« July 13, 2008 - July 19, 2008 | Main | July 27, 2008 - August 2, 2008 »

July 25, 2008

Some Surprising New Findings on GIs, PTSD, and Crime

A while back, I waxed all sympathetic about GIs getting what I assumed was all too needed special consideration for post-discharge, surely PTSD-based offenses. Now comes a Sacramento Bee year-long study of GI's, 'shell shock', and crime. As usual, it's far from a simple situation.

Read their findings here, here, here, and here.

Turns out that some of these supposedly-traumatized-by-war defendants had a 'war or jail' option, with serious charges hanging over their heads, and appear to have taken their criminal dispositions to war with them. Some of these folks had colorful rap sheets long before they ever donned combat boots. Of course, as Kathy Griffin would say: allegedly.

Surely, the programs I praised earlier are taking such factors into consideration in deciding how to deal with these vet offenders, but damn this makes things murky.

Kudos to prison shrink and columnist John Schwade for the hat tip.

GI Jane Hell: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Here's why women are taking the brunt of the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

From womensenews:

Today, more than 12,000 service members have lost their jobs because of the so-called don't ask, don't tell law. A disproportionate number of those discharges are women, according to statistics gathered by the Washington-based Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network from the government under the Freedom of Information Act...

The problem for women has worsened in recent years... In fiscal 2006, women made up 17 percent of the Army but 35 percent of discharges under the "don't ask" law. One year later, women were 15 percent of Army members, yet discharges of women increased to 45 percent of the total.

Bad as this is, it turns out that lots of these women are fingered by men whose advances they spurned.

If a man makes such a claim, the female soldier undergoes a witch hunt from which her career is unlikely to recover. The burden of disproving her homosexuality is not on her accuser, or on the service, but on her.

And what else are female soldiers dealing with while fighting a war? Rape and large scale sexual harassment.

From the AP:

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

One woman had to share a house with 20 male GIs. At least one of her housemates made such a habit of entering her room unnanounced and generally menacing her that she took to changing in the bathroom. Another had a male co-worker ask her what her favorite sexual position was. These soldiers find photos of themselves posted with brainy captions like "the whore of [fill in name of occupied town]."

While other guys might have thrown themselves on a hand grenade for these women, would they handle the asshole who was harassing them? Apparently not. But if women complain, guess who gets ostracized and moved? Guess who gets accused of hurting team spirit? Not the men.

Cartoon: We're Number One!

Number one in lock ups, that is.

Video: When Your Mother Is Deported

In a Texan business park named Export Plaza, the Corrections Corporation of America operates a complex of concrete buildings where illegal immigrants are locked up until they agree to leave the country.

“When you first get there, they tell you you’re nobody," says Sergia Santibanez, who spent 18 months inside CCA's Houston Processing Center while she fought to remain in the United States with her children.

Watch her daughter, Luisanna, speak about her mother's detention here:

—Stokely Baksh and Renee Feltz

For more on the business of detention, don't miss MoJo reporter Stephanie Mencimer's article, Why Texas Still Holds 'Em. For more multimedia coverage of this issue by investigative reporters Renee Feltz and Stokely Baksh, go to www.businessofdetention.com.

No Good Veep Choices for McCain?

This was first posted at CQPolitics.com....

On Friday morning, on NPR's Diane Rehm Show, guest-host Susan Page made me--really, really, really made me--and the two other commentators (PR man/syndicated columnist Tony Blankley and Politico's Jeanne Cummings) predict John McCain's running-mate pick. None of us were eager to prognosticate. But Page insisted.

Earlier in the day, I had pondered the conventional-wisdom short-list of McCain's choices: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Bush budget director Rob Portman, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. At least three of these contenders should be nowhere near McCain's calculations:

* Ridge: He favors abortion rights. That could help McCain with independent voters, when the inevitable McCain-wants-to-criminalize-abortion ads start flooding the airwaves in the fall. But does McCain want to be at war with the base of his party from now until election day? (One problem for McCain is that he cannot win without the party's base, and he may not be able to win by catering to it. What a paradox!)

* Portman: As the economy slides further into a ravine--and Bush's approval ratings remain in the gutter--does McCain want by his side the man who was in charge of Bush's budget? Portman does hail from the must-win state of Ohio, and he's considered an affable and effective campaigner. But McCain would find it harder to distance himself from Bush's economic policies with one of Bush's key economic appointees on the ticket.

* Jindal: As I noted earlier, if McCain opts for this 37-year-old overachiever, he will make exorcism a campaign issue, for Jindal will have to explain his 1994 account of an exorcism in which he participated--and prove his account was true. Also, Jindal's record in Louisiana has been not-so-stellar recently. Senator, once more, can you explain whether you believe that Satanic demons can take possession of an individual and that people like your running-mate can perform amateur exorcisms to drive these spirits away?

So that leaves Pawlenty and Romney. Pawlenty comes from a swing state, but he has no standing on the national stage. "Pawlenty of nothing," one conservative pundit quipped to me recently. As for Romney, he does okay (not great) with the GOP base (the part of which that does not consider Mormonism to be an anti-Christian cult), and he can talk about his business experience at a time when the economy is ailing. One key question is, is McCain still pissed off at Romney over his attacks on McCain during the primary campaign? McCain does have anger issues. (See here for a recent example.)

When pressed for an answer by Page, I went with Romney, noting I was probably wrong. Blankley chose Ridge. And Cummings picked Portman, adding that voters would not necessarily identify him with Bush. But we all stipulated that we had no clue. As for me, I doubt that the veep pick will make much of a difference for McCain's campaign. He (and Barack Obama, too) ought to keep in mind the cardinal rule: first, do no harm. Yet that short-list is full of potential dangers.

When Blacks Get Their American Dream 'Burb On

The WSJ reports that, for the first time, 'black' cities like DC and Atlanta are losing their historic black populations to the suburbs. News, certainly. But why they gotta turn it into a big ol' drama?

The only difference between this and white flight is that blacks are running toward something (supposed peace and tranquility) and not away from something (coloreds). We'd a done it sooner but for the economic discrimination that kept us from affording to join those stupid commuters with their 'bowling alone' anomie. And, oh, y'all killing us for trying.

Now, we get our American Dream 'burb on—and we media types can't just report already dramatic news. It's gotta be a race war.

Here's the WSJ's sub hed:

For the First Time in Decades, Cities' Black Populations Lose Ground, Stirring Clashes Over Class, Culture and Even Ice Cream.

Heavens! Formerly black churches are courting newly gentrifying whites rather than, oh, I dunno, closing. White candidates have a shot at winning 'black' mayoralties and municipalities are flinging up jazz spots all over town, knowing that Negroes can't resist a hot sax anymore than Paris Hilton can resist a camera. Race war!

Why can't news about blacks just be that—news about blacks? White folks: Everything ain't about y'all all the time.

Why Talula Does the Hula No More

Apparently, people who live in New Zealand, and get pregnant, are crazy. From CNN:

A New Zealand judge has made a 9-year-old girl a ward of the court so that her name can be changed from Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii, the country's national news agency reported Thursday.

Family Court Judge Rob Murfitt listed a series of unusual names that New Zealand parents had given their children, and said he was concerned that such strange monikers would create hurdles for them as they grew up.

Among the names Murfitt cited: twins named Benson and Hedges, after a brand of cigarettes; Violence; and Number 16 Bus Shelter.

Maybe there are a lot of wannabee rock stars down there.

July 24, 2008

Obama in Berlin: Another Great Communicator?

Elections, the consultants tell us, are about the future, not the past. And all politics is not only local but aspiration-driven. It's about not only what's gone wrong or what people fear but what voters want and, yes, hope, for. And Barack Obama is quite good at speaking about aspirations, whether at home or abroad.

From his much-anticipated speech in Berlin on Thursday:

People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people – everywhere – became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation – our generation – must make our mark on the world.

The speech was predictably grand; the photo op, superb, with Obama bathed in golden light. There's not much policy in these eloquent words--though elsewhere in the speech he did speak about the pressing need to globally confront climate change, poverty, and AIDS. But in politics--and in government--inspiration does matter. And being a great communicator of lofty ideals is not a bad credential for a candidate--or a president.

Former Iraqi P.M. Says Surge Not So Great

When it comes to Iraq, the surge is a great success, right? Well, according to Ayad Allawi, Iraq's former prime minister, that depends on what you mean by "success".

In a briefing before members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, Allawi answered questions from members of he subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight. When asked by Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the subcommittee's ranking member, for Allawi's "assessment of of what's come of the surge," Allawi all but said, not much.

Reminding Rohrabacher that the original objective of the surge was to create a safe environment for a process of national reconciliation, Allawi said, "Now, militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don't think so."

Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms, no enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a "divisive" document.

The former prime minister, who is now a member of the Iraqi parliament, also alleged that the process known as "deBaathification" is "being used to punish people." Originally designed to purge Saddam Hussein's loyalists from the military and security forces, Allawi said the process has become politicized and can be used against virtually anybody, since Saddam Hussein's "Baath party ruled for 35 years, and every individual had to join..."

"So, if you measure the surge from a military point of view, it has succeeded," Allawi said. "But I don't think this was the [prime] objective, because soon you will have reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the key element in security is reconciliation, and building national institutions for the country. If this does not happen, then the surge will go in vain."

Despite his role as arch-rival to current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (whose party defeated Allawi's in Iraq's 2005 elections), Allawi seems to concur with Maliki's call for a plan for withdrawal of U.S. troops. In his opening statement, Allawi told the subcommittee, "As we think about moving to the next stage of our relationship, it is appropriate to discuss a time frame for reduction of U.S. forces."

He cautioned, however, against any withdrawal that would take place before non-sectarian institutions and defense forces take shape, or before a reconciliation process, which he noted as being high on Congress's list of benchmarks, is under way in earnest.

Nonetheless, leaders of Allawi's political party, the Iraqi National List, were among the 31 leaders in the Iraq parliament who signed a letter (PDF) presented to Congress on May 29 requesting that a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to be part of any future agreement between the two countries. The 31 signatories signed as representatives of their political parties, collectively speaking for a majority of Iraq's 275 members of parliament.

The Bush administration has been negotiating with the Maliki government an agreement based on a "declaration of principles", which the two leaders signed November without the approval of their respective legislatures. This coming December, the U.N. mandate that protects U.S. forces in Iraq will expire, and the administration apparently seeks to replace it with a bilateral agreement that takes the U.N. out of the equation.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) yesterday conducted the seventh in his series of hearings on the declaration of principles. Allawi did not appear as part of that hearing, but rather in a briefing held afterwards. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Delahunt's co-sponsor on legislation that would extend the U.N. mandate for another six months, sat in for the "conversation", as it was called, with Allawi, commiserating over the lack of transparency by their respective executives about agreements under discussion via the declaration of principles. (DeLauro is not a member of the foreign affairs commitee.)

"When you said you don't know what the substance of that agreement is—that's the same for us," DeLauro said.

Once seen as a tool of the Bush administration (especially during the 2004 campaign against John Kerry), Allawi today is singing a different tune from the cheerful notes he once struck in favor of Bush's Iraq policy. His eyes are clearly trained on the 2008 U.S. presidential election—and Iraq's 2009 national elections.

—Adele M. Stan
The Media Consortium

Joe and Valerie Wilson: Take Away the Keys to Novak's Corvette

I'm not really sure why Joe and Valerie Wilson saw the need to chime in on this, but the couple have issued a statement to Think Progress commenting on Robert Novak's hit-and-run accident in Washington yesterday. (Novak says he was unaware that he hit someone. An eyewitness, who pursued the columnist on bicycle for a half-block before blocking his car and calling 911, says the victim was "splayed onto the windshield" before rolling off. If so, that would be kinda hard to miss.)

Say the Wilson's, whose lives were upended when Novak blew Valerie's covert CIA cover in a 2003 column:

Our sympathies go out to the victim of Novak’s action. Once again Novak has demonstrated his callous disregard for the rights of others, as well as his chronic inability to accept responsibility for his actions.

We have long argued that responsible adults should take Novak’s typewriter away. The time has arrived for them to also take away the keys to his Corvette.

Cayman Island Office Building Home to 9,000 U.S. Tax Cheats

Corporate America and its wealthy executive class has had it good under the Bush administration. Not only has it benefited from massive tax cuts, but the Bush administration has stood idle as huge numbers of American companies have set up phony headquarters in the Cayman Islands so better to avoid what little taxes they might have to pay in the U.S. According to a GAO report scheduled for release today, since 2002, the number of American entities reporting a Cayman Island bank account has jumped from 2,677 to nearly 8,000. Suspiciously, investigators traced more than 9,000 American entities that had registered in the Caymans to a single office building.

Past estimates have put the loss of revenue from such schemes at $100 billion. The move to off-shore accounts hasn't exactly been a secret. But the administration has simply turned a blind eye to it as the IRS has struggled to enforce the law with limited resources. That may change, however. The Senate Finance Committee is holding a hearing on the issue today to consider whether the IRS ought to get some more money and power to make sure that every U.S. corporation pays its fair share. That should come as welcome news to cash-strapped states, which are now facing a whopping $40 billion collective budget deficit, according to the National Conference of State Legislators, leading to widespread cuts in everything from health care services to Maine's popular fish hatchery program.

July 23, 2008

Bush Won't Pardon Marion Jones Because Steroids are Not a Matter of National Security

This spring once track uber-star Marion Jones applied for commutation of her six-month prison sentence, which she is serving for her involvement in the BALCO steroids scandal, for perjuring herself, and for check fraud. Jones, who gave up her five Olympic medals from Sydney in 2000 (three of them gold) has been in jail since March. She applied for the commutation (not a pardon) soon after she started her detention in a Texas slammer, in part because she has an eight-month old son, and because, well, people who do far worse are pardoned all the time.

Scooter Libby, who was convicted on five counts of federal obstruction of justice and perjury charges resulting from the grand jury investigation into the CIA identity leak of Valerie Plame didn't have to serve a day of his 30-month prison term. Bush commuted Cheney's former chief-of-staff's sentence (without Libby even applying for the commutation) calling the sentence "too harsh."

Today the head of the USA Track and Field sent Bush a letter, imploring him not to pardon Jones. "To reduce Ms Jones' sentence or pardon her would send a horrible message to young people who idolized her, reinforcing the notion that you can cheat and be entitled to get away with it." He also said that a commutation or pardon would reinforce the notion that those with "athletic talent, money or fame" enjoy the benefits of a legal double standard.

Double standards in this administration is the standard. Lying and obstructing justice when it comes to a steroids scandal is inexcusable, but lying when it comes to national security is, by action taken, excusable?

Yes, steroids have created a clusterf**k (sorry, there really isn't a spot-on PG-rated term to describe this mess) of a national sports system, and one that will continue to taint the world-sports stage for years, if not decades, to come, but Marion Jones has likely already been through enough to ensure she's an example not to be idolized (she's now broke, humiliated, a felon). Similar to the colossal waste of time that was the steroids investigation on Capitol Hill earlier this year, let's get on with it.

Bush, if he had any gumption, would commute her sentence, forgive and forget. Sure, she lied, but its not like she was hiding WMD or anything, and lying is sort of de rigueur for this administration, and he sure is one for a "consistent philosophy." And that the USA Track and Field big wigs are trotting out this don't-make-a-hero-of-the-fallen routine just before the Olympics is predictable, if hollow, timing. There is not a chance in Michael Johnson's golden shoes that UST&F was not aware of the steroids running amok in the sport over the last decade-plus. But anything to win, isn't that the American way? And if winning the war in Iraq and the war on terror is looking grim, well, we sure as hell better win on the field.

Beijing, here we come. Bring 'em on.

Has National Enquirer Taken Edwards out of Veep-Play?

Usually, there's no reason to pay much attention to the scandal news of the National Enquirer. But in a recent report, the mag claims that several of its reporters witnessed and confronted John Edwards at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles, where a woman, who months ago was alleged by the magazine to have become pregnant due to an affair with Edwards, was checked in--with her child. (The woman and Edwards initially both denied they were romantically involved.) The latest story is full of firsthand details--Edwards fleeing the Enquirer snoops, hiding in a bathroom, being escorted out by a security detail--that perhaps even the Enquirer would be hesitant to fabricate. After all, it can be sued by either Edwards or the woman.

Blogger Mickey Kaus has complained that the MSM hasn't touched the matter: "Will this be the first presidential-contender level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM?" But it's tough for responsible journalists to figure out how to handle a report from the gutter about a potential vice presidential candidate. Yet whether you read about this matter in the Times or not, the veep-vetters of the Obama campaign have probably paid the story notice. If Edwards is still in contention, he better have for them a rather convincing denial to allay suspicions that this time the scandalmongers of the Enquirer might have actually gotten it right.

Iraq Contract Fraud: Senators Call For Arrests, Recovery of Funds

This morning, the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, heard testimony from Pentagon officials about their efforts to counter waste and fraud in federal contracts related to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Byrd expressed outrage at the "appalling" mismanagement of funds. "Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are lost, ... gone!" he cried, his outrage visibly building as he spoke. "How many minutes have passed since Jesus Christ was born? A billion! So, that's a lot of money! ... This is a failure of leadership. Individuals think they can get away with bilking—they're not just milking—bilking the U.S. and Iraqi governments... taking bribes, substituting inferior workmanship, or plain, old-fashioned stealing! Stealing!" he exclaimed.

Byrd cited a April 2007 GAO report (.pdf) that concluded, among other things, that the Pentagon "lacks clear and comprehensive guidance and leadership for managing and overseeing contractors" and "does not have a sufficient number of oversight personnel to ensure that contracts that are in place are carried out efficiently and according to contract requirements." To illustrate the scale of the waste and fraud, the report estimates that the Army Material Command loses about $43 million each year solely on the provision of free meals to contractors who also get per diem food allowances. Another GAO report (.pdf), released in May 2007, found that the amount of money obligated in DOD contracts for support services "exceeded the amount the department spent on supplies and equipment, including major weapons systems." [Emphasis added.] And with all this money being spent, often under cost-plus arrangements (the more a contractor spends on expenses, the more it collects in fees), the scale of abuse, fraud, and "plain, old-fashioned stealing" has been historic. We still do not know exactly how much money has been lost, and we may never know. But last year, the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified $4.9 billion wasted on overcharging or fraud, and an additional $5.1 billion spent without any documentation. Since only a sampling of contracts have yet been audited, the murky waters of corruption remain largely undisturbed.

This is something neither Byrd nor his Appropriations Committee colleague, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, will abide. Leahy, in particular, told the witnesses that he's interested in "seeing some people go to jail" for the contract abuses in Iraq. Only then, he argued, is there likely to be a chilling effect on contractor fraud and corruption.

So far, though, given the scale of the problem, the penalties imposed for such abuses can be described as modest at best. The Pentagon's new acting inspector general, Gordon Heddell, took office just a few days ago. But in this morning's testimony, he was predictably sanguine about his department's prospects at reigning things in, proudly enumerating its past successes to the committee. Watching it, one got the feeling that his statistics-laden monotone was designed to put the senators to sleep so they wouldn't take notice of how laughably inadequate enforcement efforts have been. Remember now, the amount of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen is somewhere in the tens of billions. That being noted, Heddell told the committee that Defense Criminal Investigative Service has targeted 286 people in 124 separate investigations related to U.S. military operations in southwest Asia, and 32 cases have already reached the courts. So far, so good, right? Well, since the wars began only 22 people have been indicted on contract fraud, resulting in only 32 felony convictions. And wait, it gets better: those convictions have resulted in a combined total of just 54 years in prison, 44 years of probation, 10 debarments at four companies, and 28 suspensions. All told, the federal government has received $13.5 million in restitution, $1.76 million in forfeitures, and seized an additional $2.65 million in assets. Fines and penalties imposed amount to just shy of $350,000. So, for the tens of billions (with a "b") that have vanished into the sinkhole, the federal government has recovered a total of just $17 million and sentenced violators to minimal prison terms.

Still, Heddell told senators, his office "is on a firm footing to provide the necessary oversight." The numbers speak for themselves.

MoJo Prison Issue Banned From Prisons

We must be more street-smart than we thought here at Mother Jones. Apparently, our list of cellblock slang in the current issue was too realistic for actual prison censors. One would-be reader wrote us from Pickaway Correctional Institution in central Ohio after his copy of Mother Jones was confiscated because—according to the prison's Notice of Withholding Printed Material—the article "appears to be written in cipher or code, or that instructs in the use of cipher or code."

The magazine-less 73-year-old prisoner who wrote us reported "evidently, you are doing something right. Alas, I shall never know what it is, since the state of Ohio won't deliver your July issue." But he's not going to just let it slide: "I intend to ask if they will deliver the magazine, after excising p. 59." On the envelope he wrote: "First Amendment! First Amendment! First Amendment!"

Hopefully the censors will reconsider their definition of the First Amendment for our wanna-be reader, especially since they already allow books like The Hitler We Loved And Why in prison libraries.

Will John McCain Make Exorcism (Literally) a Campaign Issue?

As John McCain moves to select a running mate, it seems--at least for the moment--that the star of potential veep nominee Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, is rising. This is good news for Democrats.

On one level, Jindal is impressive. The son of Indian immigrants, he's only 37 years old, and he has already been elected a member of the U.S. House and a governor. (Talk about a Junior Achiever!) Yet can McCain, who claims Obama is not sufficiently experienced to become president, say with a straight face that Jindal is prepared to take the helm? And Jindal's record in Louisiana--including his stint in charge of the state health department--has its spotty moments. Then there's that exorcism.

Blogs and news outfits have already picked over a 1994 essay that Jindal, a convert to Catholicism, wrote for a Catholic magazine, describing an exorcism of a friend in which he was an observer/participant. Not only did Jindal and his pals manage to drive the Satanic demon out of their friend; the exercise, Jindal suggested, also cured her skin cancer. The article was entitled, "Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare."

Americans tend to be quite religious. Most tell pollsters they believe in heaven and hell (and assume they are heading upward, not downward, once they expire). Many tend to believe literally in the devil. But how will an amateur exorcism--that violated Catholic law (which allows only certified exorcists to perform the ritual in very limited circumstances)--play with, say, swing voters? No doubt, Jindal will have to discuss the episode. With Oprah perhaps? That would indeed be Must See TV.

Here's one excerpt of his article that an interviewer might want to ask about:

While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."

With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.

As a vice presidential candidate, Jindal would be under great pressure--and ought to be--to make other participants in the event available for interview. In the article, he used fake names. But he insisted every single detail was true. Given that such an event must have had a profound impact on him--he came face to face with a real demon!-- this possible president-in-waiting would be obligated to prove that he got the story right, that he was not exaggerating. (Remember how the press and the GOPers went after Al Gore's claims in 2000 with a vengeance?) And the media, of course, would be on the hunt to find "Susan" to get her side of the tale. (Enquiring minds might want to know if her skin cancer is still gone.)

Is Jindal prepared to disclose more about this exorcism? Is the McCain campaign prepared to see more disclosed? The event is a legitimate target for voter interest and media scrutiny. After all, Representative Dennis Kucinich had to explain his UFO sighting. And Jindal should not be allowed to hide behind the cloaks of faith and personal privacy. Barack Obama had no choice but to explain his relationship to a particular minister. He didn't duck the issue by claiming it was a private relationship based on faith. So if Jindal is anointed by McCain, the exorcism will be fair game.

America may or may not be ready for a national political debate about exorcism and Satanic demons. By picking Jindal as a running mate, McCain would give the country a chance to find out.

High Gas Prices Save Lives

One happy upside to the $4 gallon of gas: traffic deaths have plummeted. The National Safety Council finds that in some states, deaths from traffic accidents have declined by as much as 20 percent this year compared with the same period last year. Indiana, which has seen a 26 percent decline, may hit the lowest number of traffic deaths in 18 years. The country hasn't seen such a precipitous fall in traffic deaths since the Arab oil embargo in 1973. The AP reports on speculation that people are simply driving less, thus fewer accidents, but also that high gas prices and a sour economy might be keeping drunks at home rather out on the roads.

One possible contributor they don't mention is Americans' mass abandonment of the SUV, which has been responsible for a disproportionate number of highway deaths both from rollovers and also from squashing other smaller cars that might survive an accident with a sedan. Now, if Congress would follow Sen. John Warner's advice and lower the speed limit, the nation might see a massive reduction in highway carnage that would even make Ralph Nader proud!

The World's Five Worst Policy Advisors

Foreign Policy helpfully compiles a top five list of the world's worst policy advisors. Making the cut is the former vice premier of Taiwan, Chiou I-Jen, who "in an effort get Papua New Guinea to recognize Taiwan...recommended the allocation of $30 million to two men whom he believed had influence over officials in Papua New Guinea." Cash in hand, the men and the money promptly disappeared; Chiou promptly resigned in disgrace. Also singled out is South Africa's health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who in 2006 told an international AIDS conference that the disease could be treated using lemon, beet root, and garlic.

Last but not least on the list is a former US official, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's onetime undersecretary of defense policy, whose foreign policy intellect General Tommy Franks once had some choice words for. (His opinion was apparently seconded by Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson.)

Writes FP:

When the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, the hapless postwar-planning group that Feith led, suggested outlining a comprehensive political-military plan for postwar Iraq, Feith told them this would not be necessary. After all, the Pentagon was planning to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Asked in July of that year why the United States had failed to deploy more forces, Feith explained that to do so would have given Saddam Hussein “more chances to send a Scud missile into Kuwait or Israel, rig bridges to explode, or prepare to hide and use chemical weapons,” adding, “It’s an old way of thinking to say that the United States should not do anything without hundreds of thousands of troops.” Feith also confessed surprise that the insurgency was “more sustained and more intense than anticipated,” despite two intelligence estimates from January 2003 predicting that the overthrow of Saddam could lead to internal violence and boost Islamist extremists. And how does Feith defend himself? By blaming everyone else: There was indeed a solid “plan for political transition in post-Saddam Iraq,” Feith said at a book-launch event in April. “It was a plan that my office drafted, Powell and Armitage tried to delay, President Bush approved, Jay Garner began to implement, and L. Paul Bremer buried.”

Recently, Feith was hauled up to the Hill to explain the Pentagon's efforts to subvert the protections of the Geneva Conventions when it came to Gitmo detainees, a move he was allegedly a key advocate of. One of the hearings most memorable exchanges came when Feith and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) debated what "removal of clothing"—an approved interrogation technique—really meant. "Removal of clothing is different from naked," Feith told Nadler, arguing that "it could be done in a humane way."

Recession Be Damned: Rich Still Getting Richer

The Wall Street Journal reports today on new IRS data showing that in 2006, the richest 1 percent of Americans claimed the largest share of the nation's adjusted gross income in 20 years. The level is so high that the IRS suspects it might be the highest it's been since the onset of the Depression. Naturally, as their income goes up, rich people's taxes are also going down. The tax rate for the richest 1 percent in 2006 fell to its lowest level in 18 years, in large part because of the Bush tax cuts that John McCain wants to extend.

July 22, 2008

Canadian Corporal Killed by "Roommate's Rifle" in Afghanistan, Case Goes to Court Martial

The Canadian military announced yesterday that it will press ahead with its court martial of the 22-year-old Canadian reservist who shot a fellow soldier in March 2007 at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. Corporal Matthew Wilcox has been charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and negligently performing a military duty.

This news comes as particularly striking to Mother Jones and its readers as this incident was first widely-publicized in an article we ran last summer. Canadian doctor Kevin Patterson, also a Mother Jones contributing writer, was in Afghanistan at the time helping to triage the understaffed and overwhelmed Canadian-run surgical hospital at Kandahar Airfield. During his few months on the ground Patterson treated civilians and soldiers alike (roughly 2/3rds of the hospital's patients were Afghan civilians and Army personnel, the rest coalition soldiers) and he chronicled his experiences in a frontline diary for the magazine.

Dr. Patterson was on call the evening that Corporal Kevin Megeney, a 25-year-old reservist, was rushed to the ICU after being shot in the chest. It turned out that the the gun was "a roommate's rifle," and at press time the incident was under investigation by the Canadian military. Prior to the article's release Mother Jones sent letters to Megeney's family, informing them of the pending story and the medical detail including regarding Patterson's efforts to save the soldier.

The story led to a cavalcade of criticism from the Canadian press, and from Megeney's family and friends. The Canadian military then launched an investigation into the ethics of its writing, all prompting a lengthy response from our co-editor, Clara Jeffery.

Court-martial proceedings against Patterson have since been dropped, though a military Health Services' investigation into whether he broke doctor-patient confidentiality is still underway.

This latest news is a sad continuation of a tragic situation. Megeney's family members have said they feel for Wilcox, who was Megeney's friend, and have also expressed that they seek more information from the proceedings. “I don’t know if it’ll bring closure," Karen Megeney, Cpl. Megeney's mother, said in October. "Certainly, it’ll help a lot to answer some questions. And we can put that behind us, because we’ll know why and what happened.” If convicted of manslaughter Wilcox faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Is Blackwater Leaving the Security Biz?

If his controversial company exits the private security business, Blackwater president Gary Jackson wants you to know exactly who's to blame: "If you could get it right," he told the AP, referring to the journalists covering Blackwater, "we might stay in the business." According to the AP, which recently visited the company's Moyock, North Carolina headquarters, Blackwater is planning to refocus its operations on aviation, logistics, and training, moving away from the security work that has earned the firm hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts since 9/11. "The experience we've had would certainly be a disincentive to any other companies that want to step in and put their entire business at risk," Erik Prince, the company's founder and CEO, told the wire service.

The company has been a magnet for controversy, the subject of negative news coverage, sustained congressional scrutiny, and activist outcry. Its shoot-first-ask-questions-later rep has at times obscured the company's better deeds, such as when Blackwater operators swooped in to Kenya to rescue three young American women who'd gotten stranded in a part of the country that had descended into violence. But while Blackwater has at times served, unfairly, as a stand-in for all the security contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan—some of them fly by night operations that you probably wouldn't want protecting your local Target—and as the Left's favorite punching bag, its bitter experience in the protection field has more often than not been of its own making.

Blackwater operators have been at the center of a number of questionable incidents, culminating with last September's shooting in Baghdad's Nisour Square that left 17 civilians dead and more than 20 wounded. (The episode remains under investigation by the FBI, and the Justice Department is mulling whether to bring charges.) Its aviation branch, Presidential Airways, meanwhile, is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit filed by the widows of three American soldiers who died when one of its planes crashed in Afghanistan, after its pilot allegedly took the aircraft on a low altitude joyride through mountainous terrain. (Adding to the controversy, Blackwater has attempted to derail the case by requesting that it be decided using Islamic, or Shari'a, law.) Then there's Blackwater's shadowy sister company, Greystone, which has scoured the Third World for discount soldiers to supplement its ranks, dealing with some unsavory characters along the way.

Despite all this, business remains good for Blackwater (though profit margins industry-wide appear to be slimming). Since last September, Presidential Airways has snagged at least three Pentagon contracts, worth close to $160 million, to provide its services in Afghanistan, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, the latest of which was awarded in April. And, this spring, even as the company remained under investigation in connection with the Nisour Square shooting, the State Department renewed Blackwater's lucrative contract to provide security to diplomats in Iraq.

If Blackwater does ease out of the protection biz, bad PR likely has little to with it. While other of Blackwater's competitors have focused almost exclusively on security, Prince has anticipated the day when the security boom created by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan inevitably begins to dry up. He has spent recent years diversifying his operations, branching out into manufacturing (of, among other things, armored vehicles), testing the waters in the humanitarian aid sector, and opening a private intelligence firm that caters to corporate clients. Security work currently makes up about 30 percent of Blackwater's business, but according Gary Jackson, "If I could get it down to 2 percent or 1 percent, I would go there.”

With headlines like this one in today's Washington Post—"Iraq Points to Pullout in 2010"—Prince and Jackson probably see the writing on the wall and are plotting a graceful exit strategy, though not necessarily a prompt one. After the AP story went out on the wire, Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell told the Virginia-Pilot that the company is not leaving the security business—or Iraq—in the near term. “As long as we’re asked, we’ll do it,” she said.

Some Inconvenient Truths About The Olympics

The hype machine is now in high gear. You would have to live on the moon not to know: The Olympics are almost here. Prepare yourself to see world leaders dancing in the aisles at the opening ceremony—those who will be there, anyway (Am I the only one who remembers Al Gore's hypnotic gyrations in Sydney?); to listen to countless hours of platitudes about world peace; to see hours of melodramatic footage documenting the life challenges faced by individual athletes; and, of course, to enjoy some world-class sport. Also in the mix, as seems unavoidable, will be mini-documentaries about China's place in the world, the advances it's made, where it's going, etc. We'll see images of picturesque rural landscapes and cities the size of Chicago that none of us have ever heard of.

I must admit, part of me looks forward to all of this, the spectacle even more than the sports. But lost in the pageantry will be the reality that the Olympics—not just those to be held in Beijing next month, but the entire Olympic system—is not always the rosy celebration of international peace and cooperation it purports to be. A piece by Olympic scholar John Hoberman in the current issue of Foreign Policy argues that the Games "often mask human rights abuses, do little to spur political development, and lend legitimacy to unsavory governments." The article itself is available only to the magazine's subscribers, but the following press release outlines Hoberman's attempts to debunk some prevailing myths about the Olympics:

The Olympics Aren't Political
Yes, they are. Politics have always been part of the games. The 1968 Olympics in Mexico City were awarded to a one-party, authoritarian government. The Soviet Union won the 1980 games by threatening to leave the Olympic “family.” And there is no more notorious example than the 1936 Berlin Games, which Adolf Hitler used to enhance his authority. “Whether welcome or not, politics is a part of the games,” writes Hoberman. “The problem is, the [International Olympic Committee] seems not to have a clue as to what to do about it.”

The Olympics Promote Human Rights
False. As Chinese troops stormed into Tibet this spring, the IOC opted to condemn “violence from whatever side.” That it would have preferred to be spared this attention was wisely left unsaid. Nor has the IOC been willing to demand better behavior from China’s rulers. In truth, “Olympic diplomacy” has always been rooted in doublespeak that yields few, if any, results.

The Olympics Are a Catalyst for Change
Prove it. Pre-Olympic repression is a tradition whenever the games are entrusted to authoritarian regimes. Just ask the departed Jews and persecuted anti-Nazis of 1936 Berlin. In the same way, 1 million Chinese migrant workers—without whom the construction of the Beijing Olympic facilities would have been impossible—are being carted out of Beijing.

The Beijing Games Are the Most Controversial Ever
They may be. The 1936 Berlin Games and the U.S.-boycotted 1980 Moscow Games were both protested on political grounds. Likewise, protests against the Beijing Games have targeted Chinese brutality in Tibet, energy deals with Sudan and Burma, and repressive measures. But the sheer clout of China within the geopolitical system separates it from earlier Olympic controversies. “The Nazi regime of 1936 had nothing comparable to China’s global reach today, and the Soviet economy in 1980 was a dead man walking,” writes Hoberman. “The most heated controversies surrounding Beijing probably have yet to unfold.”

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from sha3bi1Beijing.

Liberal Lawyer Helping Louisiana Kill That Guy

In one of the more dramatic decisions of the last Supreme Court term, justices voted 5 to 4 to ban the death penalty in a Louisiana child rape case, Kennedy v. Louisiana. The court based its decision in part on the notion that there was a national consensus against executing people for rape, as suggested by the complete absence of any federal statute making child rape a capital crime. As it turns out, though, the court was wrong. There is such a statute under military law, an error pointed out by Linda Greenhouse on her way out the door from the New York Times.

Based on that omission, Louisiana yesterday petitioned the high court to rehear the case. It's still a longshot, but given the nature of the error, not impossible that the court might reconsider. Besides, the state has a good lawyer. Fighting to execute Patrick Kennedy is Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal. Katyal became a darling of the liberal establishment in 2005 after successfully arguing the Hamdan case, in which the Supreme Court found the Bush administration's military tribunals for trying Guantanamo detainees unconstitutional. (Katyal is currently defending Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, in his military trial, which started this week.) The case rocketed the young, telegenic Katyal into the public eye—he was profiled in Vanity Fair, no less--and his name is one of those constantly floating in the ether as a potential democratic Supreme Court nominee.

His role in the Kennedy case suggests that Katyal is not quite the liberal he's been made out to be by the media. Or, he's got tremendous political savvy. His choice to defend the death penalty in a case that even some court conservatives can't stomach brings back faint memories of a young presidential candidate flying home to Arkansas to oversee the execution of a retarded man. If you aspire to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, what better way for a liberal to prove political independence (and confirmability) than to get someone executed?