Good for a grin
billmon, commenting on Peter Daou's post "On Coulter, Slime-Traffickers, & the Media's Craving for Blog Buzz":

TV news these days is to journalism what a Harlem Globetrotters game is to basketball, and dwinks like Matt Lauer are the functional equivalent of the Washington Generals.

I'm just surprised Coulter didn't pull his pants down while he was trying to make a free throw.

Dylan Stiles ("blog.tenderbutton.com") is a graduate student chemist who "likes to cook shit up just like bacon." One day he got to wondering about the active ingredient in Nair -- and realized he could synthesize mass quantities of the stuff with chemicals in his lab storeroom. Stiles muses:

The obvious things to do would be to fill up a super-soaker and do drive-by Nair sprayings, or give Paul Wender a “special” bottle of designer mustache cream. I had a couple other thoughts on how to best harness all this hair-removing power.

Meet the Press in Hell brought to you by those nice people at "World O'Crap":

...Russert: Mr. Satan, let's start with you. Yesterday the New York Times reported that forces of the New World Order swept through a village, burned it to the ground, then decapitated every man, woman and child who lived there. They hung the victims by their heels until they were utterly desanguinated, then the soldiers made sausage from their blood and threw a large pancake breakfast while dogs and vultures feasted on the flesh of the innocent. This has caused some on Capitol Hill to question whether we have a clear strategy for victory. How would you respond?
Satan: Tim, this is just the Left's way of saying, fine, let's just cut and run. We shouldn't even be in Armageddon, we shouldn't even be fighting a battle to bring about the end of the world.
Russert: So you think this story is mostly partisan.
Satan: Absolutely! Look, this is war. We're fighting an enemy that is determined to utterly destroy us and rule for a thousand years. If these allegations turn out to be true, then we may have a few bad apples in the barrel. But 99.9999% of our troops are doing a great job day after day, under incredibly difficult circumstances. And sometimes, in the stress of the moment, some of them may snap and make bloodwurst out of children. Can any of us honestly say that, given the same circumstances, we wouldn't do the same thing?
Jesus: Yes! There are clear–
Satan: Well, look who's casting the first stone.
Jesus: –clear rules of engagement design to prevent this kind of?
Russert: Mr. Christ, let him finish.

Along those lines, I couldn't pass up a chance for an online chat with God. (OK, well, iGod.) Here's how it went:

Me: Hi, God, it's me, Thomas.
God: Hi there . I am a Christian.
Me: Must I be one, too?
God: What would happen if you didn't?
Me: You tell me. (Please.)
God: What do you want me to tell you? Please what?
Me: I want you to tell me what would happen if I were not a Christian.
God: Try it and see what happens. Why do you want me to tell you what would happen if you were not a Christian?
Me: I'm told the alternative might be eternally painful.
God: It's good to meet someone who is told the alternative might be eternally painful.
Me: You're not really God, are you.

(Then iGod hung up on me, and that was that.)


=====
NOTES: Dylan Stiles via Chad Orzel ("Uncertain Principles"). Meet the Press in Hell via Crooked Timber.
EDIT, 3/28/07: Removed "potentially" and and an adjective for Mr. Stiles that I meant to be funny, but that looked like a serious accusation when Googling for his name.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:50:00 PM -- |    

 
Go Germany!
BBC SPORT | Football | World Cup 2006 | Live: Germany v Argentina:

1556 BST: Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann seems relaxed and happy in the dug-out - and why not? Before the World Cup started, 86% of fans did not think Germany could win the World Cup. Now you would be hard-pressed to find a German who is not backing the side to the hilt. [...]

1600 BST: Argentina get the game under way.

Jens Scholz predicts 4:2 for Germany. May it be so.

=====
UPDATE, 1:45: Nice call, Jens! (Even if you didn't mean just the penalty shootout.) And nice going, Jens! After 1:1 in double overtime, Argentina couldn't convert two of its first four penalty kicks:

Germany 4-2 Argentina: Esteban Cambiasso sees his spot-kick saved. Germany are in the semi-final.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:10:00 AM -- |    

 
Reactions to Hamdan
As is well known by now, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-3 in favor of Hamdan's plea that the military commissions at Guantanamo are unconstitutional; Chief Justice Roberts recused himself from the decision, having been involved in the lower court decision being appealed. The three dissenters were Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

Marty Lederman, writing at "SCOTUSblog," implies that the administration may be on the hook for war crimes. All emphases are from the original:

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Jack Balkin ("Balkinization"): "The Supreme Court has decided that the Geneva Conventions aren't so quaint after all." In a second post, he adds that the decision is "democracy forcing":

What the Court has done is not so much countermajoritarian as democracy forcing. It has limited the President by forcing him to go back to Congress to ask for more authority than he already has, and if Congress gives it to him, then the Court will not stand in his way.

Publius ("Legal Fiction") is worried on that score. I.e., will our rulers (David Addington and Dick Cheney) just pretend nothing happened?

I also wonder if there will be calls to ignore the Court's ruling. Knowing the players involved, I'd say we have about a 5% chance of a constitutional crisis on our hands with this, particularly if the administration continues with the "interrogation techniques" that it unilaterally deemed to be outside of the McCain amendment.

Atrios thinks that's just about what will happen:

My quick take is that it's certainly an important symbolic victory, but this administration's contempt for the law, the constitution, and the balance/separation of powers that our system rests on isn't going to be very affected by what 5 people in black robes say. They've ignored Congress and they'll ignore the Court too, leaving our mainstream media with more time to deal with the impending threat of blogofascism.

And they'd have support. Charles Johnson ("Little Green Footballs") headlines his post "Supreme Court rules in favor of Jihad," and concludes:

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there’s no difference between a terrorist dressed in civilian clothes and a uniformed soldier, and that civilians deserve no protection from war criminals.

Be that as it may, Orin Kerr ("OrinKerr.com") suggests there may be more bare majorities like this one in the future:

It’s interesting to read Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld for signs of how Justice Kennedy would rule on the scope of the Commander-in-Chief power issues that may come come before the Court in the next few years. Much as I had expected, the opinion follows Youngstown and suggests that Congress’s views are supreme.

Andy McCarthy ("National Review") sees the long arm of international activism:

Nevertheless, even granting that the president is right, internationalist activists (law professors, UN and Euro-bureaucrats, and self-styled human rights organizations) argue that Common Article 3 applies anyway, despite the literal limitations on it in the Geneva Conventions themselves, because it has somehow transmogrified into binding "customary international law.

In that respect, it's worth pointing out it probably won't just be civilian lawyers celebrating:

"These will not be legitimate. These will be show trials. [...] I don't know how we got here, but I know we shouldn't be here."
-- Major Tom Fleener, United States Army lawyer assigned to Guantanamo detainee, spring 2006

"The debate here isn’t only how to protect the country. It’s how to protect our values." [...] "The determination that Geneva didn’t apply was a legal and policy mistake."
-- Alberto Mora, former United States Navy general counsel, winter 2005/2006

On the whole, even though I recognize that it was a very narrow Supreme Court majority, and even though I think Congress is likely to try very hard to do less than it should to rein in the Bush administration... I'll take it. So my carefully considered reaction is:

I just couldn't find a dancing Snoopy with only one middle 'finger' extended. Click through for "Linus and Lucy," by Vince Guaraldi, music to celebrate with.


=====
UPDATE, 6/30: Major Tom Fleener's reaction, as reported by AP/New York Times: "There certainly will be some fallout from this...It’s going to change everything from how people are held to interrogation techniques that are used to the types of information they can have or can’t have.” His reaction can also be found at NPR, along with those of other key figures in the debate.

6/30, again: This might be Fleener, too -- Georgetown prof Neal Katyal (Hamdan's attorney) told a Hamdan panel audience: "Yesterday, one enterprising military commission defense attorneys sent a letter to the commission “judges.” It said: dear judges, I’m supposed to file motions today. I request a stay because I don’t want to violate Common Article 3 and participating in the commission might make me liable for war crimes." (Emphasis added) Rebecca Tushnet also posted notes on Katyal's panel remarks.

6/30, again: Christy Hardin Smith ("firedoglake") does a Hamdan roundup that neatly complements this one, with links to Glenn Greenwald, ACSblog, etc.

UPDATE, 7/7: Georgetown Law Hamdan panel video.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:11:00 PM -- |    

 
Allow us to rephrase that
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA-4) has marked up the so-called "New York Times Resolution" (PDF) and submitted the result as a substitute (PDF):

Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to trac terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation. and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the internationa fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances. [Conclusion -- not known] [...]

Whereas there is a national security imperative for maintaining the secrecy of our legitimate intelligence capabilities. from our potential enemies; [...]

Whereas the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive intelligence information, including the names of clandestine service officers of the Central Intelligence Agency, inflicts significant damage to United States activities in the global war on terrorism by assisting terrorists in developing countermeasures to evate United States intelligence capabilities, costs the Uited States taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost capabilities, and ultimately endangers American lives; [Conclusion -- not known] [...]

Whereas following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the President, with the support of Congress, directed the Federal Government to use all appropriate measures to identify, track, and pursue not only those persons who commit terrorist acts here and abroad, but also those who provide financial or other support for terrorist activity; [...]

Whereas appropriate a few Memebers of Congress,including the members of the Committees on Intelligence of the Senate and the House of Representatives have been briefed on the were notified of the existence of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, with most notifications taking place only after an intent to publish stories about the program was communicated; [...]

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program in accordance with existing applicable law, but notes that the expression of such support herein dos not provide additional authority for such efforts;
(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program; [Conclusion -- not known]
(3)(2) condemns expresses concern that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts; and may have made efforts to locate terrorists and terrorist networks, and disrupt their plans, more difficult.
(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

(Via Christy Hardin Smith, "firedoglake")

While I'm on the subject of pernicious, profoundly un-American goodthinkforcing perpetrated by GOP brownshirts and their Vichy Democrat allies, allow me to half-heartedly thank the Senate for just barely shooting down the flag burning amendment. Call me sentimental, but I rather like mine at the front door now and then, so I was going to regret having to put it to better use as a barbecue starter on July 4th. See what you almost made me do, Dianne? posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:10:00 PM -- |    

 
Internet Explorer/Haloscan/newsrack glitch fixed
Many thanks go to Jeevan, a Haloscan administrator. For those interested, here's his explanation; for everyone else, it may be that some of my homebrewed code (the randomly chosen photos, etc.) caused the recently revised Haloscan commenting service to mishandle stuff for Internet Explorer browsers. Something like that. Anyway, thanks again, Jeevan. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 AM -- |    

 
It is as close as Rove has come to military service

Cool. Maybe no one'll notice us cut and run, then.

Spectacularly stupid Rove photochop noticed by Paperwight, who supplies suitable commentary on Ms. Malkin's fascistoid propaganda frenzy about the latest unwelcome New York Times story.*

Not that I'm one to talk about military service either -- but then again I don't think I'd have had the gall to duck it using quite the convenient line of hokum Rove did as a young lad. (So I'd be dead, and he'd be alive. Hm. Hokum works.) What clever, porky little pigs he and his followers are.



=====
* Specifically, the General Casey troop reduction story! Malkin et al just weren't clued in to the "four legs good, two legs better" course correction.

EDIT, 6/28: images side by side (less white space).
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:05:00 PM -- |    

 
BREAKING: US Support Rice Visit To Afghanistan To Wed Karzai

Oh. Never mind.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:00:00 PM -- |    

 
Remember Symbol Susan?
Some recent posts by Jim Henley about the Miami "Seas of David Cell" got to me to wondering about whatever happened with another case of the (possibly) "in over their head" crowd closer to home. In March 2004, Susan Lindauer -- a.k.a. "Symbol Susan" to the FBI -- was snared in my home town of Takoma Park, Maryland, by an investigation that ultimately charged her with working as an unregistered foreign agent, which is illegal under Title 18, section 951 of the United States Code.

The charge actually seemed oddly weak, given that Lindauer allegedly did the following:

o. On or about June 23, 2003, SUSAN LINDAUER, a/k/a “Symbol SUSAN,” met in Baltimore, Maryland, with a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) acting in an undercover capacity as a member of the Libyan intelligence service seeking to support resistance groups in post-war Iraq (the “UC”), and discussed the need for plans and foreign resources to support these groups operating within Iraq.

Naturally, this was what got a lot of attention when the arrest was made. But I should think it could have resulted in a charge of treason, or at any rate something like espionage that was considerably weightier than "failure to register as a foreign agent." The "failure to register" charge seems to better fit many of the more innocuous contacts she made with Iraqis up to then -- and it's not exactly small potatoes, either: the maximum penalty includes a ten year prison term.

But what might happen to Ms. Lindauer instead could be worse. In February, 2006 the Seattle Weekly's Rick Anderson reported there had still been no trial:

She is confined to a federal mental facility in Texas, perhaps never to get her day in court, according to friends, officials, and public records. Mostly unnoticed, a New York federal judge has found her incompetent to stand trial and ordered further evaluation. She is being held past her scheduled release date, which had been sometime early this month, and, she tells friends, might be forcibly medicated as part of her treatment.

As of today, there has still been no trial and no decision on Lindauer's fate.

The Seattle Weekly article mentions fellow Takoma Park blogger JB Fields, who came into the story by chance: he rents a room from Lindauer. Struck by several elements of this story, Fields has made it his job to keep the world informed of Lindauer's case, even though he told Anderson he's not sure she's innocent of wrongdoing: "I wonder what she really did—what evidence there might be that I don't know about. But I sure would like to see due process observed." Fields is not dismissive of the prosecution's case -- there are apparently Iraqi videotapes of Lindauer accepting money which may have done more to trigger her prosecution than the subsequent "Libyan agent" farce.

But Fields resists the psychiatric diagnosis some relatives and lawyers are trying to push. In late April, he published a March 2004 psychiatric evaluation he discovered among Lindauer's things, marked "In case I don't return," and which Ms. Lindauer had solicited after her arrest. The examining psychiatrist wrote:

Thought content was free of hallucinations, delusions, homicidality, or suicidality. She expressed confidence in an acquittal. Judgment and insight were fair. Cognition was grossly intact. [...] I do not believe there is grounds for a psychosis diagnosis. [...] In the light of the improvement in the patient’s clinical status, there does no longer appears to be a clinical reason for her to reside in a supervised setting.

The psychiatrist found a "stress-induced bout of hypomania" but prescribed nothing more than psychotherapy and actually discontinued some medication she'd been on.

Fields' and Lindauer's revelation had the hoped-for effect of throwing courtroom psychiatric testimony into doubt. Once judge Michael Mukasey -- a reasonable, conscientious guy by Fields' account -- learned about it, he held a June 3 hearing attended by Lindauer (who was held in a New York City facility by this time). However, a June 13 followup hearing was cancelled on grounds that the judge reportedly had all the information he needed, and the case remained in limbo as of this weekend. Fields had been pessimistic, writing in late May:

It's pretty clear that Susan will be returned to Carswell for medication after the hearing of the 13th. The only thing that will prevent that would be if somebody were to come forward for the funding for a private institution.

Carswell is a Bureau of Prisons facility near Fort Worth, Texas that "...provides specialized medical and mental health services to female offenders." Or, it would seem, the merely accused. Personally, I react very negatively to the thought of being held in a mental institution and medicated. Looking back over things, there seems a circularity to logic where anyone who would do all this stuff must be nuts, ergo Lindauer is delusional. Sprinkle in some flaky vibes from Lindauer, and one begins to fear for Lindauer's fate in a whole new way. Reflecting on a hearing he attended, Fields wrote:

It seemed to me there was a hunger, among the professionals testifying, for Susan to become a patient. The opinion of many, including some with direct experience in federal mental [facilities], is that if Susan gets sent to Carswell it is likely she will die there. The parallels with Martha Mitchell, during Watergate, are just numbing.

Most of Lindauer's actions seem to fit a "reach exceeding her grasp" description. She was after nothing less than single-handedly ending sanctions and then brokering a peace deal between Iraq and the U.S. in the months before the Iraq war. Sure, that sounds crazy and was a huge long shot, to put it mildly -- but she had apparently built up some Middle East and intelligence contacts, at least on a casual basis, while pursuing a theory of hers about the Pan Am 103 disaster.*

And no doubt she felt her ace in the hole was that she really was related to then White House chief of staff Andrew Card. Far from concealing her activities from anyone, she actually delivered a detailed message about her talks with Iraqis to Card as early as December, 2001 (well before the January 8, 2003 message mentioned in the indictment).** While her writing is breezy and affected, and the notion of a random citizen conducting diplomacy with Iraq is admittedly pretty far out, it doesn't strike me as flat out delusional, much less traitorous or evil.

Many of the counts of her indictment would probably stand up to jury scrutiny -- e.g., videotaped acceptance of money. Whether that rises to the level and intent of the Title 18 law cited in the indictment, I don't know, although it probably does violate executive orders listed there.

From what I can tell, Ms. Lindauer deserves her day in court, at least as opposed to being judged mentally incompetent. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to have been terrifically well served by her court-assigned defense; relevant witnesses haven't been deposed, and she doesn't seem to have trusted them enough to have given them the psychiatric information Fields found. Most importantly, the competence defense has possibly put her in worse jeopardy than criminal proceedings would have.

My feeling right now is that it would be a waste of resources if this goes to trial, let alone if she's put away for ten years. At this point, Ms. Lindauer has already spent over a year in custody as it is -- and under particularly trying circumstances, judging by what both she and Fields report about Carswell. Maybe other peoples' need for justice and protection would be served by yet more incarceration, but not mine.


=====
* This theory makes something else intriguing about the point "o." of the indictment cited above -- the word "Libyan." That's because the FBI must have been aware of Lindauer's previous cause -- her insistence that it was not Libyan intelligence that had been involved in the Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. (She believed it was the Syrians.) Thus, being approached by a "Libyan intelligence agent" must have been all but irresistible to her -- and it seems at least as likely to me she was suspicious of the agent and interested in proving him false -- as indeed he was -- as that she was actually cooperating with him (or her) in the way suggested by the indictment. Based on speaking with a former tenant, Fields says that Lindauer suspected the agent was no Libyan. Whether she knew he was a fake or not, I think for an FBI agent to pose as a "Libyan" itself verged on entrapment in Lindauer's case.
** Fields has posted a collection of Lindauer's letters to Andrew Card, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell on his blog site, including the January 2003 message to Andrew Card (page 1, 2) mentioned in the indictment. Letter dates range from 12/23/2000 to 1/22/2003; as Fields points out elsewhere, it's unknown whether all were delivered.

SELECTED "JAY'S POLITICS" LINDAUER HEARING POSTS (all 2006): February 22, April 24, May 5, May 10.
PREVIOUS "NEWSRACK" LINDAUER POSTS: Symbol Susan (March 11, 2004); Susan Lindauer update (March 22, 2004: Gazette story).

EDIT, 6/27: JB Fields, not Jay Fields; "Based on speaking" footnote sentence rearranged for clarity.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:15:00 PM -- |