Susan Lindauer is out on bail and back in Takoma Park
Lindauer's friend and renter JB ("Jays Politics") writes "Susan is home":

Judge Mukasey wrote a VERY interesting decision. I've had time to read only the first 10 pages, but hope to get through the rest of it before motorcycle safety class, this morning. It was his last day in the court room. [...]

The judge found no reason not to "enlarge" Susan, letting her return to a free on bail state.

Susan Lindauer is a resident of my home town of Takoma Park, Maryland who remains accused of working as an unregistered paid agent of a foreign government (Iraq's) in a bid to influence US foreign policy.

The case and subsequent legal process have been confusing and extremely drawn out, with much of the past year or so centered on the question of Lindauer's mental competence. Judge Mukasey finally ruled earlier this week that she could not be forcibly medicated with a view to standing trial, signalling a turning point in the case. In Wednesday's ruling, the judge reportedly held that "the importance of the government's interest seemed "significantly weaker" than in cases in which defendants were ordered to receive medication or treatment.

Ms. Lindauer is not out of the woods. From an AP report in the International Herald Tribune:

At a hearing Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen A. Miller said the government still intends to prosecute Lindauer, who could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted of charges of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in banned financial transactions. [...]

Mukasey shares doubts about Lindauer's mental state:

The judge noted in his written opinion that Lindauer cooperated initially with the examinations but became angry and uncooperative when it was suggested that she was mentally ill. [...]

The judge said experts, including the government's, had concluded Lindauer suffers from hallucinations, grandiose and persecutory delusions and mood disturbances, including purported gifts of prophecy and spiritual visitations.

He said the delusions result in endless futile requests from Lindauer that her lawyer contact witnesses who she claims would support her description of events and otherwise "follow leads that exist only in her imagination."

For more background on this blog, see "Remember Symbol Susan?", which has links to two prior posts of mine on the case. (However, I should say that for all that I've tried to follow the case, I hadn't really understood Lindauer "voluntarily agreed to spend most of the last year in custody" for psychological tests, as the latest AP report indicates. But I also don't know what her alternatives were.*) For more direct news on the case and yesterday's ruling, see JB's "JaysPolitics" blog.


=====
PREVIOUSLY, 9/8: "Symbol" Susan Lindauer case at turning point.
* UPDATE, EDIT, 9/13: Thanks for clearing this up, JB. His latest post , "Voluntarily, " in full:

Susan says that, a year ago, she was given a choice of traveling to Carswell in ten days and turning herself in voluntarily, or being escourted by Federal Marshalls immediately.

That's about as "voluntary" as a come-along hold. I'm striking out the related sentence above, and plan to complain the Associated Press about that choice of words. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:56:00 PM -- |    

 
It's hard work
Lest we forget, here's President Bush, interviewed by Katie Couric:

There – it’s – you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

"Indeed it is," replies Alex of Martini Republic, and then shows why he's better qualified for the Oval Office than its current occupant is -- the one who said on August 21 that Iraq had, and I quote,

Nothing.

...to do with the 9/11 attacks. Thank goodness we're back on the real bad guys' trail -- now that Democrats have insisted we re-establish a special team dedicated to finding Bin Laden. Steve Benen ("The Carpetbagger"):

Senators unanimously backed an amendment pushed by Democrats to add $200 million to reinstate an intelligence team dedicated to finding bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader behind the September 11 attacks.

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska blasted the amendment as a politically motivated "slam at the intelligence community," but urged fellow Republicans to go on record supporting it.

Benen adds, "it's just another example of Dems cleaning up Bush's messes."

It's hard work. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:41:00 AM -- |    

 
Astroturfer denies "macaca" defense campaign
To begin with, I want to strongly emphasize the precise title of this post. It is true, but it may imply the opposite to some -- that there is or was in fact some kind of astroturfing operation (a paid public relations campaign masquerading as an authentic grassroots campaign) defending Allen's notorious "macaca" remark of mid-August. The evidence available to me does not prove that implication -- nor does it disprove it.

However, given (1) continued questions about a comment left at this blog, (2) how widespread astroturfing has become, and (3) the particular track record of Dick Wadhams, George Allen 's campaign manager, it's legitimate to ask questions. If by doing so -- while remaining honest about the limits of my knowledge -- I help prevent (rather than discover) political astroturfing by the Allen campaign or any other campaign, I think the cause of truthful political discourse is well served.

I recently posted "Their voice. Amplified." or Why I'm banning 151.200.70.* comments" based on a comment whose contents and author I decided not to specify at the time. The commenter's IP address led to "Democracy, Data & Communications" (DD&C), a firm that turns out to be hosting a number of cookie-cutter online organizations on behalf of causes like Social Security "reform," tobacco companies, "merit shop"construction hiring, and (in 2004) directly for George W. Bush. Many of the organizations appear to forward interested parties into a Chamber of Commerce "voteforbusiness.org" central database. DD&C also has an affiliated "OnPoint Advocacy" operation, which notes on its web site:

OnPoint Advocacy understands how difficult it can be to generate the amount and quality of support you need, especially within tight timeframes or on specialized issues. That's why we often turn to the Web to help our clients quickly build high-volume support for a campaign.

Last Friday, I decided to e-mail the commenter -- who I'll continue to leave unnamed in this post -- the following question:

You recently left a comment on my blog re the George Allen "macaque/macaca" statement. (The post is "Welcome to America," George and the URL is http://[...etcetera].)

Do you work for Democracy, Data & Communications or for the related business called OnPoint Advocacy? If so, was the comment you left at my blog post part of that work? And if so, is this work paid for by Senator Allen's campaign, or is it done free of charge by DD&C?

Somewhat to my surprise, I got a reply; in reply to a second e-mail from me, I also got his permission to summarize his first response. To wit: (1) yes, he works for OnPoint, and (2) no, there was no DD&C or OnPoint campaign he was aware of on behalf of George Allen's Senate campaign or any other campaign; OnPoint (and as far as he knew, DD&C) didn't engage in candidate support activities because they're nonpartisan and want a wide client base.

Given that I might have learned (a) nothing at all, (b) he was a friend of a DD&C employee who happened to type his (paraphrasing) "macaca? big deal" comment, (c) some innocent technical explanation for the IP address I saw, or (d) some other innocent explanation I haven't thought of, I have slightly more I can report than before; hence, after some hesitation, this post.

But hence this post also because try as I might, and despite his earnest wish, I don't entirely trust Mr. Commenter. Perhaps it's a small thing, but he claimed to visit my post via a conservative blog, when he in fact visited via a Washington Post technorati list of blogs linking to an op-ed about the "macaque" incident -- a much better source for systematically trawling sites lambasting Allen's racist and indefensible remark. Also, as mentioned above, DD&C had once hosted a www.voteforgeorgewbush.com site -- partisan enough, I'd say.

What's more, George Allen's campaign manager Dick Wadhams has a history of paying for supposedly spontaneous outbursts of Internet citizenship. A Slate profile of Wadhams recalls his work for John Thune against Tom Daschle in the 2004 South Dakota Senate election:

Another way to control a campaign is to shape its news coverage, and Wadhams found a new way to do that for the Thune campaign. South Dakota Republicans had long accused the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the state's most influential paper, of being pro-Daschle. When two bloggers, Jason Van Beek and Jon Lauck, began cataloguing alleged acts of bias like lack of criticism of Linda Daschle's lobbying practice, Wadhams hired them as campaign researchers. Wadhams insists he wasn't underwriting the bloggers' online enterprises. But Van Beek and Lauck didn't disclose that the Thune campaign was cutting them checks.

Fast forward to 2006 and the imploding George Allen campaign following the "macaca" or macaque" remark. Naturally, Wadhams wanted to find the next Van Beek and Lauck to turn the tide, as HotLine reported on August 22nd ("Allen's Campaign Shifts Gears, Seeks Help"):

Burned by a blog-induced firestorm over an an off-hand comment at a campaign rally, Sen. George Allen's campaign is seeking a conservative blog maven who can blunt future attacks and help rally conservatives in the state and elsewhere behind Allen's campaign.

But the going was a little tougher. Similar to what happened in the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair, not just lefty bloggers but conservative bloggers were turned off by Allen's "macaca/macaque" remark. An August 27 straw poll at conservative supersite RedState revealed in black and white what Wadhams might have already known after the tenth phone call or e-mail a week earlier: Allen was radioactive. RedState's "machiavel":

The Macaca incident has clearly devastated Allen’s numbers in the blogosphere, his stronghold. He used to have sky-high favorability, largely because he hadn’t done anything to offend anyone. He also used to run first or second (tangling with Giuliani) with 20% to 30% in polls like this. Once undefined, he has now been defined in a hugely negative way, dropping to fourth with 11.5% support.

Assuming Wadhams continues to see the Internet as a crucial battleground, and with conservative bloggers thus out of the picture for the moment, one of his few options would be to influence comments, which can be anonymous or essentially so. Now Allen made his infamous remark on August 12, and my post about it was posted on the 15th. So that's all earlier than the HotLine or RedState items I've cited. On the other hand, it didn't take a genius to see how bad the incident was. And if I can recall the Lott/Thurmond story, so can Wadhams.

For what it's worth, I've actually checked some of the Allen campaign's financial reports* -- the disbursement sections come at the end of long, long .PDF files -- and found nothing paid out to DD&C or OnPoint Advocacy, at least. Of course, (a) I may have missed something, and (b) the latest one was in July, so that doesn't prove much either. I'll be back for the next set.

It would also seem like a "newbie" mistake to not mask one's IP address by working from home or by more technical means. On the other hand, I would have been unlikely to figure out anything about the visit were my blog more popular: standard issue sitemeters like mine only keep detailed records of the last hundred visits -- a satisfactory day's worth of traffic for me, but something that sites like TPMCafe, Instapundit, or other bigfoot blogs see in a matter of a few minutes.

So nothing is proven -- other than that someone identifying himself as an OnPoint Advocacy employee left a comment minimizing Allen's "macaca" remark on this blog. By itself, that's no campaign. But given Wadhams, DD&C, and OnPoint, the "Occam's Razor" simplest explanation still teeters right on the knife edge between "astroturf shill" and "websurfing on lunch break."

While nothing is proven, questions are appropriate. Here are some:

1. To OnPoint Advocacy and DD&C: are you employing people to comment on blogs and elsewhere in support of political candidates, or have you ever done so? If so, which ones? And if so, will they identify themselves or have they identified themselves as paid employees of an organization hired by a political campaign?
   
   
2. To the blogosphere: do you think there's evidence of increased "troll" activity on behalf of George Allen?
   
   
3. To Dick Wadhams: are you employing people to blog or comment on blogs and elsewhere in support of George Allen, or have you ever done so? If so, will they identify themselves or have they always identified themselves as paid employees of the George Allen Senate campaign?
   
   
4. To George Allen: can you promise not to hire shills to support you in online discussions of your "macaca" remark or other aspects of your Senate campaign?
   

=====
* FEC Friends of George Allen campaign committee report page: April (amended), July 2006 quarterly reports (PDF; large). No time yet to look at the George Allen Victory Committee (last filing in April 2006). Interestingly, the George Allen for President Draft Committee has drawn an FEC "Notice of Failure to File" for the second quarter of 2006.

NOTES: (1) RedState item via Raising Kaine diarist "Rob". (2) DD&C is also associated with a relatively small PAC, which has given $1500 to Republican candidates in the 2006 cycle: Michael Steele (R-MD) and John Ensign (R-NV).
EDIT, 9/14: added "or have you ever done so" and related modifications of questions.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:21:00 AM -- |    

 
I knew it, I just knew it
Immigration arrests 15 aliens in Roswell working for U.S. military contractor

Via Avedon Carol. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:09:00 PM -- |    

 
My new lawn sign
Just got this in the mail from the Ida Ruben campaign, and it's turned me around 200%!


Actually, Bush is saying "Thanks, Jamie!" underneath my doctoring. Ruben's coming back for a second bite of the "not a real Democrat" apple she tried out a month ago. See the Raskin campaign site or this post of mine for a discussion of Raskin's legal work on behalf of 3rd parties and free speech. That's apparently too democratic for the Ruben campaign.

UPDATE: Jamie Raskin interview on Kojo Nnamde's show on WAMU. posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:01:00 PM -- |    

 
"Symbol" Susan Lindauer case at turning point
Takoma Park resident Susan Lindauer was arrested in March, 2004 and charged with acting as a paid Iraqi agent code named "Symbol Susan" by the FBI. Initially out on bail, questions about her mental competency were raised by the defense -- perversely resulting in her seemingly interminable reincarceration pending the resolution of mental evaluations and, eventually, a New York judge's ruling on the government's demand she be medicated in order to stand trial.

On Wednesday the government lost that argument. From an AP report via the International Herald Tribune:

A judge dealt a severe setback to the government's case against a one-time journalist and congressional aide accused of becoming a paid Iraqi intelligence agent when he ruled she cannot be forced to take medication to control delusions of grandiosity and paranoia.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey on Wednesday also criticized the strength of the case against Susan Lindauer. He rejected the government's request that it be permitted to administer drugs to try to make her competent to stand trial.

Lindauer had seemed to fall into a disturbing, nearly Gitmo-like legal limbo once the mental competency issues were raised:

Although Lindauer initially was free on $500,000 bail, she has remained jailed for most of the last year as she has undergone the psychological examinations and faced determinations over her competency for trial.

Lindauer has always disputed that she was mentally incompetent or psychologically disturbed. Earlier this year she produced a psychiatric evaluation done in 2004 shortly after her arrest, while she was still free on bail, that bore out her view -- as did, arguably, her foresight in arranging that evaluation. (See "Remember Symbol Susan?", 6/26/06, on this blog.) While this may have helped her in yesterday's ruling, it seems that Mukasey's concern was mainly that the government's charges weren't strong enough to warrant the drastic step of involuntary medication:

[Judge Mukasey] said the importance of the government's interest seemed "significantly weaker" than in cases in which defendants were ordered to receive medication or treatment.

"It would be a denial of reality ... to find otherwise," he said, adding that he doubted whether the proposed medication would succeed.

Lindauer's lawyer Sanford Talkin was pleased with the "just result," but was reportedly uncertain where the case would go next. Lindauer's friend and renter JB Fields, who has followed the case closely on his blog, reports there will be another hearing of the case in New York this morning at 11:30.

While I'm hoping for dismissal or maybe a guilty, time served verdict, or at least a trial on the merits, it seems likeliest to me that Mukasey believes Lindauer is incompetent after all - she just can't be medicated for it to stand trial:

The judge said even the government's psychiatrist had testified that Susan Lindauer, who is in her 40s, suffers from hallucinations, grandiose and persecutory delusions and mood disturbances that may be traced as far back as age 7, including purported gifts of prophecy and spiritual visitations.

On the other hand, maybe he's saying these don't rise to the level of outright mental incompetence. It seems to me like you could hardly accuse Lindauer of "persecutory delusions" at this point -- sometimes they really are out to get you. JB seems hopeful, at least; we'll see.


=====
EDIT, 9/8: "mainly" for "also".
UPDATE, 9/9: JB says Lindauer is out on bail, and is back in Takoma Park. JB also says Mukasey's decision is very interesting. No doubt! I guess this will go to trial now (otherwise, why bail?) but I'll wait to read more. Congratulations to her on finally getting back out in the world and on this case finally moving forward again. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:01:00 AM -- |    

 
DarfurIsDying.org: Water foraging

You are a Darfurian refugee who must forage for water to bring back to your camp.

You risk being attacked and possibly killed by Janjaweed militias when you leave the confines of your camp, but you must do it, in order to provide water for your community.

Navigate by using the arrow keys to move and the space bar to hide.

START

Go ahead, start. It's just an online game. You won't have to do anything afterwards if you don't want to.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:32:00 PM -- |    

 
George H. Ryan

...WHEREAS, since the reestablishment of the death penalty in Illinois in 1977, there have been persistent problems in the administration of the death penalty as illustrated by the thirteen individuals on death row who have had their death sentences and convictions vacated by the courts [...]

WHEREAS, in discharging my constitutional obligations to the death penalty, I have the awesome responsibility, and last opportunity, to review a death penalty case before the sentence is carried out...

THEREFORE, I, George H. Ryan order the following...

With those words in May, 2000, Illinois governor George Ryan -- a death penalty supporter -- set in motion a remarkable train of events culminating in a moratorium on that state's death penalty, the commutation of all pending death sentences, and a superb commission report that called into question capital punishment itself.

Today, ABC's Mike Robinson reports Ex-Ill. Gov. Gets 6 1/2 Years for Graft:

Former Gov. George Ryan, who was acclaimed by capital punishment foes for suspending executions in Illinois and emptying out death row, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison Wednesday in the corruption scandal that ended his political career.

'People of this state expected better, and I let them down,' the 72-year-old Ryan said in court before hearing his sentence.

The sentence is harsh, but probably correct. I just hope it's commuted before it threatens to become a life sentence.

Flawed people who do wrong in one facet of their lives can still be deeply principled in another. Ryan is guilty of a serious crime, but he would have no part in executing an innocent or unfairly convicted man, or administering a system capable of that. He would not, as it were, just mockingly say "please don't kill me" when asked what he thought a death row inmate was thinking. I hope Ryan's death penalty moratorium and the report his commission authored remain consequential long after the effects of his misdeeds ebb away.

That commission report proposed a number of reforms to the Illinois death penalty process but also recommended, if only by a narrow majority, that the death penalty be abolished. Despite that narrow majority, there was a telling sentence in the conclusion of the April, 2002 Report of the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment:

The Commission was unanimous in the belief that no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever be devised or constructed that would work perfectly and guarantee absolutely that no innocent person is ever again sentenced to death.

(Emphasis added.) Is the judicial death of one innocent person too high a price to pay for having the death penalty at our disposal? Let George Ryan's continuing legacy be that this, the central question of capital punishment, was squarely faced and fairly, if narrowly, answered with: yes.


=====
NOTES: The famous author and lawyer Scott Turow ("Presumed Innocent", etc.) was a member of the commission, and afterwards wrote Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty, a brief, lucid account of the commission's work and his own views. Amnesty International devotes a web page to the Illinois commission, "Too Flawed To Fix: Time for Courage on the Death Penalty." I've summarized my own views in "How to never execute an innocent person." The Innocence Project at Yeshiva University, the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, and the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, DC are among many groups working on the death penalty issue who deserve your attention and support.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:24:00 PM -- |    

 
"Politics Potluck" - neighbors for democracy and fun
The Maryland September 12 primary is a particularly overwhelming election in my town, with eighteen(!) Democratic Senate candidates, seven state assembly district candidates, thirteen Democratic county council at large candidates, and scores of other races as well.

Some of my neighbors (Suzanna, Peter, Jim, and Jane) and my wife and I decided we'd weren't going to risk wondering "who's that?" in the ballot booth, and would get our neighbors' help in figuring out the upcoming election. So we flyered our immediate neighborhood with an announcement for a "Politics Potluck", to be held Labor Day afternoon on a cul-de-sac near our house. Neighbors were invited to bring dishes and their political knowledge -- takes on issues, candidates, and controversies -- to share with everyone else.

Unfortunately, it drizzled. Fortunately, that didn't stop us. We just strung a bunch of tarps from trees, bushes, and a basketball goal, and proceeded as planned.

I think it was a big success. A couple of us spoke about races and/or issues, but the main thing was that there was a lot of discussion, both in small groups and then as a whole, with people clarifying points about candidates, recounting telling anecdotes, and generally participating in a pretty good discussion. I've come away feeling like I have a much better handle on the Senate race and county council races in particular, and I think other people learned a lot as well. I also met quite a few neighbors I hadn't really met before -- I can be a terrible stay-at-home.

Names emerging from the fog of county politics for me were Duchy Trachtenberg (quoted to the effect "you can't build your way out of traffic problems") and Mark Elrich; in the delegate race, Lucinda Lessley got mentions by several people besides me, and one issue about Heather Mizeur got cleared up, at least to my satisfaction: her move to a new house was not done expecting to lose a council seat as a result.* Mfume and Cardin both had defenders and detractors. I'd gladly vote for either one over Steele.

While it's not comprehensive by any means, here are some good resources to consult in getting to know Democratic District 20 and Montgomery County candidates:

• The Washington Post's Local Elections 2006 puts Montgomery County side by side with other Maryland counties. The result is more condensed than the next two items, so it's a good way to start, but might not be the best item to choose by itself. Statewide races are handled separately, with Senate, House, State Senate, and State House listings.
• Takoma Voice Voter's Guide 2006 -- the Voice asked questions of each candidate and publishes the answers here. There are also links to online broadcasts of the 7/20 Raskin-Ruben debate, the 6/15 District 20 delegates forum, and the District 5 Ervin-Riemer forum.
• Gazette.net 2006 Voter's Guide -- also a survey of candidates, along with biographical information.**
• League of Women Voters Voter Guide
• Action Committee For Transit (ACT): Where the candidates stand on the Purple Line and other transit issues (PDF file)
• ICC scorecard by MICC; unfortunately, it's old (ca. 2002-4?) so many current candidates aren't included.
  

Good news and op-ed articles:

• COUNTY COUNCIL: Democratic Free For All in At Large County Council Race, Mary Vause, Potomac Almanac; Riemer and Ervin offer similar vision, Graham Taglang, Takoma Voice
• SCHOOL BOARD: Five Compete in At Large School Board Primary, Mary Vause, Potomac Almanac
• PURPLE LINE, TRANSIT: Candidates walk the line over transit, Meredith Hooker, The Gazette (Purple Line route)
  
• ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Gansler's Vision - pro-Gansler op-ed, Washington Post; Attorney General - pro-Simms op-ed, Baltimore Sun.
• COUNTY EXECUTIVE: Fundraising skills a blessing and a burden, Is Leggett just too likable?-- Steve Silverman and Ike Leggett profiles, Washington Post.
  
• U.S. SENATE:CARDIN, MFUME: Democratic Senate candidates running neck and neck (WJZ, 8/24); For MD's Cardin, the delight is in the details (Washington Post profile); Telling of Life Story Enlivens Mfume's Campaign (WaPo); Mfume, Cardin stress contrasts in TV debate
  
  OTHERS: Washington Post profiles on Josh Rales, Allan Lichtman; Dennis Rasmussen's web site. Lichtman's Letter from the Baltimore County Jail may suffer from an overdrawn title, but his points about being excluded from a publicly funded debate are worth considering. See also HotLine's Who Judges "Significant" Candidates? and segments on WAMU's Kojo Nnamde Show on 9/6 and 9/7.

This resource list may be updated periodically over the next week.


PREVIOUS MARYLAND PRIMARY ELECTION POSTS on this blog:

• June Maryland Assembly District 20 candidate forum
• District 20 candidates on Fair Share Health Care: Murray, Klein, Lessley, Nixon, Raskin, and Ruben respond to my question about what the legislature should do next after a court decision striking down this good law.
• Jamie Raskin for Maryland Senate: i.e., my endorsement
• The July 20 Raskin-Ruben debate
• Raskin, Ruben, and "real Democrats": about cases Raskin worked on, and Ruben's charge he therefore wasn't a "real" Democrat.
• Maryland election dates -- minus early voting, for now
• District 20 update (8/21/2006), including my delegate picks
  

=====
* Here's a Gazette article about it. UPDATE, 9/6 (thanks Chris!): Commenter "Jeff" tells Mizeur's side at MoCoPolitics. Scroll down to the 5:48pm comment, or find "Heather desperately wanted to finish her term":

...Nor was there anyone---including other members of the Council---who thought it would bar her from finishing her term.

It was the city attorney who reviewed the charter and found that Heather had to relenquish her seat.
So she gave up the title, but not the work. Those of us who were there watched Heather bend over backwards to finish every shred of Council business on her plate. She trained her replacement, continued to work on a number of issues with the County, and never once missed a meeting...even after she had been stripped of her title.

** The Gazette assured readers that while "the biographical information was edited for Gazette style, The Gazette did not edit or alter the candidate's responses to our questions for anything other than obscenity or libel." :)

UPDATE, EDIT, 9/5: Reorganized resource list news items by theme, added links (thanks Suzanna, Jim); added brief descriptions of my own posts.
UPDATE, 9/5: Welcome, PEN list! Your comments and resource suggestions are very welcome, use the [#] comment[s] link below.
UPDATE, 9/6: Links to additional Senate candidates and debate controversy added.
UPDATE, 9/8: ICC scorecard added, although it's old. Thanks to PEN list commenter Greg Smith for pointing out that the ACT survey ignores the ICC issue -- a weakness, since the ICC may well drain away funds needed for the Purple Line.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:36:00 PM -- |    

 
Bush dumpster dives, renominates William Haynes II
Remember William Haynes II? Why should you -- I'd nearly succeeded in forgetting about him myself. The Pentagon general counsel was a key player in setting and enabling Bush administration detainee interrogation (read: torture) policy. No mere medal for him like the ones Tenet and Bremer got: Haynes' actions -- which may someday merit a war crimes trial, if U.S. v. Josef Altstötter et al is any guide -- instead got him a nomination to the federal bench.

But Haynes was a waterboard too far for the Senate this summer: Democrats threatened a filibuster, and a South Carolina newspaper reported that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had signaled he wouldn't support him within the Judiciary Committee, effectively squelching Haynes' nomination. At the time, I was guardedly optimistic, but was struck by how no one but MyrtleBeachOnline.com was reporting the story:

It may be that the quietness of the news was important to both the White House, Graham, and other players -- and it may be that the nomination can be quietly reactivated.

Bingo! Now it seems he will be -- and what's more, as a rallying cry for the Republican base in the upcoming election. On Wednesday the AP's Deb Riechmann reported ("Bush Nominates 5 as Appeals Court Judges," via the Washington Post):

A White House statement said Bush was nominating Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

Why does the Senate have to reconsider Haynes?

Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, which supports judges with conservative judicial philosophies, said the announcement is Bush's way of saying that he expects the Senate to act on judges in September, and that he does not want to give Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist any room to do otherwise.

The White House is telling Frist, who appeared with Bush at the fundraiser, and North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the leader of the Republican campaign committee for the Senate, that "that if they lose a single Senate seat for not exciting GOP supporters to the polls, the fault lies with them and not with the president's team," Miranda said.

"This shows that (Bush's chief political adviser) Karl Rove is on the ball and wants judges back on the front burner in the Senate."

Assuming Miranda's right, this development isn't because Lindsey Graham has caved on anything (yet?), but simply because Majority Leader Bill Frist is equal parts a toady for and a fellow ideologue of the White House. For their part, Rove et al apparently have nothing left but to double down on people like Haynes; on the other hand, feeding their rabid base and shooting for 51% victories has always been standard operating procedure for them. Moreover, this may be how they succeed in making a certain kind of scared American feel safe and protected.

While Riechmann notes that Haynes has made some regretful noises for some of his past actions, one should bear in mind this is the man who, in 2003, basically lied point blank to Senator Patrick Leahy about administration torture policy, in a a June 25, 2003 letter assuring Senator Leahy the Pentagon was not engaging in torture or inhumane treatment. As Leahy said in Haynes July 11 nomination hearing:

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.*

It would be beyond pitiful for the Senate to approve such a candidate to the bench, and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has "not taken a filibuster off the table," according to Riechmann, who also reports Reid spokesman Jim Manley's summation:

We have a limited number of legislative days left before Congress adjourns for the year and much to do, but instead of working with Democrats on issues important to the American people, the president has, once again, chosen confrontation over cooperation with these extremely divisive nominations.

Sure, it's not just us fighting the same battles over and over again -- Rove, Cheney, and Bush are, too. But with so much more urgent business at hand, it's a little discouraging to find ourselves once again merely hoping to stave off the worst. I hope Reid and other leading Democrats continue to hit back about just how empty and shameful a game the Bush administration is playing when the country really can't afford that any longer.

Haynes nomination is likely to be considered at a "Judicial Nominations" hearing scheduled for this Wednesday, September 6 at 2:00pm in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Contact your Senators now, especially if they're on the Judiciary Committee.


=====
* Link is to the February 2006 New Yorker article "The Memo," by Jane Mayer.

NOTE: Thanks, Nell, for telling me about this and oneCrankyDom's DailyKos diary on the Haynes renomination.
PREVIOUSLY on William Haynes II:

• Alberto J. Mora, American hero
• William Haynes II: not just no -- hell, no
• Significant Senate opposition to Haynes nomination
• MyrtleBeachOnline: William Haynes is out

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:40:00 AM -- |