Pruning Shears

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

---

Lindsay Beyerstein and Charles & Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising did a great job last week documenting the security overreactions in the Twin Cities. Here is a good place to start with the latter, and of course keep in mind Phoenix Woman’s caveat that in at least one instance: “Nothing I saw indicated that the police were really overstepping their bounds. I think the force they used was a little excessive at the end, but not completely out of line.” By the way, a week ago I barely knew who Amy Goodman was. I have since learned that she is a great American journalist, and a patriot.

---

Prairie Weather pointed me to a commentary by Nat Hentoff that begins:

In his last months, President Bush is working to ensure that his successor will have the greatly expanded power of the executive branch - unprecedented in American history - that Bush instituted after 9/11. His chief enabler in this ever-increasing surveillance of American citizens is Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking minority member Arlen Specter are aware of Mukasey’s plan for new FBI guidelines that could begin national security and criminal investigations of racial and ethnic groups without any evidence of wrongdoing.

I covered this a couple of weeks ago but it’s good to see other folks making some noise about it as well.

---

Lambert caught the following from Reuters. It went down the memory hole pretty quickly:

The Polish prosecutor’s office is investigating allegations that there was a CIA prison in Poland where al Qaeda suspects were questioned and guards might have used methods close to torture, the prime minister’s top adviser said on Friday.

At Corrente commenter DamonMI observed:

These governments (if this is true) chose to participate. I find too often that we blame other government’s involvement in the “War on Terrorism” on Bush and his influence. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the “Well, Bush was a bad influence of Tony Blair” argument. Fact of the matter is that these leaders are responsible for their own decisions, ultimately, and some countries/leaders refused to play along.

A few bad apples, you might say.

---

In the comments to my Thursday post Kristen pointed out the following from Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech:

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … [Obama] wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Kristen: “I thought here we go again — another irrational opponent of habeas corpus.” Yup. It sounds like the only change she would bring to the White House would be an extra X chromosome. And I was going to let this pass, but since I went to the trouble of finding the text of her speech I may as well point it out:

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

My immediate reaction was, what will you do - cheer from the stands at the Special Olympics? (UPDATE: Samantha Henig has much more over here. I’m not the only one wondering about specifics.) Republicans have mastered the art of making the right noises for public consumption and doing nothing afterward. The “you’re on your own” part of the Obama campaign might be its most effective attack. Governor Palin, please name one way special needs children will be better off for your having been Vice President. In fact, Name One could be an effective companion message to You’re On Your Own: Name One form your advocacy will take. Name One Way you are different from the President on a major issue. Name One liberal who has launched sexist attacks against Palin. We don’t need comprehensive lists or detailed position papers, just Name One. And repeat it over and over.

---

The bloggingheads video between Ann Althouse and Jane Hamsher linked above also includes dismissive comments from Althouse about the Alaska state trooper firings. Don’t believe the attempts to downplay it - if it turns out to be true it is by itself sufficient reason to vote against McCain-Palin. Remember that the USA firing scandal was originally waved off (via) as an “overblown personnel matter”. Let’s be very clear: Palin’s actions are minor in that she only had the opportunity to allegedly pursue vendettas as the governor of a smaller state. The prospect of her bringing that point of view to Washington (change from what?) after the last seven years is all any sane observer should need to know.

---

Another note on the bloggingheads video. There is a fascinating discussion on the treatment of crimes by the President here below. It’s about 12 minutes long but if you have the time, watch them go through it. To her great credit Hamsher stayed focused on the relevant details and didn’t get distracted by the usual talking points (e.g. the You Can’t Litigate Everything argument, as though we’re talking about a traffic ticket or something):

The reward for her persistence - that, my friends, is a pit bull in lipstick - was the following exchange that literally made my jaw drop (I also admire her for limiting her reaction to a single blink of astonishment):

HAMSHER: If you lied a country into war and there are 4,000 American soldiers lying dead because you lied, that is a criminal act!

ALTHOUSE: No it’s not. We’re not going to - let’s move on to another topic, I think we’ve nailed that one down…

That is as fine a summation as you could want of the intellectually and morally bankrupt state of the contemporary GOP. Monstrous.

---

Speaking of persistence, Andrew keeps asking and asking and asking. Think he’ll get an answer?

---

Some local news unrelated to executive power:

A union-backed group said Thursday it will pull a ballot issue that could have made Ohio the first state to require employers to provide paid sick days for their workers. The group, Ohioans For Healthy Families, cited Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s support for a federal paid sick day bill as one of the reasons for pulling an initiative from the November 4 ballot.

The mention of Obama really got my attention. I could easily envision (this is all speculation obviously) the Obama campaign putting pressure on an allied (or ordinarily friendly) organization to withdraw a ballot item it fears will drive Republican support in a crucial state. Maybe he really does support a federal paid sick day bill as stated, but the bottom line is that a version already on the ballot was withdrawn on the basis of a promise of a wider one somewhere down the road. That may well be true, but then again it might not. Bottom line - the bird in the hand was let go. (And by the way, isn’t this the kind of fight you’d think Democrats would dive into headfirst?) Obama proved on July 9th that he is willing to barter away issues that his base is passionate about. We need issue advocacy because it does not connect to a particular officeholder. Even the most charismatic and inspiring politicians react to their own perceived best interests first. Keeping a bit detached and a foot outside the camp keeps you from putting all your eggs in one basket.

---

UNPACKING JANE: On page 203 she relates a (secondhand) claim concerning Major General Geoffrey Miller when he was in charge of Guantánamo Bay. An officer serving him quotes Miller as saying, “If the Torture Statute says 80 degrees is bad, we will set the thermometer at 79.9 degrees.” That kind of literalism concerning torture amounts to an admission of engaging in it because it doesn’t even stand up to cursory scrutiny. For instance:

• Torture is not scientific and cannot be precisely quantified in terms of temperature, duration and the like.
• Torture statutes do not attempt to quantify the ways in which different kinds of unpleasant treatment can become torture if enough are strung together in succession.
• Torture is ultimately quantified by its effect on victims, and methods that might edge up to the line for one individual might go flying over it for another.

In short, guidelines like the ones mentioned in the Torture Statute are not meant as measurements for sadists to set their instruments a hair’s breadth below, but a guide for those in possession of a conscience. It appears America’s morality in detainee treatment has been set more by the former than the latter.