Plame testifies before Congress

As I mentioned a few days ago, Valerie Plame is testifying before Congress today, as Democrats try to keep the Plame scandal going as long as possible now that the Lewis Libby trial is over. It's a transparent political move, but at the same time it's the first time we've got Plame under oath, so we may get some good questions and answers that we should have gotten long ago.

For now, two links: the AP story on the hearing and a transcript of the opening remarks.

The most notable statements so far:

1. Plame categorically denied having anything to do with sending her husband to Niger, saying "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority."

2. She repeatedly described herself as a "covert operative," saying she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret CIA missions. But she says she doesn't know if she was covert in a legal sense. She also says that shouldn't have mattered -- that White House officials, realizing she worked for the CIA, should have checked before discussing her with the press.

More assertive is the statement Rep. Henry Waxman made in opening the session. The relevant quote from the transcript:

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Got that? The CIA is saying (by clearing the comment with Waxman) that the fact Plame worked for the CIA was a secret, and thus White House officials revealed classified information.

Republican Tom Davis admits as much in his remarks:

Let me state at the outset that the outing of Mrs. Wilson's identity was wrong. And we have every right to look at this and investigate it.

His argument, though, is that nobody at the White House knew Plame's identity was classified because the CIA didn't make it clear that it was.

No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified, just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of information that no one ever said was protected. So this looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem. If the agency doesn't take sufficient precautions to protect the identity of those who engage in covert work, no one else can do it for them.

True enough. But that doesn't address Plame's argument: That the simple fact she worked at the CIA should have served as a red flag. A prudent administration would have checked with the agency before discussing any CIA employee with the press.

Davis is arguing what the White House knew; Plame is arguing what the White House should have known.

It's hard to disagree with either of them, given the facts we know at the moment. That's why it's highly probable no crime was committed, even while the administration is properly flagellated for being careless with Plame's identity.

More updates as events warrant.

Update: Another witness testified about the Bush administration's lac, of curiosity about the leak, despite promises to the contrary:

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame....

Knodell said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.

Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.

Knodell said he had "no" conversations whatsoever with the president, vice president, Karl Rove or anyone about the leak.

Hmm. The administration promised to investigate itself and then didn't. I'm shocked, I tell you; shocked.

Update II: The video of Plame's testimony.

CIA, Plame, politics, midtopia

Showdown over Iraq? Not this time

The House is racing toward a vote on a bill that would require U.S. troops to leave Iraq by mid-2008. And while Bush is using his bully pulpit to try to forestall that, passage is nearly certain.

The Senate is a different matter, because Democrats have been unable to muster the 60 votes needed for passage. And until it does, nothing changes.

Even if both houses of Congress passed such a bill, the president would almost certainly veto it. So this particular battle appears destined to end not with a bang but with a whimper.

So the battle now shifts to a different front: what restrictions, if any, to place on Bush's latest funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's a different fight in two respects. With the Iraq war resolutions, Congress needed to muster positive action to oppose Bush. With the funding bills, Bush is the one who needs positive action to get the money he wants. So Congressional Democrats have as much leverage as they could want, and the power of the Republican Senate minority to block action is mostly irrelevant.

But that's only if Democrats dare use that leverage. Because the second difference is that any move to cut or restrict funding, unless handled very carefully, could be painted as cutting the legs out from under our troops in the field. Indeed, that could be an actual unintended consequence, not just partisan Republican spin.

So we will now be treated to the sight of Congress trying to use the rather blunt instrument of its funding power to coerce relatively nuanced changes in our Iraq policy.

They could achieve the nuance pretty easily with narrowly crafted amendments, but those amendments would have to get by the Senate Republicans, and then they might face constitutional challenges.

In fact, consider this scenario: A bill passes and the administration challenges the amendments in court. That ties up the funding request until the challenge is resolved. But nobody wants to be seen as treating the troops' welfare as a political football, so Republicans force the Democrats to strip out the offending amendments and pass a "clean" funding bill while the amendments undergo court review.

I await with great curiosity what the Democrats will come up with.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

Dogpile on Fredo!

Body blow! Body blow! Body blow! How long can Alberto Gonzales remain standing?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved subpoenas in its probe into the firing of eight federal prosecutors, just in case it's necessary to get the prosecutors and several current and former Gonzales aides to testify. Although Gonzales has said his aides will testify voluntarily, a subpoena will probably be needed for at least one witness: Kyle Sampson, who until last week was Gonzales' chief aide.

Meanwhile, a second Republican Senator, Gordon Smith of Oregon, has joined John Sununu in calling for the AG's ouster. And A Republican House member, as yet unidentified, apparently also intends to call for him to step down.

The root of this case is less about the motivation behind the firings and more about how it was communicated to Congress -- as well as Gonzales' denials that the White House was involved. Thus the emergence of e-mails showing Karl Rove was involved in the discussion both paints Gonzales as a liar and has partisans salivating at the possibility of finally nailing Bush's Brain.

A midday e-mail between two White House staffers, dated Jan. 6, 2005, was titled, "Question from Karl Rove."

"Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting), `How we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.,'" Colin Newman, a legal aide in the White House counsel's office, wrote deputy counsel David Leitch.

This doesn't indicate Rove was involved in deciding who to fire, but it does show he was in the loop. And the reply from Sampson (to whom Leitch forwarded the e-mail) shows that political loyalty was a factor in the deliberations.

"Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago," Sampson wrote, referring to Gonzales, a former Texas state Supreme Court justice. He said the Justice Department was looking at replacing "underperforming" prosecutors. "The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.," he said.

Now, was it a big factor, or was Sampson merely trying to put the best spin on things for Bush's political advisor? We don't know. But again, these e-mails undermine Gonzales' assertions to Congress -- and Congress doesn't like being lied to.

The Senate may end up subpoenaing Rove, though they've put off a decision until Marc 22.

Finally and most explosively, yet a third Gonzales scandal may be rearing its head. The National Journal, citing government records and anonymous officials, says Gonzales advised Bush to shut down a Justice Department probe into the NSA eavesdropping program -- even after learning that he would likely be a subject of the inquiry (here's what I wrote about it back in May, when the probe was killed).

The tactic used to block the probe -- denying security clearances to the investigators involved -- was unusual to begin with. Now add in the spectre of Gonzales the AG urging Bush to derail an inquiry that would have looked into the actions of Gonzales the White House counsel.

The National Journal notes the no-win nature of this problem:

Current and former Justice Department officials, as well as experts in legal ethics, question the propriety of Gonzales's continuing to advise Bush about the investigation after learning that it might examine his own actions. The attorney general, they say, was remiss if he did not disclose that information to the president. But if Gonzales did inform Bush about the possibility and the president responded by stymieing the probe, that would raise even more-serious questions as to whether Bush acted to protect Gonzales, they said.

Either way, Gonzales is screwed. If he didn't tell Bush, he's toast. If he did tell Bush, he's still toast, because he'll be thrown overboard to protect the president.

The only path that saves him is if he can claim, without being contradicted, that he did not advise Bush about the probe. That path remains open for now: the National Journal relies on anonymous sources to make the advisory claim, and that hardly constitutes proof.

But even if he avoids that trap, the timing of the decision to end the probe was interesting. The Journal -- again citing anonymous sources -- says the decision came after investigators had notified the administration of their investigative strategy, which involved questioning some senior Justice Department lawyers who had clashed with Gonzales over the NSA program when he was White House counsel. The Journal describes worries among political appointees that investigators might conclude the administration had deliberately sidestepped the law.

Then there's this gem:

In a March 21, 2006, memo citing his inability to obtain security clearances, Jarrett, the head of OPR, wrote to Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, complaining that OPR was being "precluded from performing its duties."

In contrast, Jarrett noted, the administration promptly approved "the Criminal Division's request for the same security clearances for a large team of attorneys and FBI agents that was investigating who initially leaked details of the NSA eavesdropping program to The New York Times."

Security clearances for investigations the White House likes? No problem. Security clearances for investigations it doesn't like? Forget it.

In response to the National Journal story, the House Judiciary Committee is demanding answers from Gonzales.

The dogs smell blood.

Update: I'm not saying this is really significant, but I find it interesting that a site like Right Wing Nuthouse puts up a fairly standard "this is a made-up scandal" post -- and for the most part the only commenters are people who vehemently disagree with him. A couple of posters show up to take half-hearted swipes at liberals -- but nobody defends Gonzales.

ethics, NSA, Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Found: WW II tank. Slight water damage.

Even if you're not a military history buff, this is pretty cool.

A World War II T-34/76 tank, captured, repainted and used by the Germans, was driven into an Estonian lake and abandoned by the retreating German army in 1944. A local boy later saw tank tracks leading into the lake, and suspected a tank might be in there. More than 50 years later, he finally mentioned it to the local historical society, which located the tank under 20 feet of water and 8 feet of peat, and then arranged to pull it out. Contrary to expectation, and apparently thanks to being buried in peat, the tank was in excellent condition -- no rust, fully armed and nearly fully functional. The story claims the salvagers were able to start the engine after making some minor repairs.

As an amusing aside, I love the technical obsessiveness with which the article describes the tractor that did the pulling -- noting such details as when it was built and that it had "19,000 operating hours without major repairs."

cool links, World War II, history, politics, midtopia

Russian billionaire plans assault on marriage

Another example of heterosexuals doing a fine job of destroying respect for marriage without any help from the dreaded Gay Marriage Mafia.

Russian billionaire playboy Mikhail Prokhorov is planning to hold a $10 million wedding party on Maldives to win a bet that he would get married before the age of 42, Russian tabloid Tvoi Den (Your Day) has reported.

Prokhorov, a top executive and co-owner of the mining giant Norilsk Nickel is said to be preparing a huge party to mark his 42nd birthday. The party will take place on two islands in the Maldives archipelago, about 700 guests are expected and the budget of the event tops $10 million. At the same time, the billionaire plans to get married, but only for five days — just to win a bet. The name of Prokhorov’s bride was not disclosed and the paper reported that the place was still vacant.

There's a joke in there somewhere about a Russian swell with a swelled head doing a swell job of undermining marriage....

Update: Prokhorov -- or, rather, his company -- denies the reports.

Russia, marriage, politics, midtopia

Taxation now, representation pending

Congress is moving forward on a bill to give Washington, D.C., residents a full voting representative in the House.

As a compromise for adding a representative from the heavily Democratic District, the bill would also grant an additional seat to to Utah, a Republican state that is next in line to get a seat thanks to its growing population. Thus, the House would increase i size from 435 to 437 members.

The bill has a dubious future. It will likely pass the House, but it remains to be seen if it can get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. And Bush may veto it. If it does become law, it will almost certainly face legal challenges.

On the one hand, it's a matter of simple fairness to give D.C. residents representation in Congress, just like any other citizen. Right now they have a non-voting delegate, like other federal territories. But unlike those territories, they are part of the United States and thus deserve more rights.

On the other hand, it's not at all clear that representation can be achieved by simple statute. The Constitution seems to limit representation to the States, because Article I, Section 2 states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.... Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers."

On the third hand, D.C. residents are subject to direct taxes, which may imply that the phrases I quoted are not restrictive -- i.e., Congress can extend representation to geographic entities other than states. Then there's the power described under Section 8, which established the legal foundation for the District of Columbia and gave Congress full authority over it -- including, proponents argue, the authority to give it Congressional representation.

Me, I think that argument is suspect. It took the 23rd Amendment to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Presidential elections. Perhaps that was a case of "better safe than sorry", but if it took an amendment to do that, it would seem to require another amendment to give them full representation in Congress. And given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't give the bill good odds of surviving Constitutional review.

But at least it's continuing the conversation, and if this route is blocked the next step would be to propose such an amendment -- a time-consuming measure that wouldn't gather serious steam until after the 2008 election. Which is just as well. Democrats can dream of having a wider majority in Congress and perhaps control of the White House by then, which would make getting the amendment through Congress that much easier. After that it would be in the hands of the states, and would probably take years to either pass or die.

Is this the most crucial issue facing the nation? No. But it's kind of important to D.C. residents. I can understand people opposing this particular bill on constitutional grounds; but I can't imagine them opposing the general principle on anything other than partisan political grounds. Basic fairness and equal representation says it's the right thing to do. So if Congress members or the White House don't like this bill, they should signal their support for a Constitutional amendment to achieve the same end.

voting, D.C., politics, midtopia

The Gonzales hits keep coming

One sign of Alberto Gonzales' isolation is the lack of support he's getting from Republicans in the prosecutor scandal.

Sam Brownback stood up for him, but not in this specific case, saying only that "the attorney general has overall done a good job." But Sen. Lisa Murkowski said her confidence in him was "shaken" and "waning." Trent Lott declined to comment. Gordon Smith said "I think I share the feelings of many Republican senators of profound disappointment".

It gets worse.

Gonzales has said he was unaware of the White House connections to the firings. Charles Schumer called that a "sorry excuse," indicating either that Gonzales was lying or has some serious management issues.

the conservative Captain Ed agrees.

Gonzales testified to Congress that the White House had no involvement in the firings of eight US Attorneys, but a series of memos and e-mails show that his aide planned the terminations with senior White House staff....

That's pretty weak tea, and Gonzales should know it. When an AG makes statements to Congress, by testimony or official correspondence, as affirmative as his statements on the involvement of the White House were, Congress has a right to expect that the AG has explicitly determined the truth of those statements. Otherwise, the proper form would be to state that he has no knowledge of whatever is at issue.

One of two things must be true: either Gonzales knew of the coordination between Harriet Miers and and his aide Kyle Sampson, or he knew nothing. If the former is true, then he deliberately misled Congress. If the latter is true, then Gonzales has serious issues in management skills, and the White House must know it -- because Miers then deliberately bypassed Gonzales.

Neither option holds much benefit for Gonzales. If he knew nothing, then he didn't do much to determine the truth before making representations to Congress on the dismissals. If he did know about the work Sampson and Miers did for most of two years on preparing these dismissals, then Gonzales has opened himself to a contempt charge from Congress. Gonzales has to paint himself a fool rather than a liar in order to salvage his political standing.

It's a strange, strange day when conservatives sound like Chuck Schumer. And a bad sign for Gonzales.

Update: Sen John Sununu becomes the first Republican to call for Gonzales' resignation.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Simpson on "don't ask, don't tell"

Veteran and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson thinks "don't ask, don't tell should be scrapped.

He mentions the jaw-droppingly stupid decision to fire more than 300 language experts -- including 50 who were fluent in Arabic -- merely because they were gay. Much was written about this back in 2002; a few stories are here and here.

He also notes that societal attitudes have shifted, with 91 percent of young adults (those between 18 and 29) saying gays should be allowed to serve openly, and 75 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan vets saying they were fine working with gays.

He says 24 other countries allow gays to serve openly, without noticeable harm to morale or readiness.

Finally, he notes that we simply need more troops. Turning away qualified soldiers for reasons unrelated to their ability to serve simply makes no sense.

People like to say that the military is no place for social experiments. Ignoring the fact that it has historically been used as such -- for instance, when President Eisenhower forcibly integrated the armed forces in the 1950s -- that argument is dated. The experiment is over; when 91 percent of your recruit-age population thinks gays should be allowed to serve, there is no compelling "morale" or "cohesiveness" argument for preventing it.

Pass H.R. 1246 and repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

gay rights, military, politics, midtopia

The return of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Hillary revives an old favorite.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday described past Republican political malfeasance in New Hampshire as evidence of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Clinton's barbed comments revived a term she coined for the partisan plotting during her husband's presidential tenure and echoed remarks she made last weekend in New Hampshire, which holds the nation's first primary.

I actually had some sympathy for this claim the first time around, when it was obvious that certain conservative elements were going all out to dig up dirt on and demonize the Clintons through efforts such as the Arkansas Project. It was not policy disagreement; it was an effort to destroy them politically.

But even then it had a vaguely paranoid air to it. Address specifics? Fine. Whine that everyone is out to get you? Not such a wise move, even if its partly true.

But I just don't get bringing it up now, when the right is in disarray, the Democrats have recaptured Congress and the Bush administration is enjoying approval ratings normally reserved for Communists and animal abusers. The base loves it, of course; but it plays poorly in the broader electorate, and there's really no way to make sure the message is only heard by the faithful.

Especially when the examples she cites involve Republicans being convicted of bad behavior. It's hard to claim a conspiracy when the perps are quickly brought to justice.

Maybe this is an attempt to get out in front of the venom that Hillary is sure to encounter because she's such a polarizing figure for conservatives. But I don't think it'll work. A better response would be to use the same tools -- the media, blogs, the Internet -- to counter such attacks. Unless Hillary believes that such attacks will be hard to discredit head on and so must be dismissed en masse.

Let's hope the 2008 campaign is not a repeat of the ugliness of the mid-1990s.

Clinton, politics, midtopia

Pace, gays and the military

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he believes homosexual acts are immoral and that he supports "don't ask, don't tell" because otherwise the military would be endorsing homosexuality.

Gay activists have demanded he apologize. So far, he has refused.

As is his right. Some observers have attacked the groups demanding an apology, saying they are infringing on Pace's First Amendment right to speak freely. Which is nonsense. Pace has a right to speak his mind and not be arrested; that's what the First Amendment is for. He does not, however, have a right to be free from others expressing their constitutionally protected opinion of his opinion.

The real criticism here, IMO, is that the demand for an apology is excessive and over the top, fulfilling every stereotype of gay-rights activists as strident and demanding. I understand their anger, but a better tactic would be to express disappointment and perhaps highlight the stories of a few of the thousands of highly competent soldiers discharged for being gay -- at a time when the military is scraping the bottom of its manpower barrel.

Or like John Warner, R-Va., a former Navy secretary, put it: "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

The policy Pace defended is a problem, too. "Don't ask, don't tell" was a too-clever-by-half Clintonian compromise. It didn't end anti-gay witch hunts and it doesn't let gay soldiers have lives. It doesn't clearly state whether being gay is compatible with military service. It's a demand for gay soldiers to stay in the closet, which is a morale and security risk waiting to happen.

Maybe it's time to dust off a time-honored military tactic for dealing with stupid social issues. Create separate units for gay soldiers, the way we created separate units for blacks, Asians and women until we got over that particular silliness.

Or maybe we could just cut out the intervening 10 years of nonsense and allow gays to serve openly in the military, subject to all the fraternization and conduct rules that apply to straight men and women who serve together -- another blending of sexuality that critics (groundlessly) feared would destroy the military.

Which is what would happen if H.R. 1246, introduced by Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan, is adopted. It would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and let gays serve openly. The good news: it has 113 co-sponsors. The bad news: The Democratic leadership hasn't scheduled it for debate yet, fearing political fallout.

They should get moving on it. The military manpower problem is too acute to afford the luxury of such discrimination any more, and the issues involved in integrating gay soldiers are more easily dealt with when they're out in the open. Gays are citizens too; they should be allowed to serve their country without having to deny part of who they are.

Update: Yikes! Meehan is resigning from Congress to become a university chancellor. Let's hope his bill survives his departure.

Meehan, Pace, gay rights, military, politics, midtopia

Internecine warfare, Democrat style

The Democratic netroots are really irritating.

First they started a war with the Nevada Democratic Party because the Nevada Dems had the temerity to let Fox News Channel broadcast one of their primary debates. They're gripe? It would "legitimize" FNC.

Never mind that it would send a couple hours of Democratic politics out over Fox's airwaves, giving them a chance to reach voters they might never reach otherwise. Even if the Kossacks believe that all Fox viewers are partisan automatons, they'd be pre-empting Fox's regular programming during that time. Surely they would count a two-hour shutdown of FNC as a good thing?

More irritating, it demonstrates a style over substance ideology in which it doesn't matter what the broadcast would actually say; all that matters is that it would be said on FNC.

I don't watch FNC; I don't watch much television news, period. And I could understand Democrats deciding FNC wasn't a good venue because it would force Democrats to tune in to a channel they generally dislike if they wanted to see the debate. But one gets the feeling that even if Fox started broadcasting flower-children videos tomorrow, the netroots would oppose it because it was on FNC.

At least Air America found some humor in the situation, offering to broadcast Republican primary debates. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans agree -- although, ideology aside, Air America's tiny listenership offers a valid reason to reject the offer.

The netroots then followed up that idiocy with a campaign to demonize moderate Democrats who aren't sure they support Nancy Pelosi's "date certain" Iraqi withdrawal bill. They refuse to acknowledge either the political realities Democrats in conservative districts face, or the big tent nature of the Democratic Party, or the principled disagreement about how best to untangle the Iraq mess. Disagree? Fine. Call members of your own party "saboteurs"? Lordy, they sound like Sunni fundamentalists, who consider insufficiently pious Sunnis to be even worse than nonbelievers.

Of such rigid, shallow ideology are failed movements made.

Perhaps they don't realize how counterproductive their actions are to their own party. Those members they call "saboteurs" are the only reason Democrats control Congress. And that control is the only reason we're finally starting to see movement and get answers on a long list of issues that were buried during the long years of one-party Republican rule. Ideological purity may be nice, but it's not the way the real world works. Thank God.

Fox, Iraq, netroots, politics, midtopia

Walter Reed claims more victims

The Army surgeon general, Kevin Kiley, is the latest casualty of the Walter Reed scandal, choosing to retire under pressure from lawmakers and the acting secretary of the Army, Pete Geren.

The move comes the same day the Army inspector general released a report criticizing the Army's system for evaluating and caring for wounded soldiers, calling it understaffed, undertrained and overwhelmed by the number of wounded. Some of the examples given were surreal -- such as a care facility that lacked wheelchair access.

It's worth noting that the report was ordered back in April 2006, an indication that the Army was aware of and addressing some problems nearly a year before the current scandal broke. On the other hand, it makes the reaction of senior Army brass even more inexplicable. How could they downplay problems when they already knew about many of them? And the fact that the report took a year to produce indicates the military bureaucracy still does not have a wartime sense of urgency.

Walter Reed, Kiley, military, politics, midtopia

Global warming irony

Okay, this has zero relevance to the global-warming debate, but it's still pretty funny -- if you overlook the actual medical consequences of frostbite.

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

Meanwhile, here in Minneapolis it hit 66 degrees today -- a record high for the date.

global warming, bancroft, politics, midtopia

The disaster of Alberto Gonzales

It's always the small things that bring people down.

Back when Alberto Gonzales was nominated for attorney general, he was under fire for being one of President Bush's worst enablers -- finding dubious legal justification for ignoring warrants, gutting FISA, torture, almost unlimited executive power and the odious "enemy combatant" designation, under which a U.S. citizen was detained for more than three years without benefit of trial, charges, lawyers or habeus corpus.

None of that, apparently, was enough to prevent him from being confirmed. And he had one thing going for him: He wasn't John Ashcroft, a man so generally loathed that it would be all but impossible to do worse.

As Attorney General he continued carrying water for Bush, threatening journalists with jail, and denigrating habeus corpus. But that didn't threaten his job.

Then came the nakedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys, and the revelations that the FBI had abused its Patriot Act powers.

And guess what? It's the former, more than the latter, which may end up taking Gonzales down.

The New York Times called for his resignation this weekend, citing a litany of complaints. So did Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer. Pressure has mounted amid revelations that the White House was directly involved in the decision to fire the prosecutors, and earlier today Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned. The growing controversy finally led Gonazales, who had dismissed the uproar as an "overblown personnel matter", to say publicly that the firings were mishandled.

It seems to be a case of a relatively minor last straw tipping the balance of opinion on a roundly disliked appointee.

The New York Times said it best, I think:

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

Gonzales can take solace in one impressive achievement: he may have secured John Ashcroft's legacy. Most people thought it impossible to be a worse attorney general than Bush's first nominee. But Gonzales has silenced the doubters. A dubious achievement, perhaps, but an achievement nonetheless.

Fire him. Not merely for the prosecutor kerfuffle, which while sleazy is at least constitutional. No, fire him for the full record of his achievements, and the disrepute he has brought upon our justice system and America's reputation.

Update: ThinkProgress (BIG grain of salt) thinks it has caught Gonzales lying under oath; Gonzales, meanwhile, categorically rejects the idea of resigning.

Update II: Hillary Clinton joins the chorus calling for Gonzales' resignation.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Free speech update

Over the past few weeks, I've been going through the archives and adding tags to older posts. Along the way I've taken the opportunity to update some of them with new information.

For instance, this one from June 2006. A librarian in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., Michele Reutty, was castigated by the library board for requiring that police get a search warrant before she turned over circulation records to them -- in other words, for doing her job.

The update: After six months of wrangling with the board, Reutty submitted her resignation in October and took a job as library director in nearby Oakland, N.J.

Way to go, Hasbrouck Heights. You've set a new standard for how not to stand up for your rights.

Reutty also received the 2006 Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award and is currently vice president of the New Jersey Library Association.

civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Head-scratcher roundup

Three stories that explore the boundary between what's reasonable and what's not, what's criminal and what's not, and what's ethical and what's not.

What's reasonable?
A California school district has taken to billing parents who take their kids out of school for nonmedical reasons -- like a family ski trip. The price? $36.13 for each day missed. The reason? State aid is calculated based on daily attendance. So that's how much the district figures it loses when a kid goes absent. It's not really a bill -- parents aren't required to pay -- but some parents pay up either voluntarily or because they think it's a bill.

What's criminal?
Two Texas men were found guilty of mailing an obscene video. The video found to be obscene showed a woman being pierced with needles, but no sex. Meanwhile, the same jury said a rape video wasn't obscene -- even though the video had been deemed obscene in a 2003 trial. A third video featuring urination and defecation was also deemed unobscene.

What's ethical?
South Carolina is considering a bill that would let inmates cut their sentence by cutting out a kidney. Voluntary organ and tissue donations could shave as much as 180 days off of a jail term. While we're talking voluntary donations -- unlike, say, in China, where prisoners have been executed so the state could harvest their organs -- there's a question of whether prison is a coercive environment and whether prisoners fully understand what they're agreeing to. In addition, there's a legal hurdle: a federal law prohibiting organ donors from getting paid in any way for the donation.

All three situations raise interesting questions without any clear, easy answer. My initial reactions:

1. Parents can take their kids out of school if they want to, and a trip to Hawaii is arguably at least as educational as a week of school. I don't have a problem with the school educating parents about the importance of attendance and the costs of truancy, but the billing thing seems a little over the top.

2. I guess we'd have to see the videos in question (no thanks), but I have a hard time understanding how a video that shows no sex can be considered obscene, while the other two are not. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? Why? At the very least we have a vague and muddy legal standard -- meaning the definition of what's illegal could vary by day and by jury. That's no way to run a legal system.

3. I'd be very, very wary of taking this step. I don't have a problem in principle with compensating donors. The problems are all practical. It only works if the entire transaction is fully transparent, and everyone is fully informed and truly a volunteer. The possibilities of abuse are high. And it exploits a vulnerable population. It's one thing to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even though both operations have their risks. What about muscle tissue or nerves or things like that? Suddenly we're in a grey area where we're mildly crippling prisoners. Do we really want people to start thinking about what body part they're willing to trade for freedom?

education, obscenity, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Nazi Holocaust archive could be opened next year

Prepare to see the Holocaust denial crowd go into seizures. After 60 years, the 11-nation group responsible for an archive of huge Nazi records hopes to open it to researchers within a year, although legal hurdles could delay access to some documents for years.

Bad Arolsen contains original Nazi documents the Allies seized from concentration camps as well as copies of wartime municipal records and other sources identifying victims of the Third Reich's persecutions.

So far, it has been used only to trace people missing after the war or the fate of Holocaust victims, drawing on an index of 17.5 million names in its files. Among them are Anne Frank, the Dutch teenage diarist, writer Elie Wiesel and a list of 1,000 rescued slave laborers known as Schindler's List....

The Associated Press, which was granted extensive access to the archive in the last four months, has seen a vast array of letters by Nazi commanders, Gestapo orders and vivid testimony from victims and observers of the brutality of camp life and the "death marches" when camps were ordered cleared of prisoners at the end of the war.

Should be illuminating. I understand privacy concerns, but it seems a real shame that this trove of data has been kept hidden for decades.

Holocaust, politics, midtopia

Plame to go under oath

In case you aren't heartily sick of the whole Plamegate thing, Henry Waxman has decided to hold hearings a week from today on the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity -- and have Plame herself testify under oath.

This is an obvious Democratic attempt to keep flogging the Plame scandal now that the Libby trial is over. But it could be interesting to have Plame under oath. Republicans will have a chance to ask questions about her role in her husband's Niger trip, just how secret her identity was, and the like. If they pick their questions well, and don't simply grandstand, we might actually learn something interesting.

We'll see.

Libby, Plame, politics, midtopia

Justice agrees to stop end-runs around Congress

While the politicized firings of eight U.S. attorneys has generated plenty of political noise, the most egregious aspect of the whole case was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales using an obscure Patriot Act provision to avoid submitting the replacement nominees to the Senate for confirmation.

That, at least, appears likely to change.

The Bush administration, accused of politicizing the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys, agreed Thursday not to oppose legislation to restore rules ensuring Senate oversight when new prosecutors are named, Senate Democrats said....

A little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act (gave) the attorney general the power to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys. Because the appointments are considered temporary, Senate confirmation is not required, even though the prosecutors can serve indefinitely.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved a bill that would revert to prior practice, under which interim attorneys could serve for a maximum of 120 days without confirmation.

Patriot Act, politics, midtopia

FBI violated Patriot Act

An internal audit has found that the FBI routinely violated Patriot Act rules for obtaining information without a warrant, and vastly underreported how often they sought such exceptions.

Man, couldn't have seen that one coming. No siree.

The discussion involves "National Security Letters" (NSL), the authorization of which was substantially broadened by the Patriot Act. Agents can use the letters to get information from companies without a warrant when time is a factor.

Roughly a quarter of the investigations audited by the Justice Department violated the Patriot Act rules. While noting that most of the violations appeared to be bureaucratic in nature rather than criminal, the details are not encouraging:

The FBI identified 26 possible violations in its use of the national security letters, including failing to get proper authorization, making improper requests under the law and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records....

But that's not all. Sometimes they couldn't even be bothered with an NSL.

The FBI also used so-called "exigent letters," signed by officials at FBI headquarters who were not authorized to sign national security letters, to obtain information. In at least 700 cases, these exigent letters were sent to three telephone companies to get toll billing records and subscriber information.

"In many cases, there was no pending investigation associated with the request at the time the exigent letters were sent," the audit concluded.

The letters inaccurately said the FBI had requested subpoenas for the information requested — "when, in fact, it had not," the audit found.

Having abused the letters, the FBI grossly undercounted the true scope of their use. They issued a total of 95,000 NSLs in 2003 and 2004, but told Congress they had issued only 9,254.

It's important to note that the report says that the abuses and undercounts appear to stem from bureaucratic problems and poor recordkeeping, and said it had not uncovered evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

But that's hardly the point. The reason we've traditionally required warrants is to protect citizens from an abusive government. By allowing widespread warrantless searches, we strip away that protection and end up relying on our government's good intentions to protect us.

Which is just foolish. Human organizations cannot usually be relied upon to govern themselves; the conflicts of interest are too powerful. We gave the FBI substantial new powers, with limited requirements for independent approval or review; We should not be surprised to discover that the power was abused.

This case provides yet another reason to be thankful that the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties; we can actually expect action on this and other abuses. Further, it's yet another part of the evolving conversation over how to balance security and civil liberties in an age of terrorism. After 9/11, the pendulum swung so far toward the security side that it threatened to topple the entire apparatus. Now, thank God, it is swinging back, as a new generation learns the perils of a government saying "Just trust me!" to its citizens.

Update: Alberto Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller admitted the FBI violated the law, and left open the possibility of criminal prosecution. Most significantly, the FBI will no longer use "exigent" letters.

All very nice, but this isn't something that can be solved through administrative means in the executive branch. As long as Congress is revising the Patriot Act to deal with the problem of interim prosecutors, I think they should revisit some other sections as well.

Patriot Act, FBI, terrorism, civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Dems set pullout date for Iraq

The House wants them all gone by August 2008; the Senate merely sets a "target date" of March 2008.

Here's a comparison of the proposals.

The House version would accelerate the pullout if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks. It also retains John Murtha's "training standards" requirement for troops deployed to Iraq, but allows the president to waive it.

The House version will be attached to Bush's request for $100 billion in new funding authority for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate version is a standalone measure.

This is notable for three things: First, it shows the Democrats have the backbone to confront Bush on this directly. Second, it apparently has majority (though, obviously, not unanimous) support in the Democratic caucuses. Opposition comes mostly from liberal Democrats, who don't think the proposal goes far enough or moves fast enough. Third, the deadline is clearly calculated to get Iraq off the table before the 2008 presidential elections. It'll still be an issue, of course, but not in the way it would be if there were still active combat operations going on.

You'll be shocked to know that House Minority Leader John Boehner doesn't think so. He said it amounts to "failure at any cost" and that the generals on the ground, not Congress, should be making troop decisions.

Boehner's wrong on both counts. Yes, Congress should not be involved in tactical or even strategic military decisions. But they are properly involved in setting the scope and shape of the war. If Congress has the power to start wars, it has the power to end them. As for this being "failure at any cost", that's Republican framing at its best. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the war in Iraq, however unjustified, were going well.

But are the measures a good idea?

I think they're reasonable. What it essentially does is give Bush and the Iraqi government a year and a half to show results. That's why it's not popular with the most antiwar Democrats; they're tired of giving Bush chances, and want the troops home now.

Further, it doesn't imply that we would totally abandon Iraq by the deadline. It's merely a deadline to shift from U.S. combat operations to supporting Iraqi government combat operations. If Iraq is unable to stand on its own by the end of 2008 -- five years after we invaded -- it's reasonable to conclude that they never will be able to do so.

The various certification requirements are smart politics, pointing out the damage that the war is doing to our military and forcing Bush to go on record about it. But giving Bush the ability to waive them eliminates any criticism that they are materially interfering with his handling of the war.

Finally, the big thing to remember is that any deadline set by Congress can always be changed by Congress. If things suddenly start going well in Iraq, you can bet that Congress will extend or abandon the requirements. Presidential election or no, everyone will want to be able to say they were a midwife for success.

Of course, the White House has bluntly vowed to veto any bill containing either measure, and there's no way Congress will pass this with veto-proof majorities. So this whole discussion is probably moot.

Although it'll be interesting to see what happens after that. If Bush vetos the war-funding bill because of the pullout provision, for example, the House will have to decide whether to reauthorize the funding without that provision, or go in another direction. They could simply cut the funding, for instance, so that it provides only enough money for operations up to the first benchmark deadline. They then could decide whether to grant further funding based on whether that benchmark was reached. If it wasn't, they could authorize funding solely for withdrawal and handover operations.

So this is merely the first shot in a battle that will be fought until either Bush turns Iraq around or Congress pulls the plug.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

New ways to keep up with Midtopia

Today I added Feedburner to the site. It's a feed aggregator that makes it much easier to subscribe to Midtopia's RSS and Atom feeds using the reader of your choice. It also keeps track of the number of subscribers, giving me a better idea of how widely read the blog is.

There's also a new option to subscribe by e-mail. Check 'em both out in the Networking section of the sidebar.

Once I get comfortable with them I might start using their ad service. But I promise not to make it annoying. Money's nice, but it's not why I write the blog. A pleasant, uncluttered presentation is more important to me.

politics, midtopia

Americans are sensible

I like Americans. They may not always pay attention, but when they finally do they usually get it right.

Americans increasingly suspect the federal government has become cloaked in secrecy, a concern they don't have with their local and state governments.

People also overwhelmingly believe that their federal leaders have become sneaky, listening to telephone conversations or opening private mail without getting court permission, according to a survey of 1,008 adults commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

By a 2-1 margin, people want FBI agents and other investigators to obtain search warrants before monitoring private communications, even if they suspect terrorism. And more than a quarter of the people in the survey said they suspect their own phone calls and letters have been intercepted.

Warrants? What sort of commie demands warrants before searches can be conducted?

Oops, sorry. I was channeling "security at all costs" proponents for a second there.

The expressed worry that their own communications have been intercepted is almost certainly overblown, unless you're talking about one of the big datamining operations that essentially sucks in everything but analyzes very little of it in detail. There simply aren't enough people in the NSA, the CIA and the FBI put together to monitor the calls of a quarter of the population.

But it does show that people are thinking about how such things might affect them, moving past the simplistic "why are you so concerned about the rights of terrorists" demonizing. I'm not concerned about the rights of terrorists; I'm concerned about the rights of all citizens and detainees, including suspected terrorists.

Fully 70 percent think the federal government is secretive. They were split (46 percent to 45 percent) on whether the press should have reported on the NSA eavesdropping program; fewer people approved of revelations regarding CIA torture (43%), CIA secret prisons (41%) and (oddly) disclosure of the identities of the inmates held at Guantanamo (38%). Approval of disclosure rose with educational attainment.

Americans, as a whole, apparently like their freedoms, and aren't scared enough to give them up just yet.

civil liberties, politics, midtopia

Rumors to the left of me, speculation to the right...

On the right, we have rumors that a retired Iranian general has gone missing and may have defected to the United States, an event that is reportedly sparking "panic" in Tehran.

The newspaper, al-Shark al-Awsat, cited "high-profile" sources saying former Iranian deputy defence minister and Revolutionary Guard commander Ali Reza Asghari had gone over to the West.

Reports from Istanbul that General Asghari's family had also disappeared in Turkey support the likelihood that he defected rather than was kidnapped by either the CIA or by Israel's Mossad, as has been speculated. The general went missing from his Istanbul hotel a month ago.

Iranian authorities, who have been silent on the disappearance until this week, claim he has been abducted.

Defections are good. As long as it's one of theirs. Why is this particularly important? Because of this:

General Asghari's crossing of the line, whether voluntary or not, is a resounding blow for the Iranian Government since he is privy to its most intimate secrets, particularly those concerning its nuclear capabilities and plans.

He served until two years ago as deputy defence minister, a post he held for eight years and which presumably offered an uninhibited view of virtually every aspect of Iran's security apparatus.

He was reportedly closely associated with Iran's activities in support of the Shi'ites in Iraq.

If true, this is a great big birthday present wrapped in ribbons and bows. But take it with a grain of salt for now. At the moment, it's just rumors and reports from unreliable sources.

On the left, Raw Story is claiming to have seen a memo confirming that one of the secret CIA prisons was at an intelligence training school in Poland. As an aside, it says its sources all say the CIA is no longer operating secret prisons -- and probably never had anything permanent, relying instead on a series of temporary, short-term facilities that it used as needed.

Take this one with a big grain of salt. It's plausible, but there is no independent confirmation of anything within it.

terrorism, Iran, politics, midtopia

What you wish they would say

Okay, this is funny. One blogger's idea of what a Bill Maher/Ann Coulter public-service announcement would sound like. A taste:

BILL: That's right Ann, you anorexic Nazi whore. Even though we are on opposite sides of the political fence we can both agree that Americans of all political stripes need to start walking back from the hateful rhetoric that unfortunately characterizes much of our contemporary political discussion.

ANN: I couldn't agree more Bill, you syphillitic commie scumnozzle. Because whether they are normal patriotic Americans or mincing San Francisco fudgepackers, all citizens of this country need to think first before using words intended to hurt or offend others.

There's more. It's funny. Crude, but funny.

humor, politics, midtopia

Libby roundup

The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and National Review are calling for Bush to pardon Libby. The chorus is getting loud enough that the WaPo's Al Kamen is holding a "guess the pardon date" contest.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is demanding that President Bush pledge not to pardon the Scootster, and there's even an online exchange trading Libby pardon futures.

The article also discusses the history and propriety of presidential pardons, much of which we've already covered here.

Meanwhile, attention is already turning to Dick Cheney. The consensus: his influence in the White House will probably remain undiminished.

Cheney, Libby, politics, midtopia

The evolution of religion

As a follow-up of sorts to my genetics of altruism post, The New York Times magazine had a fascinating, thought-provoking piece on the evolutionary advantages of belief.

Turns out that some scientists have been studying religion from an evolutionary perspective, trying to figure out why religion is universal when it is seemingly maladaptive to survival: usually, believing in nonexistent things and expending energy on nonproductive pursuits will make it harder to survive, not easier.

First the science, then my two cents.

The science is split into two camps. There's the "byproduct" school, which says religion is not in itself an evolutionary advantage, but is a byproduct of a complex and imaginative brain that is. Then there's the "adaptionist" school, which argues that religious belief is in fact advantageous by promoting trust and cooperation within a group.

The byproduct folks have some fascinating bits of data to work with. Their main ones are three recognized human traits:

Agent detection: The ability to infer the presence of organisms that intend to harm us. If we see motion out of the corner of our eye, our mind tends to assume it is a potential hostile organism and react accordingly. We assume the motion is guided by a mind rather than assuming benign causes like wind blowing leaves around. This makes evolutionary sense: If we're wrong about it being hostile, we're still alive. If we're wrong about it being benign, we're dead or injured. But it predisposes us to see intelligent agents behind every observed phenomenon.

Causal reasoning: The ability to "impose a narrative" on seemingly unrelated events. I tend to describe this as "pattern detection", the ability to see patterns even where none exists. Again, this is evolutionarily advantageous: it helps us solve puzzles and figure out cause and effect even with scant evidence, and is largely harmless when applied incorrectly. But it, too, predisposes us to see order and causation where there is none.

Theory of mind: This is simply the recognition that other people have their own viewpoint and do not know everything we know; it's the ability to imagine yourself in other people's heads. It lets us anticipate the actions of other people based on our knowledge of their knowledge. The survival advantage is obvious. The link to religion is a little more complex. Experiments show that children do not develop "theory of mind" until they are 4 years old or so. Until then, they believe others -- and especially their parents -- are omniscient. In other words, we are born believing in omniscient, invisible minds, which paves the way for a belief in God.

Then come the adaptationists. They argue that while the byproduct school might help explain some of the biochemistry of belief, belief itself is also favored by evolution. Some of my thoughts on altruism closely reflect adaptationist arguments. Religion can make people feel better by worrying less about death, letting them focus on living and the future. By reinforcing desirable behavior, it helps them attract better mates. It makes groups more cohesive, allowing them to outcompete nonreligious groups. It makes individuals more willing to sacrifice themselves, again increasing the survivability of the group. Such advantages outweigh the evolutionary costs of religion, which is measured in the time and resources devoted to ritual.

Adaptationists also note that this doesn't have to be an either-or thing. All species contain a range of various traits: height, strength, speed, disease resistance, etc. Why should belief be any different? In that view, theists and atheists aren't enemies; they represent a socially healthy mix. "What seems to be an adversarial relationship between theists and atheists within a community is really a division of cognitive labor that keeps social groups as a whole on an even keel," to quote the article's paraphrase of David Sloan Wilson.

Me, I don't see the two schools as necessarily being in conflict. Humans are social creatures by design, and the idea that we're wired to view the world in a certain way makes sense. Further, anything that promotes social cooperation is evolutionarily advantageous. Religion is an effective tool to that end, so it's easy to see why it would be so ubiquitous.

I would add that belief is advantageous for a reason not cited in the article: because it gives us a sense of control. Early humans were surrounded by deadly things they didn't understand. That could be debilitating to a mind imaginative enough to envision all the horrible things that could happen. But if we think we know why lightning strikes or earthquakes happen or people die, then we can develop rituals and practices to control or appease them. If we think we know what the stars are, we can use them to store our hopes and dreams. Belief is just one more tool to help us order our surroundings, giving us a framework that lets us live our lives more successfully by explaining away the unexplainable.

Believers may be offended by this whole discussion, as if God can be reduced to a particular brain structure or random chance. But that's not necessarily the case. Knowing the mechanism by which humans experience God does not prove God doesn't actually exist. To quote Justin Barrett, a prominent member of the byproduct school and a practicing Christian:

"Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people. Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?”

This is a variation of "evolution is the tool by which God created humans" argument. And it works just as well. We believe because God gave us the ability to believe when He created us.

Anyway, it's a fascinating article, far more interesting than I can do justice to here. Give it a read before it disappears behind the Times Select wall.

evolution, religion, politics, midtopia

What was he thinking?

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick seems to have some difficulty separating the public's business from his own.

Governor Deval Patrick, who was criticized during the gubernatorial campaign for his involvement with a controversial subprime mortgage lender, called a top official at Citigroup, former US Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, two weeks ago to intercede on behalf of the owners of Ameriquest Mortgage as they sought urgent financial assistance from the global financial giant.

Patrick's defense?

In a statement to the Globe, Patrick said he made the Feb. 20 call to Citigroup not in his role as governor but after a personal request to him from a top official at ACC Capital Holdings, the firm that owns Ameriquest Mortgage, which has frequently been accused of predatory lending.

That's funny. As long as he's not making the call "in his role as governor", there's no reason to think Citigroup would feel pressured by his day job. Uh-huh.

It could have been worse. Rubin is pretty high-powered himself, after all, and Patrick didn't pressure him to do a deal: he simply offered himself as a personal reference.

But besides the questionable ethics of vouching for a company known for predatory lending, it was an improper intervention. The governor -- whether acting in that role or not -- should not involve himself in the private dealings of private companies.

It's depressing that that apparently isn't obvious.

Massachusetts, Rubin, Deval Patrick, politics, midtopia

Some general thoughts on Libby

Some perspective in its own post, to separate it from the liveblogged initial post.

PARDON POSSIBILITIES
If Bush pardons Libby, it will be near the end of his administration to minimize the political fallout.

A commenter in the other thread suggested that Libby will become Bush's Marc Rich. Rich, you may recall, was the fugitive financier pardoned by Clinton in his final days.

It's not quite a spot-on comparison, because Libby is no Marc Rich. I'm more sympathetic to pardoning an otherwise straight arrow for an essentially political crime, than I am pardoning a fugitive felon simply because he was a campaign donor.

A more apt comparison is when Bush the Elder pardoned the Iran-Contra participants. And even then, Plamegate is no Iran-Contra.

In a general sense, though, there should be a law against issuing pardons to people connected to the president or his party. Pardons are supposed to be acts of mercy, not political favors for the well-connected.

THE JURY
Was the jury filled with rabid partisan Bush-haters, and the conviction a political hammer? Another commenter claimed that. And perhaps with some justification: the trial took place in Washington D.C., which is about 90 percent Democratic. So one would expect the jury to be mostly Democrats.

But that ignores several factors. The major one is the requirement for unanimity in a verdict, meaning that if there were just one Republican on the jury -- and odds are there was at least one -- they could foil a conviction.

Secondly, Libby's lawyers were involved in jury selection, and they were certainly aware of the political implications and chose accordingly.

So let's take a look at the jury. Here's an overview story, and here's a juror-by-juror profile.

Most D.C. residents are black, but 10 of the 12 jurors were white. Nine were women. This already tells you that the jury was not representative of the area. Most said they were largely apolitical -- which would make them similar to most Americans -- but of course they could have been lying about that.

Then lets go juror by juror:

Juror #1: 30s, female, Comptroller. Studied law in grad school and has a classified government clearance pending.

Juror #2: 30s, CPA. Hs two friends in the FBI.

Juror #3: 40s, Accounting administrator for a senior-services group.

Juror #4: 30s, Hotel convention booker.

Juror #5: Denis Collins. Notes that he has a friend who played over-40 football with Libby.

Juror #6: 50s, Web architect for federal contractor.

Juror #7: 50s, retired math teacher.

Juror #8: 40s, Economist. Israeli-born, PhD from MIT, works with overseas regulators in the telecom industry.

Juror #9: 50s, worked as a secretary for Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations. Two master's degrees, friends in the Park Police, Secret Service and CIA.

Juror #10: 60s, Lawyer for the FTC.

Juror #11: 70s, retired art curator. This was the juror who was dismissed.

Juror #12: 50s, retired postal worker.

Suspected political affiliations aside, that may be the most well-educated jury I've ever seen. And while one could apply some gross stereotypes and guess at political leanings for some of them (art curator and postal worker? Democrats!!), there are several that confound expectations -- like the FTC lawyer, and the woman who worked for Republican administrations.

So I think playing "blame the jury" -- either for being partisan or being stupid -- isn't going to work very well.

Plame, Libby, politics, midtopia

Libby found guilty

Wow.

Lewis Libby has been found guilty on 4 of the 5 counts against him.

He was found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements, while being found not guilty on one count of making false statements.

It will be appealed, of course, but if the verdict stands, he's going to prison.

Count #1, obstruction of justice: guilty, up to 10 years in prison

Count #2, false statements about conservations with Tim Russert: guilty.

Count #3, false statements about conversations with Time: not guilty.

Count #4, perjury related to Count #2: guilty

Count #5, perjury related to (but not limited to) Count #3: guilty

It's a little weird that he was convicted on #5 while being found not guilty on #3, but it wasn't limited to the statements involved in #3.

Total potential jail time: 30 years.

It'll be less than that, most likely. And now the question is: does he have any information that he could trade for a reduced sentence?

I'll post links and updates as soon as they appear. I'm getting most of this info from CNN.

Sentencing set for June 5, though Libby's attorneys indicate they might ask for an extension.

Anyone think Bush will pardon Libby if the conviction is upheld?

Updates: Jurist has a roundup. And here's the Associated Press story.

Update 2: The jurors are talking on CNN right now, and they said they found Russert a very credible witness, and were especially unconvinced that Libby could be "surprised" by the mention of Plame's name in his Russert conversation, when he was told more than nine times prior to that about Plame. Even if he forgot who had told him Plame's name, it struck them as very unlikely that he would have been "surprised" by later mentions.

They also found his "poor memory" defense unpersuasive when there were other people testifying that he was a detail guy and the like.

They said there was a lot of sympathy for Libby on the jury, because they viewed him as a fall guy, and wondered why no other administration officials were being questioned or on trial.

They declined to offer opinions on broader arguments, saying they were focused on the question before them.

They took so long to deliberate because they had to break down the huge amount of evidence and then stack it up against the charges. Simply organizing the information was a big task.

They acquitted him on #3 because it wasn't clear if he was lying or if it was simply a misunderstanding.

Trial was not about whether a leak occurred.

Juror speaking is very impressive, as far as his coolness and level-headedness. Turns out he's Dennis Collins, a former WaPo reporter. That helps explain his ease before a crowd.

Update #3: Time has a piece on Why Libby's Defense Failed, and notes that keeping Cheney and Libby off the stand might have been decisive:

Libby and then Cheney were expected to testify about just how crazy things were, but without notice, Wells informed the court that they would not take the stand. Instead, he offered John Hannah, Libby's former deputy, who described how terrible his boss's memory was. Then, after only three days, the defense rested its case.

Declining to put Libby or Cheney on the stand was a controversial move — and one that the defense would pay for. Often in criminal cases, and especially in those involving perjury, jurors like to hear the defendant explain his actions personally. But Libby would no doubt have been cross-examined harshly, and Cheney might have been embarrassed to explain publicly his role in undermining Wilson's criticisms of the war.

Was it a strategic mistake? Or would putting them on the stand have caused other problems? It's fun to speculate. All we know is that the defense decided that putting them on the stand wasn't in their best interest.

Libby, politics, midtopia

Surge update

In a major test of the Iraqi committment to even-handed pacification, U.S. and Iraqi troops spread through the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday, following weeks of negotiations with the neighborhood's mayor.

There was no resistance and no violence.

The operation is significant beyond the fact that its a major Shiite neighborhood. Sadr City is home to 2.5 million of Baghdad's 6 million people. So controlling it means controlling a third of the population. And while the major problem with Sadr City has been its use as a base for Shiite militias rather than internal violence, a credible security presence there will weaken the militias by reducing the need for them -- and thus reducing their credibility -- as well as hindering their ability to use it as a base.

Update: on the other hand: 38 die, 105 hurt in a suicide car bombing in the heart of Baghdad. Coupled with attacks on Shiite pilgrims elsewhere in the city, it was the bloodiest day in more than a week.

sadr city, surge, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Ann Coulter is vile

... And she may finally have crossed a line into territory where not even red-meat Republicans will follow.

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards." Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

This followed previous comments about Bill Clinton's "latent homosexuality" and Al Gore's status as a "total fag."

She then endorsed Mitt Romney.

Republican candidates -- including Romney -- quickly criticized her comments, as did many conservative bloggers (such as Michelle Malkin, who called Coulter "witless"), although some of the criticism was more about tactics than substance.

And then there are the nutcases who lamented that someone could possibly be censured for uttering such a word, arguing that it highlights the power of the gay agenda. But them aside, it appears that Coulter has just cost herself a significant amount of support. And if it's the first step toward her shuffling off the stage into well-deserved obscurity, more's the better.

She followed up a couple of days later by calling Edwards' campaign manager, David Bonior, a front for Arab terrorists -- apparently a reference to the large Arab-American population in the former Congressman's district.

Meanwhile, no further updates on her voter-fraud case.

Update: Several prominent conservative bloggers are simultaneously posting a request that CPAC never invite Coulter to speak again.

Update 2: Andrew Sullivan has an excellent column on Coulter's performance and her defense of it. The money quotes:

The conflation of effeminacy with weakness, and of gayness with weakness, is what Coulter calculatedly asserted. This was not a joke. It was an attack.

He also had this observation about the CPAC event itself:

Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a "faggot." She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that -- a better one, to be sure -- but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: "John Edwards is a faggot." That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily. I was in the room, so I felt the atmosphere personally. It was an ugly atmosphere, designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised. To put it simply, either conservatism is happy to be associated with that atmosphere, or it isn't. I think the response so far suggests that the conservative elites don't want to go there, but the base has already been there for a very long time. (That's why this affair is so revealing, because it is showing which elites want to pander to bigots, and which do not.)

Well said.

Edwards, Coulter, politics, midtopia