) and 880 Nm (649 lb-ft). This is right in line with the output of the V8. Acceleration is reported to be 0-62 in 4 seconds.

In addition to a solid power plant, the SLS EV has many other apparent innovations. From their press release:

The Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG with electric drive transforms the vision of powerful and locally emission-free super sports cars into reality thanks to an innovative drive system: powerful forwards thrust is provided by four electric motors [...] positioned near the wheels, substantially reducing the unsprung masses compared to wheel-hub motors. One transmission per axle transmits the power. This intelligent all-wheel-drive system allows dynamically optimized power transmission without any losses by means of Torque Vectoring - in other words the specifically targeted acceleration of individual wheels. In its first pilot phase, the SLS AMG with electric drive incorporates a liquid-cooled high-voltage lithium-ion battery of modular design with an energy content of 48 kWh and a capacity of 40 Ah. The 400-volt battery is charged by means of targeted recuperation during braking whilst the car is being driven. [emphasis mine]

The purely electric drive system was factored into the equation as early as the concept phase when the new swing-wing model was being developed by Mercedes-Benz and AMG. It is ideally packaged for the integration of the high-performance, zero-emission technology: by way of example, the four electric motors and the two transmissions can be positioned near the wheels and very low down in the vehicle. The same applies to the modular high-current battery, whose modules are located in front of the firewall, in the centre tunnel and behind the seats. Advantages of this solution include the vehicle's low centre of gravity and the balanced weight distribution - ideal conditions for optimum handling, which the electrically powered SLS AMG shares with its petrol-driven sister model.

Of course, like the Tesla - this isn't an everyman's car.  But it certainly takes another step in the direction of solidifying the idea electronic cars can also be cool. As these technologies prove themselves at the high-end, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify failing to offer them in the various classes of production vehicle.

I think it's pretty darn cool ... but it does make me wonder, is this the e-version of a gas guzzler?

I recently slogged through the Senate Armed Services Committee report: "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody". One of the big difficulties I had was the thing kept doing time warps.  Suddenly, it jumped from 2005 back to 2002 on a totally different subject.  It makes it kind of hard to get a whole feeling for what happened when.

So I started keeping some notes, and one thing led to another and it has expanded into a bit of a time line.  Most of the key events mentioned in the report (and a bunch of minutiae) are listed in basically chronological order.

Notes:

• The time line is primarily based on the SASC report. Just for fun, I've been rolling in additional information over the last week; so that's where the other stuff came from.
  
  
• This evolved from personal notes, so some may still be in a bit of shorthand - especially the use of names without titles.
   
• Some of the unknown dates [??] have likely been nailed down by other sources, the dates here are gleaned directly from the reports.
  
  
• Mostly the list has been cleaned up to the point of being sensical, but is still kind of rough there are likely typos and a few unfathomable entries. Also, some of the notes were taken before I started keeping track of page numbers and not all those entries have been nailed back down (usually have a ?? page number). If any major cleanup issues pop up, I'll try to update.
  
  
• Links to the reports used in the time line are at the bottom of the post.

I use it sort of as a reader's companion and it makes the report a bit more useful (and is a pretty good frame of reference for other reports as well).  And I even figured out how to put the insanely long part after a jump! :-)

Read more »

Recently, the Associated Press announced that they were going to war against "misappropriation" of their content.  AP Chairman Dean Singleton made the drama-queenish declaration: ""We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories".  And they are apparently moving forward with software to help track down the work-stealing miscreants responsible.

Ars Technica recently explored what the AP has up it's sleeve in an interview with AP news editor Ted Bridis - published in an article yesterday that gives a great update on an issue that may have a significant impact on the blogging community.  Depending on who you listen to, either bloggers have nothing to worry about .... or can expect a RIAA vs. Napster battle over fair use. (be sure to check out the whole article - my summary doesn't really do the topic justice)

Bridis explained that the news company is going to update its staff about its mysterious new misappropriation heat-seeking system soon via an internal webcast.

"The guidelines are coming," Bridis promised. "AP's main concern are not the bloggers that excerpt a relevant passage, and then derive some commentary. What happens an awful lot is just wholesale theft. So those are the ones that will find the cease and desist letters arriving."

Now, that doesn't sound so bad.  But a lawyer on the receiving end of a recent AP smackdown isn't as convinced of AP's good intent:

Cadenhead was less sanguine about the future, even after he settled with AP. "If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use," he warned.

The final conclusion is that we'll know more in 2 weeks.

"We're going to be learning more ourselves about exactly how the technology is going to work" in about two weeks, Bridis said. But about this he is sure. "You can't just taken an entire AP wire feed or even an entire AP story, or even half of an AP story, necessarily, and republish it or repurpose it," he said. "We need the money. The industry is falling apart."

Honestly, I don't think this will have much impact on the posters here at TPM.  Rarely do any posts go beyond what I consider fair use.  That said, there is an awful lot of wiggle room in their statements to be pretty aggressive against commentary based on AP content.  This is certainly an issue to watch.


Quick Site Plug: Ars Techinca is by far my favorite source for information on tech policy.  They cover energy legislation, privacy issues, electronic policy, and provide the most consistent tech-related stimulus spending coverage around.  If these topics are of interest, the Ars "law and disorder" section is a very solid addition to a news-junkie's virtual rounds.

When abuse in Iraq is discussed, it has become almost standard practice to call it "Abu Ghraib abuse" and seldom (if ever) is it referred to as what it often was: torture.  Based on conventional wisdom, torture is something that happened at Gitmo while a couple of bad apples at Abu Ghraib went buck-wild on a few detainees in Iraq.  I think embracing this point of view is both dangerous and wrong.

My initial thought was to have a nice weekend project tracking down the "half dozen" facilities where abuse reportedly occurred. Maybe give a couple of narratives for each site to try and establish a more complete picture of what happened beyond Abu Ghraib.

It didn't take long to find out that "half-dozen" is a euphemism for "boat-load".  In very short order the list had ballooned to around twenty sites of alleged or confirmed systemic abuse - without scratching the surface of the reports.  It became pretty clear this was a bigger job than first imagined.  Certainly not a weekend affair.   A big problem was the occasional use of pseudonyms (especially to the Red Cross) making disambiguation a part of the task.

One detail that keeps popping up in the facilities explored so far is that abusive interrogations most frequently track back to JSOC (SMU-TF in the Levin report) or a team behaving exactly as JSOC task forces are described in other reports (plain clothes, lax grooming rules, murky command, etc.). Fun fact: the commander of these JSOC units, Stanley McChrystal, is facing a half-hearing to confirm his promotion as commander of military forces in Afghanistan tomorrow.  I am not very confident that he will get a thorough questioning.

Another consistent aspect is that most specific information seems to emerge from situations where JSOC personnel and regular troops operate in close contact.  In almost every instance where a detailed account of abusive actions is given, it comes from a regular army source (MIs or MPs assigned from regular forces) .  The JSOC itself rarely seems to leak - even when compelled in classified briefings they often simply refuse to provide information.

After the jump, I've listed the locations identified thus far - with some supporting links and occasional notes.  If anyone has additional facilities they know of (or resources documenting abuse at a facility on the list, or information about what troops were assigned to a facility), please toss it in a comment.

Read more »

An interesting dynamic is emerging in the torture photo debate that deserves a mention.  Last week when Obama decided to abandon his pledges of accountability and transparency in favor of state secrets and concessions democrats were unwilling to make with Bush in office, he made a pretty explicit statement:

"I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

Of course, this explanation seemed a bit odd.  We've known since 2004 that General Taguba's report found instances of sexual abuse and rape (although the assertion of "child rape" thus far exists only in the warped fantasies of some TPM posters).  Now the good general has come out with additional statements that would seem to directly refute what the president said:

"These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. ... The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

It is impossible to reconcile the two statements.  They simply can't both be true.  So I guess the question becomes: who's lying here?  Some immediately have jumped to the conclusion that Obama is the one making inaccurate statements.  Based on the public records, they are probably right.  Either Obama is completely clueless and hasn't actually reviewed all the pictures, or he knows what's in the pictures and is misrepresenting them.

In either event, at the time of withholding the photos Obama also made some other assertions:

Obama, explaining his change of heart on releasing the other photos, said they already had served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals." Those cases were all concluded by 2004, and the president said "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

So, riddle me this.  If Obama isn't being forthcomming about the existence of "rape photos" - how can we possibly trust him that those who ordered and committed the abuses have actually been punished? Can we assume "appropriate action" even means punishment?

If indeed, as Obama asserts, it was just a "small number of individuals" and "appropriate action" has already been taken; the victims deserve to know what punishment their abusers were given.  The only way this would be a danger to our troops is if, after a full accounting, major of abuses had simply been swept under the carpet with a few soldiers handed up for show trials tied in a pretty bow. Considering the selection of McChrystal to lead our forces in Afghanistan, I think it's safe to say the ringleaders of Iraqi abuse have not been properly addressed.

America no longer has the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the world. Nor do we deserve it. Those suspicious of our actions will imagine the worst abuses were commonplace and assume the abusers are still walking free - while America offers nothing to refute this view.  Until this issue is resolved once and for all, it will continue to put our troops at increased risk every day and undermine the credibility of this administration.

So what is it Mr. President?  Is Taguba lying, or are you?

A nation fights war. What a nation wins is peace.

Americans should not lose sight of what we seek to win as we determine how to conduct the fight.

There are many who applaud Obama for his decision to block the release of Iraqi abuse photographs. I am not one. I know people have loved ones in the line of fire, I can't judge any opinion, partly because I too was very afraid when the first Abu Ghraib photos were published and someone I loved was deployed.  But I still strongly disagree with Obama's decision.

These are not normal times.  We are in the shadow of great betrayal. Many of those who betrayed us are still very much walking the corridors of power, often in positions of high authority.  This is true in finance as well as the military. It is the double-edged sword of Obama's bipartisan gamble. It's pointless to debate if the strategy was worth it, it's the course we are on. So it is not a foregone conclusion that everyone holding a position of authority in Obama's administration buys into, or is even necessarily working toward, his objectives.

Many people have created strawmen of media fetish and torture-porn that disrespect the strength of conviction in those who feel it is important to disclose the photos for the purposes of justice. The official explanation of torture employed by our military in Iraq is unsustainable in face of the facts already exposed. There are holes in the explanations and obvious gaps in accountability. The belief this issue is being addressed by the democratic leadership is largely defined by speculation over what has not been ruled out completely, or simple blind faith.

Congress responds based on public questions and popular demand for accountability - usually shouted to get over the din of special interest lobbyists. The only reason anybody has been held accountable to date is because Americans have fought to expose the abuses and officials have been forced to acknowledge and respond. If the questions had not been forced, those who now argue "we know it happened ... isn't that enough?" wouldn't even know it happened.  A handful of low-ranking foot soldiers have been convicted, and no officer has officially been acknowledged as having participated. The official statement from Obama is that the Iraqi abuses were carried out by a mere few individuals.  A couple of scapegoats rotting in a military prison is not justice in this instance.

Soldiers have risked everything to come forward - and some paid a high price of ostracization and fear of violence.  FBI and CIA agents faced legal sanction and the disdain of their peers, often effectively ending their careers to come forward. Still others have risked exposure providing crucial details to organizations like Human Rights Watch and even the oft maligned New York Times. The ACLU has fought tirelessly to free crucial memos and reports through FOIA requests - and they will burn countless additional resources seeing through the process that Obama had promised them, just last week, would be curtailed.

Through the entire journey there has been an endless drumbeat: "By exposing the wrongdoing you are putting the troops in danger.  You are putting fellow Americans at risk".

The people who put themselves on the line to expose what little we know so far weren't democrats.  They weren't republicans.  They didn't stand up, speak out, dig deeper, for partisan gain.  They did it for America. They took the accusations of working against America and putting their colleagues at risk and did the right thing. Despite the drumbeat. Many have no more reason to trust a democratic administration than the democrats had to trust the republicans.  Now everyone is supposed to just toss up their hands and say "Oh well ... the democratic faithful have someone they trust. Battle won!".

Why didn't we stop when the generals said the troops would be in danger back in 2004?  Why did we push forward when the press secretary said exposing more information would just stir up anger and put the troops in harm's way in 2006?  Why were we pushing, in the face of the military saying yet again we were putting the troops at risk, right up to the inauguration to get the torture memos released?  What makes this time so different from all the other times we have been willing face that fear in the quest to correct the horrible detour from justice that still has America in a ditch arguing "if torture works, is it really wrong?". 

It makes me want to scream "How can you watch the torture debate going on today and even question if the American public needs to again confront the reality of abuse at their own hand?"

I guess my point is, don't forget there are two sides to every story.  I genuinely believe having the photos released is of importance to justice and the American soul.  Obama may have very sound policy reasons - be it wanting his big "Islamic World" speech to go unmarred, not wanting to politically defend going against his generals, genuine concern for the troops, or a combination of reasons.  But he needs to know that the American people are unwavering in our demand for accountability.