U.S. to help rescue Russian sub
A Russian submarine is trapped in a fishnet -- that must be some fish net -- off the Russian Pacific Coast, and the U.S. Navy is sending a remotely operated submersible and team to help free it. Gerry Gilmore of the American Forces Press Service reports ("U.S. Navy to Assist Russian Sub Rescue Effort"):

At the request of the Russian Navy, we are preparing to deploy a team from the Navy's Deep Submergence Unit to assist with the situation,' the statement read. The submersible, called a 'Super Scorpio,' is capable of cutting one-inch-thick steel cable.

The U.S. team and the submersible will be flown from San Diego on a U.S. Air Force C-5 aircraft later today to Petropavlovsk, Russia, the statement continued.

Good luck, and Godspeed. I still remember the Kursk several years back; I'd like a happier ending this time.


=====
UPDATE, 8/7: Hurray! The Russians have been rescued by a British Scorpio; Americans rendered assistance. The Guardian reports Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov's praise for the help provided by Britain and the United States: "We have seen in deeds, not in words, what the brotherhood of the sea means."
posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Volunteer Tailgate Party: 1 A.SKB
"...after Southknoxbubba." It's up over at Big Orange Michael's. The Volunteer Tailgate Party collects posts submitted by Tennessee (and ex-Tennessee) bloggers; there's something there for just about everyone.

It's my habit to post a few reactions to some of the "VTP" posts, and I'll do so in this space later on. For now: Check it out! ...

"Vol Abroad," a Tennessean married to a British husband, put up an interesting post after the first set of London bombings last month, and another about efforts to extradite one Babar Ahmad to the U.S. for trial. Her posts are sensible, evocative, on-the-scene sketches of what it feels like in London now -- see particularly "Fortress London." Good stuff.

Even allowing for the attempt at Swiftian satire, I take issue with this Masses of Everything post, which I think misunderstands Senator Durbin's actual remarks last month about detainee mistreatment, in favor of attacking the straw man version. Of course Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Gardez are not equal to the horrors of the Holocaust or the Gulag in sheer scale. But that's not what Durbin said. And as for what Americans are capable of doing (and apparently excusing) versus what Nazis and Stalinists were -- frankly, a lot of it looks pretty similar to me.

Kevin's Tuscan chicken recipe looks, well, seriously good (there's a studio-level photograph to go with it). If "deglaze" means "pour some liquid in the pan and dissolve the baked-on bits," maybe I'll try this sometime. Wonder what he'd put together for an actual tailgate party.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:26:00 AM -- |    

 
Toyota spurns richer offers from U.S. to build in Canada
Toyota has announced it will be building a 1,300 worker car factory in Woodstock, Ontario. But the reason it picked the Canadian location over American ones isn't just the $125 million kicked in by the Canadian and Ontarian governments. Steve Erwin of CBC News explains:

Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But [president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association] Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use 'pictorials' to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada president Ray Tanguay confirmed that the expertise of Canadian workers was a factor in the decision, and Canadian industry minister David Emmerson asserted that Canadian workers are actually $4 to $5 cheaper to employ than American workers because of the taxpayer-funded Canadian health care system. Via Facing South, where Chris Kromm adds,

...now companies are waking up to the limitations of locating in a state that cares more about handing out tax breaks than investing in its people.

Unfortunately, state leaders haven't caught on -- indeed, states like North Carolina expanded their corporate give-away programs in the last legislative session.

For more on the issue, see also Kromm's article in the Independent Weekly, "The Great NC jobs scam," where he discusses Greg LeRoy's recent book, "The Great American Jobs Scam." posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:17:00 PM -- |    

 
Three Senate detainee abuse debates
Last week several amendments were offered to the Defense Authorization Bill (S. 1042) that were related to detainee interrogation, "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment, and the independent investigation of the many incidents of torture and abuse by the U.S. military. I wrote about those amendments, urging readers to contact their Senators to support them.

Several readers and other bloggers have wondered about the motives behind some of these amendments. So I've begun to look into that, and this post is a first result. Because of its length, I've subdivided it into four sections:

• McCain vs. Warner
• McCain vs. McCain
• McCain and Warner vs. reality
• Upshot

Please note that I don't claim the following covers all there is to say about the legislative activity regarding detainee treatment last week--indeed, I know there's more, but I just couldn't sift through everything. Specifically, I haven't looked at all yet at amendments offered by Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who has developed a good reputation on this issue. Readers are cordially invited to add their knowledge, questions, and corrections as comments to this post.


McCain vs. Warner
One question was about comparing the McCain and Warner amendments regarding uniform treatment of detainees. McCain criticized Warner's amendment (SA 1566)* because it relied on the Secretary of Defense as the continuous source of valid interrogation practices:

(a) UNIFORM STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform standards and procedures for the detention and interrogation of persons in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense.

In his own amendment (SA 1557) McCain wanted things more in black and white via the Army Field Manual, and less at the discretion of Rumsfeld -- who he explicitly rebuked. McCain's comments, from a transcript** of the Senate's July 25 proceedings:

Mr. President, I have a brief comment on the chairman's amendment. Leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense is what caused the huge amount of problems we have today.

I have here--in fact, thanks to the tenacity of the Senator from South Carolina--finally, after a year and a half, 2 years, the memoranda that were submitted by the uniformed JAGS when the rules for the treatment of prisoners were set up the first time, I say to my friend from Virginia. They all objected to it. They were overruled by the Secretary of Defense and the general counsel.

So now, if I understand it, the amendment of my dear friend from Virginia is going to return that to the Secretary of Defense. I urge him to read these memoranda which we finally got thanks to, again, the Senator from South Carolina: treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions; arguably lowers the bar for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future conflicts, even when nations agree with the President's status determination. Many would view the more extreme interrogation techniques as violative of international law, other treaties, or customary international law; perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or international fora, to include the ICC.

I remind my colleagues, these are the memoranda that were sent to comment on the Secretary of Defense guidelines for interrogations of prisoners, which were overruled. And then, a couple months later, they were rescinded.

So in all due respect, my friend from Virginia has a degree of confidence in the Secretary of Defense which, frankly, is not validated by what took place and many argue is one of the reasons why we had Abu Ghraib. (emphases and link added)

This is pretty electrifying language in the courtly, near-soporific world of United States Senate debate. I think we can predict Rumsfeld won't be having McCain over for Christmas dinner (unless the Senator from Arizona is on the menu).

For his part, Warner pointed out his amendment addressed both detention and interrogation; McCain’s was specifically about interrogation. He also pointed out the Secretary of Defense can change the Army Field Manual. Senator (and SA 1557 co-sponsor) Carl Levin responded that "the field manual is a public document. You can read what is in the field manual. The Secretary of Defense memoranda too often have been classified "unavailable.'' Warner also pointed out at one point that there will be secret parts of the manual -- although not secret from Congress, as Levin replied.

While it may well be important to add language about "detention", I agree with McCain and Levin that the Army Field Manual is easier to keep tabs on than the Secretary of Defense is or likely ever will be. Part of what's at stake is not "just" the issue of torture and abuse, but how to implement Congressional oversight and control of the parameters of U.S. military conduct; whether purposely or not, Warner really seemed to have lost the plot on that score.


McCain vs. McCain
As noted in an update last week, McCain himself had a "presidential waiver" provision in another amendment to the Defense Authorization Act (SA 1556) forbidding cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of persons in U.S. custody.*** The original wording read as follows:

(b) Presidential Waiver.--(1) The President may waive the prohibition in subsection (a), on a case-by-case basis, if the President--
(A) determines that the waiver is required for a military or national security necessity; and
(B) submits the appropriate committees of Congress timely notice of the exercise of the waiver.
(2) The authority of the President under paragraph (1) may not be delegated.

But McCain subsequently withdrew that provision, and as far as I can tell, the current version of the amendment does not include the "presidential waiver." I've not seen an explanation of McCain's thinking either in including the waiver or withdrawing it. I can only imagine that McCain realized the force of his argument against the Secretary of Defense was even stronger against the President.

The first section of the amendment remained intact. With the removal of the "presidential waiver" loophole, and given the Constitution-based definitions added in further text, it seems airtight and excellent to me:

(a) IN GENERAL.—No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

McCain and Warner vs. reality
While preparing this post, I've been following news and posts about the hideous circumstances of Iraqi and Baathist general Abed Hamed Mowhoush's death. From "Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by G.I.s" (Josh White, Washington Post, August 3) :

On the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, a U.S. Army interrogator and a military guard grabbed a green sleeping bag, stuffed Mowhoush inside, wrapped him in an electrical cord, laid him on the floor and began to go to work. Again.

It was inside the sleeping bag that the 56-year-old detainee took his last breath through broken ribs, lying on the floor beneath a U.S. soldier in Interrogation Room 6 in the western Iraqi desert.

As likely as it was that this man had important information, what happened to him was wrong and should be illegal if it wasn't already so. As Marty Lederman points out, this was a case where Geneva Conventions were always assumed to apply (no confusing Taliban/Al Qaeda issues), where the perpetrators were from the military, not the CIA, and where those perpetrators believed they were operating within the guidelines laid down by the Army Field Manual:

It was a time when U.S. interrogators were coming up with their own tactics to get detainees to talk, many of which they considered logical interpretations of broad-brush categories in the Army Field Manual, with labels such as "fear up" or "pride and ego down" or "futility."

The (re-)emerging story of Mowhoush's death suggests that McCain's amendments, while far from moot or without value, may also not be specific enough to restore reliable decency to our treatment of prisoners. And even if additional specifics are added, leadership -- and basically honor -- are also necessary, and that can't be legislated, it can only be elected, selected, honored or (to some degree) taught.


Upshot
Based on what I've read, I suggest readers contact Senator McCain by phone and mail and thank him for the two amendments discussed above -- SA 1556 and SA 1557 -- and specifically thank him for withdrawing the "presidential waiver" provision in the former. I would add the suggestion that in light of recent revelations about the death of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, there is such a thing as overreliance on the current Army Field Manual. Specifically, he may wish to consider proposing specific instructions within the Army Field Manual, and adding or strengthening specific penalties to the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- both for perpetrators and (even more importantly) for their chain of command -- when the letter and spirit of those instructions are ignored.

I'd also suggest readers contact Senator Warner and thank him for his dedication to ridding the armed services of these dishonorable practices, and urging him to join with McCain in identifying clear, restrictive guidelines rather than relying on the good graces of Pentagon leadership.

Suitably revised, either message can be given to other Senators as well, and any such message should include a call to co-sponsor the Levin amendment (SA 1494: co-sponsors Kennedy, Rockefeller, Reed) establishing a commission to conduct a full, independent, 9/11-style investigation of all torture and abuse by the U.S. military.

But at the risk of stepping on the call for an independent commission, I was struck by Lederman's conclusion:

It's increasingly obvious that we will not have a full and fair accounting of this dark chapter in our history—and that we will not have an accurate picture of what was authorized, nor what continues to be authorized, for the CIA and the Pentagon—until we have divided government.

Jim Henley adds, "Is there a single verb that means “to become vertebrate?” Because that’s the other requirement."


=====
* Both the McCain and Warner amendments add a Section 1073 to "subtitle G of title X" of the Defense Authorization Act, titled "UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE."
** Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Intelligence Resource Program: Senate Amendment on Uniform Standards for Interrogation of Detainees, introduced on the Senate floor, July 25. This transcript has the advantage of putting much of the proceedings of the day on one page, but the disadvantage of not covering some developments that occurred later on the same day. For those, I consulted the Congressional Record via Thomas and Govtrack, a somewhat tedious process.
*** Titled "PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT," and also added as a Section 1073 to "subtitle G of title X" of the Defense Authorization Act. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:31:00 PM -- |    

 
Switched Off in Basra
In last Sunday's New York Times, freelance journalist and blogger Steven Vincent, described a British-trained Basra police force that's more loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr than to the rule of law. From "Switched Off in Basra":

An Iraqi police lieutenant, who for obvious reasons asked to remain anonymous, confirmed to me the widespread rumors that a few police officers are perpetrating many of the hundreds of assassinations - mostly of former Baath Party members - that take place in Basra each month. He told me that there is even a sort of 'death car': a white Toyota Mark II that glides through the city streets, carrying off-duty police officers in the pay of extremist religious groups to their next assignment.

Meanwhile, the British stand above the growing turmoil, refusing to challenge the Islamists' claim on the hearts and minds of police officers. This detachment angers many Basrans. 'The British know what's happening but they are asleep, pretending they can simply establish security and leave behind democracy,' said the police lieutenant who had told me of the assassinations. 'Before such a government takes root here, we must experience a transformation of our minds.'

In other words, real security reform requires psychological as well as physical training. Unless the British include in their security sector reform strategy some basic lessons in democratic principles, Basra risks falling further under the sway of Islamic extremists and their Western-trained police enforcers.

The London Times reports that Steven Vincent was killed yesterday, and his fiancee Nouriya Itais was seriously wounded (via Serrabee). Condolences can be expressed here. We're all in the debt of journalists like Mr. Vincent. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
OH-2, 9:51 pm.
WCPO Special Election Results: August 2005:US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
662 precincts of 753 reporting

JEAN SCHMIDT 49,681 50%
PAUL HACKETT 48,811 50%

I'll admit I'm reloading that page every 5 minutes or so. Way to go Hackett!! Cloud: A sad commentary that even after all this 50% would vote for a sorry nut like Schmidt. Silver lining: Great that you can call Bush a chickenhawk and an s.o.b. and pull 50% in reddest America.

Often the question is asked, is our DCCC learning?


=====
UPDATE, 8/3: As per Gary's comment and the above link, Schmidt won 52-48. The DNC is very upbeat, DCCC also. As Tim Tagaris writes for "Swing State Project," it's "a win for the 50 state strategy, the netroots, and the future of the country--the grassroots of the Democratic Party." posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:00:00 PM -- |    

 
John Bolton: worst possible man for the job
With unerring instinct, President Bush has carefully prepared and carried out the worst possible nomination for the job of United Nations ambassador, by sending John Bolton to the position as a recess appointment that will last until January, 2007. The Washington Post's Daniela Deane reports ("Bush Sidesteps Senate, Installs Bolton as U.N. Envoy"):

The White House move comes over the vociferous protests of Senate Democrats, who had complained that the blunt, combative Bolton lacked credibility. The Senate had twice voted to sustain a filibuster against Bolton. But Bush refused to give up on his nominee. [...]

Since then, the impasse focused on Democrats' demands to see two sets of documents related to Bolton's State Department work. One involved national security intercepts of conversations.

The Washington Post article actually fails to note the most serious recent objection to Bolton: the fact that he inaccurately answered a Senate query whether he had faced questioning by an inspector general or other official inquiry other than routine Congressional testimony (link via TPM Cafe).

As Len Cleavelin and probably many others are pointing out, this amounts to a big "f* you" from Bush to the Senate and to America. It comes on behalf of a man who has played highly questionable roles on behalf of the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war and nonproliferation policy, to name but a few. See Stygius for many details on Bolton's arrogant, loose cannon approach to his nation's critical affairs, and for the practical case against this appointment.

If Bolton can't even command the respect of a Senate led by the President's own party, he has no business representing the United States.* If Bolton can't give honest testimony to the Senate, he really has no business representing the United States. Once again, gang-style loyalty prevails over the national interest; once again, an administration that vowed to bring honesty and integrity to the White House is doing precisely the opposite.


=====
* In a way, Bolton seems to agree: the Post article says he's doubled State Department office space reserved for the UN ambassador, and has reportedly "told several colleagues he needed more space and a larger staff in Washington because, if confirmed, he intended to spend more time here than his predecessors did." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:01:00 PM -- |    

 
Greensboro, NC: a racial divide on Wal-Mart?
Writing for Facing South and Yes! Weekly, Jordan Green argues there's a racial divide in perceptions about Wal-Mart plans to revitalize an abandoned Greensboro shopping center:

Equitable economic development is now the call in Greensboro, with black elected officials pushing for retail investment to bring jobs and consumer choice to those who live east of US Highway 29, thus freeing residents from driving across town to shop at the Friendly Shopping Center and other retail centers located in majority white residential areas.

Little surprise, then, that the public discourse around local developer Donald Linder’s efforts to bring a Wal-Mart Supercenter to the old Carolina Circle Mall in northeast Greensboro has at times taken on racial overtones.

The actual debate, however, seems to have been about whether the city of Greensboro should cough up $300,000 in "incentives" to help acquire the necessary easements for the development. After first agreeing to that in a closed session, controversy about Wal-Mart and the need for such an incentive caused the city council to reverse course -- and the developer later found the money elsewhere. But not before one black official -- whose constituents currently face long drives to shopping malls across town -- threatened a boycott of those crosstown shopping centers:

If it means you have to stop driving to west Greensboro to shop, to get some economic development, you need to just stop driving there,” [Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small] said, to the applause of several northeast Greensboro residents who came before City Council to express their support for the project.

Despite its length (and title -- "From Woolworth's to Wal-Mart: Economics and the Race Divide in a Southern City"), evidence for a racial divide on Wal-Mart ends about there in Green's article, which becomes a (very well researched) essay on the potential pros and cons of Wal-Mart development. It's hard to tell as a reader -- and may have been for Green as well -- but beyond the councilwoman's outburst, there doesn't seem to be the kind of fervent pro Wal-Mart consensus that could fuel a latter-day Woolworth's sit-in movement in black Greensboro.

But that's not to say it couldn't happen. Wal-Mart has been able to exploit the need for visible development in faltering local economies around the country. What's more, it may be that in a case like this one in Greensboro, a Wal-Mart is in fact better than the blighted ghost mall it will apparently replace.

To my mind, the goal isn't to oppose Wal-Marts per se, but to achieve higher wages, workplace standards, and labor rights within Wal-Marts -- and to not take it on faith that big-box stores are always the very definition of economic success. That debate is taking place in Greensboro, too:

Toni Graves Henderson, who is also running for the District 2 seat, is also cheering Wal-Mart’s entry into the city’s northeast quadrant.

"We do need more jobs," she said, "because I hear people say: 'I need a job; I've been looking for months and months and I can't find one.' If someone wants to come to Greensboro and offer jobs, I can't be against it."

Only one District 2 candidate, Ed Whitfield, sounded a cautionary note about the arrival of the big-box store.

"The question of wages, health care, working hours and conditions, a number of issues that employees within Wal-Mart have been raising and sometimes getting fired for — these should be the guiding principles of any economic development initiative," he said. "I know some people that work for Wal-Mart, and they needed the job, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to fight to improve their conditions there."

To do that, the Ed Whitfields of this debate need help getting those questions posed and answered. And the Toni Hendersons must have their needs for jobs and solid economic development taken seriously. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 AM -- |