Interesting fact about Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip
In February 2005, he believed the "time had come" to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which states:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

It wasn't the first time, either; Hoyer has introduced the same idea in 2001 and 2003. In 2005, he claimed the amendment would not apply to sitting president Bush, but I don't see how that would necessarily have been true -- while a speedy ratification would be unlikely, nothing in the language I've seen seems to prevent it from being in force immediately.

Even taking Hoyer's highminded arguments at face value -- he argues it would restore to the American people "an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future" -- it's hard to think of a more clueless political prescription for fighting the "unitary executive" Bush administration and its Swift Boat auxiliaries. Should the Democrats be fortunate enough to retake the House in 2006, they should think carefully about renewing Hoyer's high position in the party.

(Via jurassicpork.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:38:00 PM -- |    

 
A little comic relief
The rule of law in this country -- not to mention just about everything in Lebanon, northern Israel, and Iraq -- is going up in smoke. As is my wont, I will therefore put up a post about dumb stuff that made me laff.

Me and me mum and me dad and me gran
we're off to Waterloo

Video (link) set to the zany English soccer song Vindaloo. ENGLAND!
(Not sure who's "mum" and who's "gran" above, but I'm sure there's some eccentric explanation.)

"Who's playing?" --- ...the correct answer, in the very first comment at "Crooked Timber," to this philosophical conundrum:

Suppose that Jones has suffered an accident in the transmitter room of a television station. Electrical equipment has fallen on his arm, and we cannot rescue him without turning off the transmitter for fifteen minutes. A World Cup match is in progress, watched by many people, and it will not be over for an hour. Jones’s injury will not get any worse if we wait, but his hand has been mashed and he is receiving extremely painful shocks. Should we rescue him now or wait until the match is over?

Third answer: "Beat me to it. Also, can Jones see the screen?"

How radio hosts should deal with Ann Coulter --- Hang up on her:

COULTER: But I am really tight on time right now because I already had a —
CAROLLA: Alright, well, get lost.

Mmm, mmm, mmm --- Mmm, peach mint tea.

Leo Strauss Stiftung --- We Are Soldiers For Freedom (great sound track, too):

We provide a long term commitment to Freedom, Liberty and Democracy around the world. Our Award-Winning "Militarized Solutions Now" (tm) product has 3 components which can be customized to fit a client's need:

Build The Threat. First our world leading Agitprop Executives will conduct a needs assessment. Agitprop Executives bring years of ideological expertise to help identify or manufacture potential threats to Freedom, Liberty and Democracy. Second, our Agitprop Executives then design and orchestrate publicity campaigns to suborn Reality-Based Communities.

Our Agitprop Executives recently succeeded in transforming Abu Massad Zarqawi into a figurehead all out of proportion to his actual role. We can do the same for you.

Avert Diplomacy. Third, our Practitioner Executives in conjunction with Agitprop colleagues will identify with clients the appropriate Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) military or paramilitary solution

Candidate for a Pullet Surprise --- An Owed to the Spelling Checker:

I have a spelling checker.
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

UPDATE: this just in...
Greatest headline of the year --- Snake on a Plame


=====
NOTES: Vindaloo via Teresa Nielsen Hayden ("Making Light"); "get lost" via James Wolcott, impeachment tea via digby ("hullabaloo"); Stiftung Leo Strauss, a production of Stop The Spirit of Zossen (I don't know either), via Jim Henley. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Geneva postscript: Graham, McCain
The personalities and politics here aren't the important thing, but some comments about Senators Graham and McCain seem in order.

My impression of Graham is that he's more offended by a disorderly, ad hoc legal system he doesn't have a hand in tinkering with than by the detainee human rights abuses that system has brought about. His urge to play control games with important legislation tempted him into basically lying to the Supreme Court -- retrospectively reinterpreting a detainee habeas corpus law he agreed to with others. Graham is thus an unreliable ally at best on issues like the Haynes nomination, and downright double-dealing at worst. That can look the same way from the other side; there is speculation he's too tough on the Bush administration to suit some people in the South Carolina GOP.*

It's harder for me to understand why McCain is (at least reportedly) willing to play games with the Geneva Conventions, even allowing for his presidential ambitions. In fact, especially allowing for them: even as cold "that's politics for you," doesn't this kind of back and forth undermine the "principled maverick" schtick that's at the heart of his appeal? Shouldn't it? Can the authority to commit "outrages on personal dignity" really be good for the United States of America? It would be a very strange legacy for a former POW.


=====
* "speculation" item via reader anonymousgf. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:50:00 PM -- |    

 
U.S. to "make changes to" Geneva Conventions?
We can't, of course, not without the other signatories' consent. But what Congress can do is pass a law redefining what the United States considers the Geneva Conventions to be, and which parts we intend to abide by. The New York Times' Kate Zernicke reports ("White House Prods Congress to Curb Detainee Rights"; emphases added):

The administration has now abandoned its four-year-old claim that members of Al Qaeda are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, acknowledging that a Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago established as a matter of law that they are. Still, administration lawyers urged Congress to pass legislation that would narrowly define the rights granted to detainees under a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article Three, which guarantees legal rights "recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Meaning not us, at least judging by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

[Senator Graham] said in interviews that Common Article Three must be “reined in.” He said it would make death penalty crimes of current interrogation techniques, including keeping detainees awake and forcing them to sit in extremely hot or cold cells — methods he referred to as “things that are not torture but are aggressive.”

We wouldn't want to lose that option, would we. At that rate, the U.S. may soon be deciding "Abu Ghraib guy" was OK after all -- what's a little bit of hooding and the threat of electrocution? Aggressive, sure, but torture?

Sadly, Graham may not be the only one interested in whittling away at the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reports ("Battle Looms in Congress Over Military Tribunals") that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is working with the White House to use the military code as the framework for tribunals. That sounds good at first, as does the promise of a final bill that adheres to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions... well, almost:

The bill could adopt language crafted by McCain last year to ban torture at U.S. detention facilities that makes some changes to Common Article 3. For instance, it could drop the phrase "outrages upon personal dignity," which the administration sees as overly vague.

Since the Hamdan ruling, Common Article 3 is (once again, as it should be) the huge legal bulwark guaranteeing (alleged) terrorist or Iraqi detainee human rights. It effectively supersedes the McCain amendment because it doesn't rely on the somewhat elastic "shocks the conscience" test for what is cruel, inhumane, or degrading. For the record here, Common Article 3 states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

At "Balkinization," Lederman describes what's at stake:

The Graham/McCain/Administration initiative now being hatched thus would authorize the use of techniques that would violate the Geneva Conventions. Congress has the power to do this: Where a statute authorizes something that a treaty prohibits, the statute governs for purposes of domestic law if it was enacted subsequent to the Senate's ratification of the treaty.

But make no mistake: that would place the U.S. in violation of its treaty obligations.

We would thereby be deliberately deciding to become a rogue state. And not just for the worst of causes -- the authority to mistreat prisoners -- but to no useful purpose, and over the objections of knowledgeable military legal and combat leaders. From the New York Times article (emphases added):

“We should embrace Common Article Three and sing its praises from the rooftops,” Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former judge advocate general of the Navy who is retired, told the Armed Services Committee. “To avoid it or try to draft our way out of it is unbecoming the United States.”

We can not allow this to happen. We must make this clear to our legislators in the House and Senate: to vote for any modification of the United States' understanding of the Geneva Conventions is to endanger our own troops in the long run, and to bring shame on the United States.


=====
UPDATE, 7/13: The Center for Constitutional Rights has just released its "Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." A quick scan of the press release makes clear to anyone who doubted it that the U.S. has been violating the Geneva Conventions with these prisoners -- to put it mildly. I had not known of the allegations of rape, days long "short shackling", or months long sleep deprivation. Remember --" humane treatment has always been the standard" at Guantanamo.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Say, where is Norm?
Roundtable Interview of the President by Foreign Print Media, The Roosevelt Room, July 10, 2006:

Q Well, Mr. President, you've known Mr. Prodi for a long time, and you've known Mr. Berlusconi -- you've known both of them. And how would you assess the personal relationship that you had with Mr. Prodi and with Mr. Berlusconi? Is there a difference how comfortable would you feel with one or the other?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel very comfortable with both. The first thing that's important is I feel comfortable with the people of Italy. We've got very close ties.

And let me just take a step back. What's interesting about our country is that we've got -- we've had close ties with a lot of countries. My ranch was settled by Germans.

Q Really?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. There's a huge number of Italian Americans. A lot of Russian Americans. You know, Norm Mineta in my Cabinet is a Japanese American. In other words, so when you talk about relations with an American President, you've got to understand that there's a -- at least I have, I know my predecessors have, connections, close connections with people who have fond -- either fond memories and/or great pride in their motherland.

NEWSRACK: Really?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Hey, Norm... say, where is Norm? ...Norm?

(Via digby; crossfile under Annals of Bipartisanship) posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:41:00 PM -- |    

 
Significant Senate opposition to Haynes nomination
Following up on yesterday's post about the William Haynes II nomination, I see that Bloomberg.com's James Rowley is reporting that Haynes may not make it out of committee, and that Harry Reid is signaling a filibuster if he does:

Senate Democrats suggested they may try to block the nomination of Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes II to be a federal judge a day after 20 retired military officers expressed concern about his qualifications.

Democrats may not need to use parliamentary tactics to defeat Haynes's nomination. A Republican critic of the Bush administration's interrogation policy, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, said he wasn't satisfied with Haynes's answers today about his role in approving techniques to interrogate suspected terrorists. Graham might give Democrats enough votes to block the nomination in committee.

Democratic Leader Harry Reid said a letter from the 20 officers questioning Haynes's approval of coercive techniques to interrogate suspected terrorists "says it all'' about Haynes. Reid suggested Democrats would try to filibuster Haynes -- refusing to cut off debate and vote -- if his nomination is brought before the full Senate. (emphases added)

Although he's not on the Judiciary Committee, Senator McCain (R-AZ) has sent Haynes a letter asking about his decisions concerning prisoner treatment; as the article points out, both he and Graham (R-SC) are among the 14 senators who have entered in to an agreement to reserve filibusters to "extraordinary circumstances." Meanwhile, an AP news article notes that Judiciary chairman Senator Specter (R-PA) says he hasn't decided whether to vote for Haynes confirmation in committee -- although I'd guess that's as much about waiting for testimony and formal evidence as about his doubts about Haynes.

The AP news article also mentions that four Army JAGs have sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee supporting Haynes' nomination, arguing among other things that he was obliged to follow Yoo's 2003 OLC memo.* Former Navy JAG John Hutson, on the other hand, questions the nomination in a separate letter to the Committee, arguing "If civilian leadership of the military means anything at all, it must mean there is accountability for failures such as his." (emphasis in original)

It turns out that one hearing on Haynes nomination was already held yesterday afternoon. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) noted that Haynes previous nominations have been rushed, too, and echoed Hutson's remark:

Mr. Haynes was arguably in the strongest position of any other senior government official to sound the alarm about the likely consequences for military personnel of the views being put forward by the Justice Department, because he had the benefit of the clear and unanimous concerns voiced by the uniformed Judge Advocate General of each of the military services. Yet Mr. Haynes seems to have muted these concerns, rather than amplify them.

Leahy closed with a reference to Haynes' deceptive "no torture, no inhumane treatment" letter of June 25, 2003:

I found that letter reassuring, as did many others. Press reports suggest, though, that when Mr. Haynes sent that letter to me, the Department of Defense had recently approved many harsh interrogation techniques and had adopted a working group report presenting a flawed legal justification for cruel treatment of detainees. Indeed, press accounts suggest that as recently as late last year, Mr. Haynes helped to defeat a proposal that would have made it official Department of Defense policy that detainees be treated in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, barring cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. It is of great concern to me if Mr. Haynes made reassuring statements to Members of Congress, while pursuing a very different policy.

(Link to Jane Mayer article added.) While there's some good news in the above, the Judiciary Committee has often disappointed in the past when push came to shove. Its members and the full Senate should hear from us on this issue. You can join Human Rights First in questioning the Haynes nomination, as well as calling, writing, or e-mailing Senate Judiciary Committee members offices directly.


=====
* JAG: Judge Advocate General, high ranking military legal officer; OLC: Office of Legal Counsel, drafts Justice Department opinions on constitutional issues.
NOTES: Army JAGs support letter via Marty Lederman ("Balkinization") -- who points out they're reported to be at odds with Addington et al on executive power issues. Former Navy JAG opposition letter via ThinkProgress. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:37:00 AM -- |    

 
Mumbai, July 11

At least 139 people were killed and more than 260 injured in a series of seven coordinated bomb blasts that rocked the commuter rail network in Bombay, India's financial capital, during the evening rush hour Tuesday.

The Bombay police commissioner's office said the blasts ripped through commuter trains in Bombay between 6 and 6:30 p.m. when trains were at their busiest.

The death toll could climb further as rescuers combed through the wreckage.

Indian state television showed gruesome pictures of chaos in Bombay, also called Mumbai, with dazed and wounded people in bloodstained clothes trying to wrest others from the wreckage at several train stations under a driving monsoon rain. The city's trains carry 6.5 million commuters a day. [...]

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the Bombay bombings, which occurred in quick succession in the port city's western suburbs. But suspicion quickly focused on Muslim militants fighting New Delhi's rule of Kashmir, who have been blamed for several bomb attacks in India in the past.

New York, D.C., Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London, Amman, this, and surely more and likely worse to come. But tonight, it's families in Mumbai and India coming to grips with knowing that a mother or father, a sister or brother, or -- agony of agonies -- a child will never be coming home again. My deep, completely inadequate sympathies to all of them. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:18:00 AM -- |    

 
Srebrenica, 11 years on
Zdravko Ljubas, published at Monsters and Critics:

Mourners gathered Tuesday in the eastern Bosnian village of Potocari, near the town of Srebrenica, for the burial of 505 victims of the 1995 massacre in that town.

During a commemoration titled 'Do Not Forget!' which marked the 11th anniversary of the massacre, 505 caskets wrapped in green were laid in fresh graves next to nearly 2,000 victims of the Srebrenica massacre buried in the Potocari Memorial Centre during the last three years.

Here's my post last year on the subject. Another year on the lam for Mladic and Karadzic; basically, they're getting away with it. But Serbia? Not so much -- talks to join the European Union have ended. I guess holding on to a couple of raggedy thugs must be worth it to the whole country. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:36:00 PM -- |    

 
William Haynes II: not just no -- hell, no

URGENT UPDATE: Haynes hearings may begin tomorrow, Wednesday, July 12. Details below the post.

As general counsel to the Pentagon, William Haynes II has been an integral part of the illegal and amoral process of encouraging torture and inhumane treatment by American military personnel. His role was perhaps most clearly described by Jane Mayer in a New Yorker article ("The Memo") describing U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora's struggle to prevent such violations of everything this country ought to stand for.* As noted here earlier this year, Mayer reported that Haynes actively deceived top legal counsels to the armed services -- and even Senators -- into believing their objections were carrying the day, only to secretly approve diametrically opposite interrogation protocols:

When Haynes disavowed torture as U.S. policy in a June, 2003 letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, Mora believed he'd succeeded -- the more so as he never had the chance to formally protest the report, which he had anticipated he would have to do. As Lederman* summarizes this part of the story:

The Working Group itself, including Mora -- in whose name the Report was drafted -- were never informed that it was finalized and issued on April 4, 2003. Indeed, they were deceived by Pentagon General Counsel Haynes into believing that the Report had been scrapped after their persistent objections. But in fact, the final version of the Report -- based principally on the extreme legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel, which had aroused persistent outrage and objection from the career lawyers in the Pentagon -- was "signed out" on April 4th and "briefed" to Geoffrey Miller before he was assigned to Iraq.

Now Human Rights First is sounding the alarm that Mr. Haynes has been nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. They point out that he recommended detainees could be

...subjected to abusive interrogation techniques, including stripping them naked, depriving them of light, forcing them into stress positions, forcibly shaving them, and using dogs to intimidate them, [and] that using wet towels and dripping water to make the detainees believe they are suffocating (waterboarding) and threatening them and their families with death might be “legally available” options [...]

Mr. Haynes also played a leading role in the construction of military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo. In doing so he took the view that not even the minimum legal protections of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply to these detainees.

Human Rights First concludes:

The legal positions Mr. Haynes has promoted have undermined this nation’s historic commitment to human rights under law. His nomination sends a troubling message to people in this country and around the world.

We strongly urge the Senate to question Mr. Haynes on each of these issues. Senators should ask to review all of the memos and documents drafted by or approved by the office of the General Counsel relating to interrogation and detention policies and procedures. In particular, the Senate should ask Mr. Haynes if he believes the United States is bound to observe the Geneva Conventions. Senators also should inquire whether Mr. Haynes would uphold legal restrictions under U.S. and international law prohibiting all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

You can and should support Human Rights First's call for rigorously questioning Mr. Haynes here. Be sure to remind Senators to always follow up Haynes' answers with questions whether he's really telling them the truth this time. You never know with these guys.

I'd go further than that. I'm no legal expert, but to me Mr. Haynes is more of a candidate for a war crimes trial than for a Federal judgeship. After Hamdan, we know that standard legal reasoning still applies to detainees in United States custody, and that the -- excuse the expression -- tortured legal reasoning to think otherwise was always as far-fetched as opponents warned it was. While soldiers acting under the authority, however questionable, of such reasoning might have some protection for their acts, those who provided that specious authority definitely should not. The Nuremberg trials after World War II set the example: legal advice condoning war crimes was itself a war crime.** I'll suggest Senators ask Haynes for his views on that.

This should be no ordinary judicial nomination fight. It could be an important step towards preventing future shoddy, tendentious, please-my-boss legal reasoning like that supplied by Haynes, Yoo, Addington, or Gonzalez to make these actors pay for theirs -- if not by war crimes trials, then at least by ending their aspirations for higher judicial office.

As such, the stakes could not be higher, and Haynes' opponents should seek to block this nomination by any political means at their disposal, including filibuster. The motto, as far as I'm concerned, should be "Not just no -- hell, no." This guy's legal uniform shouldn't be judicial robes, but prison stripes.


=====
CROSSPOSTED to Daily Kos

* Marty Lederman, writing in the blog "Balkinization."
** See Phillippe Sands' October 2005 debate with John Yoo hosted by the World Affairs Council of Northern California. Sands' remarks on this score begin around 14:00 minutes into the program, when he refers to the United States vs. Josef Altstötter et al case, a.k.a. the "Judges Trial." The case also included members of the Nazi Justice Ministry.

UPDATE, 7/11: Marty Lederman raises some of the same questions -- aside from war crimes -- more expertly.
UPDATE, 7/11: Retired military officers including General Joseph Hoar (USMC, CENTCOM commander) have sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" about Haynes' nomination:

"Had Mr. Haynes been ignorant of the likely consequences of these policies, the profound errors he made could perhaps be understood. But the uniformed JAGs of each of the services clearly and repeatedly expressed their concerns about the impact these policies would have both on the reputation of the United States and on the integrity and safety of military personnel."

URGENT UPDATE, 7/11: Suddenly, the Senate Judiciary committee may be holding its first Haynes hearing tomorrow, Wednesday 7/12, folding it in with a hearing on the Hamdan ruling. CALL SENATORS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE! In addition to the HR First points (see below: US bound by Geneva Conventions? Haynes would uphold all restrictions on torture under US and international law?) I plan to mention "ask him if he's telling the truth", and "ask him about the US vs. Altstötter case." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |